From susan at chalmers.associates Tue Sep 1 01:17:23 2015 From: susan at chalmers.associates (Susan Chalmers) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 17:17:23 +1200 Subject: [bestbits] Call for policy questions on zero-rating for IGF main session on zero-rating and network neutrality Message-ID: Dear colleagues, As some of you may know, I am working with volunteers and MAG colleagues to organise a main session on Zero-Rating and Network Neutrality at 10th annual meeting of the IGF. (João Pessoa, Brazil, 10 to 13 November 2015). We are collecting policy questions from the community as part of the preparation process. We would appreciate it if you could contribute your questions on the subject here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kiJ34r0WD1pvksjq4xmQ1aVjwOiEGl9QHI_-JINi404/edit?usp=sharing. This document will remain open until the IGF begins. Zero-rating is a complex Internet policy issue and deserving of a good discussion. The discussion will be enriched by diversity, so we very much encourage you to share this call with your colleagues who have different or opposing points of view, who are from different countries, and who speak different languages. With thanks, Susan Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES http://chalmers.associates -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 10:58:13 2015 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:58:13 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Cyber Monitor: Mapping the NETmundial Initiative Message-ID: Greetings everyone, I thought it would be of interest to share with you the current issue of the Cyber Monitor, published monthly by The Observer Research Foundation. You will find an article I wrote on NETmundial Initiative and an article from Stephanie Perrin with an excellent overview ICANN's WHOIS policy discussions. http://www.orfonline.org/cms/export/orfonline/html/cyber/Cyber-Monitor09.pdf I also take the opportunity to invite you to participate in two sessions that will be held by the NETmundial Initiative during the IGF (schedule is still in draft form): Open, Informal Council Meeting Date: Monday, 9 November (DAY 0) Time: 09:00-13:00 Room: Workshop Room 3 Open Forum Date: Wednesday, 11 November (DAY 2) Time: 17:00-18:00 Room: Workshop Room 10 All the best wishes, Marília *Mapping the NETmundial Initiative * Marília Maciel[1] <#_edn1> The NETmundial Initiative (NMI) is a platform for collaboration among stakeholders that aims to improve synergy and coordination in the Internet Governance ecosystem, in cooperation with existing organizations. The Initiative significantly derives its name and core mission from NETmundial – the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance – held in April 2014, in Brazil. NETmundial was organized by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) with the support of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). It was convened by the government of Brazil in the aftermath of Edward Snowden’s revelations of mass surveillance. One of the goals of NETmundial was to restore a positive governance environment that would foster trust and cooperation to face common challenges. NETmundial was explicitly aimed at addressing two problems: the need to identify a set of universally acceptable Internet governance principles and the need to propose a way forward for the evolution of the Internet governance institutional ecosystem. Both issues were tackled in the NETmundial outcome document, which embodies a rough consensus across stakeholder groups. Dissenting voices were few, albeit vocal. Article 19 raised concerns that privacy and net neutrality were not adequately addressed, on behalf of some civil society organizations. Among countries, Russia, India and Cuba expressed their reservations.[1] <#_ftn1> This public divergence seemed to have driven further apart countries that pursued alliances in the past, such as India and Brazil, and showed some of the difficulties in articulating political alliances among the BRICS nations. On a substantive level, NETmundial’s outcome document represents several achievements. It placed human rights as the cornerstone of the Internet governance ecosystem, it supported distributed mechanisms of governance, it emphasized the importance of enhancing both democratic and multistakeholder participation, and it ultimately represents progress towards public interest-driven Internet governance. After NETmundial, ICANN, the World Economic Forum and CGI.br decided to work together in order to carry forward the spirit of collaboration that emerged in São Paulo and to make sure the outcome document became a reference point for global discussions. These were the three founding organizations of the NETmundial Initiative. The creation of NMI was not free of criticism. While some argued that NMI represented a takeover of Internet Governance by business interests, others believed that it represented a move towards centralization and mistook it for a “UN security council of the Internet”. There was also fear that NMI would compete with existing organizations, such as the Internet Governance Forum. In the midst of controversy, the NMI coordinating council was appointed, consisting of a group of 25 representatives from different stakeholder groups. The political weight of the council is indisputable. The Minister of Cyberspace of China, Mr. Lu Wei, shares a sit on the table with the US Secretary of Commerce, Mrs. Penny Pritzker, with representatives of companies, such as Telefonica and Alibaba group, and with reputed civil society and academic organizations, such as the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and Human Rights Watch. The multistakeholder composition of the council strengthened the legitimacy of NMI, however, some resistance to the Initiative still persists, albeit less embattled. The first task of the coordinating council was to define the mission and scope of the NMI, enshrined in its terms of reference. In a nutshell, the Initiative aims to catalyze cooperation among stakeholders in order to advance the implementation of the NETmundial Principles and Roadmap. This mission can be accomplished in different ways. For instance, NMI aims to serve as a clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of information about Internet governance as well as to provide a platform on which diverse actors can present projects, solicit partners and establish collaboration. Both goals are being accomplished with the creation of the NETmundial solutions map – which identifies clusters of policy related Internet issues and correlates them with relevant actors, documents and processes –, and with the upcoming launch of the NETmundial collaboration platform, which will host project proposals. The inaugural meeting of NMI took place in June, in São Paulo. It was a remarkable experience of multistakeholder interaction. Those who watched the webcast of the meeting were able to witness a lively debate between the Chinese Minister of Cyberspace and the representative of the Human Rights Watch over online activism and the protection of human rights. They could also see Internet tycoons from China and Africa discussing the inclusion of young people in the job market. The less formal environment of the council allows for interactions that would never take place under the formality of the United Nations. This could help to create channels for fruitful and pragmatic dialogue. In December 2015, a UN high-level meeting will be held to assess the progress made in the ten years that followed the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). One of the key points emerging from the preparatory discussions is that, at least on the level of discourse, most countries give support to the idea of a multistakeholder Internet governance. China mentioned it in several occasions. India’s IT Minister, Ravi Shankar, supported the multistakeholder approach during his speech in the 54th ICANN meeting. The path towards convergence seems less cloudy, including among BRICS. In this scenario, the way to concretely implement multistakeholder collaboration will probably be the key dispute in the upcoming years. The NETmundial Initiative allows the chance to experiment with new models of collaboration. NMI’s solution-driven approach, made possible by the environment of trust and openness that is being built in the coordinating council, may provide a breath of fresh air. It can pave the way for the implementation of the NETmundial outcome document, a remarkable result of multistakeholder dialogue and participation. ------------------------------ [1] <#_ftnref1> *See *Transcripts of NETmundial closing session, April 24, 2014, http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETMundial-23April2014-Closing-Session-en.pdf . ------------------------------ [1] <#_ednref1> Ms Marília Maciel is a researcher and coordinator of the Center for Technology and Society of the Rio de Janeiro Law School of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (FGV). She is one of the five co-chairs of the NETmundial Initiative. -- *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 avri at acm.org Tue Sep 8 12:46:35 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 12:46:35 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] Call for contributions - IGF Connecting the Next Billion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55EF10EB.4070507@acm.org> fyi -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [IGFmaglist] Call for contributions - IGF Connecting the Next Billion Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 12:38:21 +0000 From: Constance Bommelaer To: MAG-public , intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org CC: Bp_counteringabuse at intgovforum.org , bp_spam at intgovforum.org , bp_certs at intgovforum.org , Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org , Bp_ixps at intgovforum.org , bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org Dear Colleagues, IGF Policy Options and Best Practices are part of an effort this year for the IGF to develop more tangible outputs, supporting broader tracks (e.g. SDGs, WSIS+10) while leveraging the global network of IGFs that are held on all continents. During last week's Open Consultations and MAG meeting, the IGF community agreed on the draft skeleton of the "*/*/IGF Policy Options for Connecting the Next Billion/*/*", available here . ** _*ASK*_: All interested stakeholders are invited to: * *Join the open-ended editorial group* formed to develop the document ahead of IGF Brazil by signing-up to this mailing list . * *Send additional background contributions* by using this form , or by writing to gutterman at un.org by 3 Oct. (contributions from national/regional IGFs and Best Practices Forums are welcome on an ongoing basis). They will feed into the next version of the document and will all appear with due attribution on the IGF website . *_Next steps:_* The IGF Secretariat will be working in the coming weeks on editing the introduction and developing the various sections of the skeleton on the basis of contributions received. A new draft will be made available for the consideration of the open-ended editorial group around 21 Sept. Further information on the methodology and the timeline can be found here . Please disseminate this call for background contributions throughout your networks. Thank you and best regards, Constance Bommelaer --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Igfmaglist mailing list Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Sep 8 12:53:40 2015 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 18:53:40 +0200 Subject: AW: [bestbits] [governance] Cyber Monitor: Mapping the NETmundial Initiative References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801A2A115@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thx. Marilia, I like the very cool and fact based analysis. NMI has entered uncharted territory. Let´s continue to explore the new space. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Marilia Maciel Gesendet: Di 08.09.2015 16:58 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Betreff: [governance] Cyber Monitor: Mapping the NETmundial Initiative Greetings everyone, I thought it would be of interest to share with you the current issue of the Cyber Monitor, published monthly by The Observer Research Foundation. You will find an article I wrote on NETmundial Initiative and an article from Stephanie Perrin with an excellent overview ICANN's WHOIS policy discussions. http://www.orfonline.org/cms/export/orfonline/html/cyber/Cyber-Monitor09.pdf I also take the opportunity to invite you to participate in two sessions that will be held by the NETmundial Initiative during the IGF (schedule is still in draft form): Open, Informal Council Meeting Date: Monday, 9 November (DAY 0) Time: 09:00-13:00 Room: Workshop Room 3 Open Forum Date: Wednesday, 11 November (DAY 2) Time: 17:00-18:00 Room: Workshop Room 10 All the best wishes, Marília *Mapping the NETmundial Initiative * Marília Maciel[1] <#_edn1> The NETmundial Initiative (NMI) is a platform for collaboration among stakeholders that aims to improve synergy and coordination in the Internet Governance ecosystem, in cooperation with existing organizations. The Initiative significantly derives its name and core mission from NETmundial - the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance - held in April 2014, in Brazil. NETmundial was organized by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) with the support of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). It was convened by the government of Brazil in the aftermath of Edward Snowden's revelations of mass surveillance. One of the goals of NETmundial was to restore a positive governance environment that would foster trust and cooperation to face common challenges. NETmundial was explicitly aimed at addressing two problems: the need to identify a set of universally acceptable Internet governance principles and the need to propose a way forward for the evolution of the Internet governance institutional ecosystem. Both issues were tackled in the NETmundial outcome document, which embodies a rough consensus across stakeholder groups. Dissenting voices were few, albeit vocal. Article 19 raised concerns that privacy and net neutrality were not adequately addressed, on behalf of some civil society organizations. Among countries, Russia, India and Cuba expressed their reservations.[1] <#_ftn1> This public divergence seemed to have driven further apart countries that pursued alliances in the past, such as India and Brazil, and showed some of the difficulties in articulating political alliances among the BRICS nations. On a substantive level, NETmundial's outcome document represents several achievements. It placed human rights as the cornerstone of the Internet governance ecosystem, it supported distributed mechanisms of governance, it emphasized the importance of enhancing both democratic and multistakeholder participation, and it ultimately represents progress towards public interest-driven Internet governance. After NETmundial, ICANN, the World Economic Forum and CGI.br decided to work together in order to carry forward the spirit of collaboration that emerged in São Paulo and to make sure the outcome document became a reference point for global discussions. These were the three founding organizations of the NETmundial Initiative. The creation of NMI was not free of criticism. While some argued that NMI represented a takeover of Internet Governance by business interests, others believed that it represented a move towards centralization and mistook it for a "UN security council of the Internet". There was also fear that NMI would compete with existing organizations, such as the Internet Governance Forum. In the midst of controversy, the NMI coordinating council was appointed, consisting of a group of 25 representatives from different stakeholder groups. The political weight of the council is indisputable. The Minister of Cyberspace of China, Mr. Lu Wei, shares a sit on the table with the US Secretary of Commerce, Mrs. Penny Pritzker, with representatives of companies, such as Telefonica and Alibaba group, and with reputed civil society and academic organizations, such as the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and Human Rights Watch. The multistakeholder composition of the council strengthened the legitimacy of NMI, however, some resistance to the Initiative still persists, albeit less embattled. The first task of the coordinating council was to define the mission and scope of the NMI, enshrined in its terms of reference. In a nutshell, the Initiative aims to catalyze cooperation among stakeholders in order to advance the implementation of the NETmundial Principles and Roadmap. This mission can be accomplished in different ways. For instance, NMI aims to serve as a clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of information about Internet governance as well as to provide a platform on which diverse actors can present projects, solicit partners and establish collaboration. Both goals are being accomplished with the creation of the NETmundial solutions map - which identifies clusters of policy related Internet issues and correlates them with relevant actors, documents and processes -, and with the upcoming launch of the NETmundial collaboration platform, which will host project proposals. The inaugural meeting of NMI took place in June, in São Paulo. It was a remarkable experience of multistakeholder interaction. Those who watched the webcast of the meeting were able to witness a lively debate between the Chinese Minister of Cyberspace and the representative of the Human Rights Watch over online activism and the protection of human rights. They could also see Internet tycoons from China and Africa discussing the inclusion of young people in the job market. The less formal environment of the council allows for interactions that would never take place under the formality of the United Nations. This could help to create channels for fruitful and pragmatic dialogue. In December 2015, a UN high-level meeting will be held to assess the progress made in the ten years that followed the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). One of the key points emerging from the preparatory discussions is that, at least on the level of discourse, most countries give support to the idea of a multistakeholder Internet governance. China mentioned it in several occasions. India's IT Minister, Ravi Shankar, supported the multistakeholder approach during his speech in the 54th ICANN meeting. The path towards convergence seems less cloudy, including among BRICS. In this scenario, the way to concretely implement multistakeholder collaboration will probably be the key dispute in the upcoming years. The NETmundial Initiative allows the chance to experiment with new models of collaboration. NMI's solution-driven approach, made possible by the environment of trust and openness that is being built in the coordinating council, may provide a breath of fresh air. It can pave the way for the implementation of the NETmundial outcome document, a remarkable result of multistakeholder dialogue and participation. ------------------------------ [1] <#_ftnref1> *See *Transcripts of NETmundial closing session, April 24, 2014, http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETMundial-23April2014-Closing-Session-en.pdf . ------------------------------ [1] <#_ednref1> Ms Marília Maciel is a researcher and coordinator of the Center for Technology and Society of the Rio de Janeiro Law School of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (FGV). She is one of the five co-chairs of the NETmundial Initiative. -- *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 From pranesh at cis-india.org Tue Sep 8 22:28:50 2015 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 07:58:50 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] CIS comments to the ICG In-Reply-To: <55EF6D40.6040806@cis-india.org> References: <55EF6D40.6040806@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <55EF9962.7010600@cis-india.org> Dear all, This is what we submitted from the Centre for Internet and Society. We invoked IGC statements from 2005, during the WSIS process, in our submission. Regards, Pranesh -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2015-09-08_cis-response-to-icg.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 494097 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- 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 Wed Sep 9 03:04:47 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 12:34:47 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Taking place next week: Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available In-Reply-To: References: <55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net> <55E6ACD0.70802@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <55EFDA0F.4010009@itforchange.net> On Monday 07 September 2015 09:21 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: > Hi Parminder. > > I wanted to understand the picture better before writing a response. > As I have gone and returned from the Consultation at Pattaya, I feel > more able to respond. Dear Peng Hwa, I read your email several times, because you call it a response to my email, but I still could not see the response. As you will see from the trailing emails, I deliberately sent two different emails raising two sets of issues - one set more important, primary, and substantively clear and precise, and the other kind of subsidiary, although also quite important. I requested that the first set be addressed separately so that there is no loss of focus from the primary set of the most important and, to repeat, precise and clear issues of transparency and accountability. I repeat them; (1) who is funding this 'consultation' (2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my view, would be a consultation) (3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and by whom, and who decided it.. (Let me also stress the issue of it being a 'consultation' and an 'Asia Pacific consultation' at that which greatly increases the salience of the above points.) The only response I can understand to this request is either to agree that these questions of transparency and accountability are important, and add your voice to them, or disagree and hold them to be not important or necessary. I really am not able to see from your email which of the two possible responses are you indicating. I will request you to clarify this . Thanks. > Fwiw, the outcome document is available > at http://wsis10.asia/index.php/outcomes. Yes, I saw it. Notably, it says " Accountability and transparency must also be applied to other stakeholder groups, including but not limited to the private sector..." and "Transparent and accountable procedural rules that empower marginalised voices and those who lack technical expertise need to be developed." !!?? I want to be very respectful to those who evolved this document, but seriously, I am fully confounded.... Can one get away by saying and claiming anything, while publicly acting in quite the opposite manner (this is with regard to the organisers), that too in the civil society space that is supposed to be the morality holder of the society. Maybe you have some comments on this. Best regards parminder > > Your questions remind me of a similar set of criteria you asked of me > re the APrIGF when we held the meeting first in HK and then Singapore. > So it’s with that sense of deja vu that I’m writing this email. > > I will not go into the details of your questions. (One long reply can > only beget another.) Instead, I will focus on what I consider to be > the larger issues. > > 1. I think that such bottom-up initiatives should be encouraged. > It is a lot of work to get going a meeting that attempts to represent > AP views. In this consultation, there were forces working against it > happening, because of fears that the group might raise sensitive > issues. (I hope it did.) You probably mean well but some cheerleading > with some gentle nudges (instead of harrumphs) should the group stray > would be more encouraging to current and future initiatives. > > 2. There is a tension between legitimacy and efficacy. > They are not in total contradiction because a non-legitimate outcome > will likely not be efficacious. But I hope you can see how trying to > cross all the “T"s and dotting the “I"s may mean not moving forward in > such situations. For example Edmon and I were so enthused about > getting the APrIGF going so that there would be some form of feedback > from Asia-Pac to the IGF in 2010 that it took us two years for the > APrIGF MSG (a culturally appropriate term) to have me elected as > Chair. Before that, as Edmon was leading the event in HK, he chaired > the meetings that year; and when I did Singapore, I chaired the > meetings for that year. There was sufficient buy-in from the AP > organisations in our nascent stage that the APrIGF was able to move > forward. > > 3. So how does one recognise legitimacy? > I don’t see one size fitting all. It is a mix of process and outcome, > of being open and inclusive and being transparent in processes and > outcomes. But also in achieving at least a reasonable outcome. The > ultimate test is acceptance by the Internet community. In the present > case, the acceptance of the Pattaya key messages. (Google obviously > has questions about legitimacy; it asks, "Did you mean: pattaya > massages?”) > > 4. In the interest of transparency, I declare that the organisers paid > for my budget airline ticket from Singapore to Bangkok, the transfers > to and from Bangkok airport and the stay in Pattaya. The transfers in > Singapore, the tips to the drivers and tips to the staff who serviced > my hotel room were paid by me. > > Regards, > Peng Hwa > > From: > on behalf of Parminder > Singh > > Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org > " >, Parminder Singh > > > Date: Wednesday, 2 September 2015 3:01 pm > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org > " >, BestBitsList > >, > Anja Kovacs > > Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian > Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation > available > > Hi Anja > > There were two levels of issues that I had raised. First (which I call > as category 1) is simple, direct, objective and fully-self contained, > public interest information about what is supposed to be a public > interest activity. I have covered this aspect in the email I sent just > now. > > The second (category 2) is connected, but a slightly lower level issue > because it involves judgements, and judgements about judgements, about > who was invited, who was funded, who was informed in time enough to > consider participating, and so on....( In fact, this part is also > greatly helped by a full declaration of the decision process, the > group involved in making the judgements, and so on, which basic info > is part of category 1 above.) > > I do not want to mix issues of category 1 and 2, so that the clarity > of category 1 issues, and the basic and objective imperatives > involved, may not get diluted. So please provide meseparatelythe fully > objective information under category 1 sought in my earlier email . > > Meanwhile, this email will deal with some admittedly judgemental > issues that are involved, which while being not fully objective are > still a worthy subject of public debate. Please see inline.... > > > On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> Hi Parminder, >> >> I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but as the person >> who first came up with this idea and also the one to send the message >> to which you responded, I am happy to provide some answers. >> >> Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do here. As we all >> know, the modalities explicitly made the Review a government-led >> process. Also, details on the way in which the informal consultations >> with other stakeholders would be facilitated remained extremely >> scanty even eight months before the review was supposed to take >> place. Even when the Review process was formally announced, it wasn't >> clear to what extent inputs from stakeholders other than governments >> would be taken into account. This meeting is an attempt to be >> proactive in that situation, trying to amplify voices from our region >> to make sure that concerns from this region actually find resonance >> in New York - something that, seeing how far removed we are from >> there, isn't guaranteed at all. > > Sure... I note the term /'amplify voices/' and the neutrality of the > platform which is thus suggested.... Hope you note it too, and your > responses are informed with this fact . (The conference website > carries this blurb "Amplifying > Asian Voices in the WSIS + 10 Process" - which raises the important > public interest question about who determines and filters what are > 'Asian Voices') > >> >> The organisations that are co-organising this meeting are >> organisations that all got enthused by this prospect, and were >> willing to put part of their organisational budgets, of their staff's >> time and minds, or of all of these up to make this event happen. > > Who funded what - especially in terms of actual money.... Lets not > generalise clear and objective issues and questions. What you refuse > to answer, you should just say so. > >> No funding was secured specifically for this meeting (though I >> tried). What this meant is that the funding pool was limited, and >> difficult decisions indeed did have to be made. > > Who made the decisions, what was the process... This being after all > an "Asia Regional Consultation" whereby the outputs of it will also > carry that label. > >> What we aimed for was to have a balanced representation across Asia's >> sub-regions as well as a group that could address a mix of issues >> from a range of perspectives. > > 'Balanced representation'.... and 'mix of issues from a range of > perspectives' :) . You must be joking.... One cant just write > anything, just because it sounds good and is of a general nature.... > Can you show how is it balanced and admits a range of perspective, > about which more below... > > >> A direct engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past two >> years was definitely seen as a plus, but not a must. > > Sure. Then maybe engagement with WSIS for 12 years would be a big plus > plus plus ... but it did not seem to count here among a 'range of > perspectives' and 'balanced views'..... You need to justify with facts > all the good and general things you are writing here if we are to have > a meaningful dialogue and not just confuse people. > >> >> As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are indeed people >> who would be able to offer valuable inputs to the meeting but who we >> were not able to offer funding. > > Just wanted to understand the 'process'.. Who was actually making the > decisions. > >> Luckily, some of those are able to self-fund their attendance. > > But then they at least need to know about the event, which I first > heard about exactly 10 days before the meeting from your email below > -- this even when we were in conversation over another issue, in fact > a meeting my organisation is organising in Delhi on the 5th of Sept to > which we invited you, but you said you cannot come, even at that stage > not revealing why you could not - which I now gather was bec you had > this Asia Consultation meeting on the 5th. Anja, the meeting plans and > dates were clearly kept under wraps till the very last minute - so I > do not understand this 'self funding' business either.... Other than > it being another link in the long chain of general, good sounding, > statements, which are not very well founded on facts, and thus do not > contribute to a serious and useful discussion. Maybe some people could > have self funded (although I could not have) if they knew about this > meeting... But the problem is that a so called 'Asia Regional > Consultation' of a UN process is being held even without sufficient > notice to people (all of 10 days)... > > >> In addition, we tried to alleviate the restrictions imposed by the >> limited funding by deciding to provide remote participation, so as to >> allow all those interested in participating to do so. The full >> modalities of how this will work is something that we are still >> working out: as this is intended to be a working meeting, ensuring >> that remote participation is substantive is not a given. We are doing >> our very best to try and pull off successfully what I think is a >> first in our region for a meeting of this kind. > > I am not sure what you mean by first of this kind.... The original > WSIS process had publicly funded regional review meetings, in both its > phases... > >> >> Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition has been invited >> is of course not correct. One organisation was on our shortlist from >> day one. Another is attending on its own force, and we are very happy >> that they, as well as others, have been able to draw on their own >> resources to attend this event and contribute to its success. > > But perhaps you could have put the info on the Just Net Coalition > elist, so that all would know, also also engaged with other JNC > members especially those who were most active in WSIS + 10 engagement > including developing JNC's statement towards it. That reminds me - the > resource page of your proposed 'Consultation', which carry a number of > contributions to the WSIS + 10 process of NGOs and even of non-NGOs, > chose to specifically censor the contribution of Just Net Coalition. > This says a lot to your commitment to 'balanced views' and 'range of > perspectives'. > > (Well, very interestingly, I now see that JNC's contribution has been > added now after I wrote the email yesterday, but /it wasnt there till > yesterday/, and I did take the enclosed print out which shows that it > wasnt . Anja, another specific question, is it not true that the JNC > contribution was not there on your list of contributions page till > yesterday? ) >> >> On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to hear that they are >> now intending to work on issues related to science and technology as >> well, > > They have worked in this area for quite some time.. > >> and that they are even engaging with the Internet Social Forum >> initiative on this. Though I am on an email list that is dedicated to >> discussing the Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to >> locate that information there. Do please feel free to pass on the >> message about this event to them though. If any representative of >> APRCEM would be interested in attending, either in person or >> remotely, they are very welcome to do so, as are you. > > Dont you think this is very late for meeting in 3 days! But again, the > real issues here are structural ones around civil society processes > and transparency/ accountability, and not about individuals... > >> >> Hope this clarifies. > > My apologies, but it doesnt. > > Best, parminder >> >> Regards, >> Anja >> >> >> >> >> On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder > > wrote: >> >> Dear organisers of the *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10 >> Review, >> >> *With your permission I have some questions to ask you. I know >> this is a treacherous territory, given an extra ordinary (and >> completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being asked questions by >> some groups, but my apologies, I cannot but ask them in pursuance >> of my public interest work, however distasteful it may be even >> for me to get into this thing.... >> >> This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian >> Regional' consultation, on what is a global governance process, >> and so some questions arise in my mind: >> >> (1) who is funding this 'consultation' >> >> (2) on what criteria participants were determined, and >> invitations sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited >> (that, in my view, would be a consultation) >> >> (3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and >> by whom, and who decided it.. >> >> Thanks for answering these public interest questions... >> >> I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge that >> no member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT for >> Change is among very few groups in Asia Pacific which has been >> engaged with the WSIS process from the start, and very thoroughly >> engaged. Further, there is in fact an Asia Pacific Regional CSO >> Engagement Mechanism , which >> describes itself as >> >> "APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger >> cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of all >> sub-regions of Asia Pacific are heard in intergovernmental >> processes in regional and global level. The platform is >> initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and has been set up >> under the auspices of UN-ESCAP and seeks to engage with UN >> agencies and Member States on the Post-2015 as well as other >> development related issues/processes. " >> >> In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology >> Constituency which works as an active network (of which IT for >> Change is a member) which has begun to work closely with the Just >> Net Coalition (many JNC members also being its members) and the >> Internet Social Forum initiatives, which shows its interest in >> Internet issues... As far as I know no member of this network, or >> the network as a whole, has been involved in this so-called "Asia >> Regional Consultation' which being on a UN process this group >> would be natural constituency... All of which makes me wonder, >> and so my questions.. >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the >>> Association for Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global >>> Partners Digital and ICT Watch are together organising an *Asian >>> Regional Consultation on the WIS+10 Review* from 3 to 5 >>> September in Pattaya, Thailand. >>> >>> >>> The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will bring >>> together experts from different backgrounds and from around the >>> Asian region who are concerned about issues concerning ICTs, >>> sustainable development, human rights and Internet governance, >>> to ask: *what are the issues that our governments need to >>> squarely address in the process of the review? >>> * >>> >>> >>> The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment >>> on the non-paper that will have been released by the >>> co-facilitators of the review process in late August (inputs >>> into that paper can be made by all stakeholders and are due on >>> 31 July).The group will take stock of the extent to which >>> priorities for the Asian region have been reflected in the >>> non-paper, and will work together on formulating a joint comment >>> on the non-paper (comments on the non-paper will be due in >>> mid-September, and will be drawn on by the co-facilitators to >>> formulate a zero-draft). The group will also look forward to >>> consider which further inputs could be made or actions could be >>> taken strategically to ensure that priorities from the Asian >>> region are fully taken onto board in the final WSIS+10 Review >>> outcome documents. If there are other processes the group >>> believes this work could usefully feed into, these might be >>> taken into consideration as well. >>> >>> >>> *The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working >>> meeting that is geared towards producing a joint submission to >>> the next input round on the Review outcome document. >>> *Participants will be drawn from all non-government stakeholder >>> groups, and will have a wide and rich variety of backgrounds, >>> both in terms of professional expertise and geographical >>> location. What unites all, however, is a shared commitment to a >>> free and open Internet and to the use of technology to benefit >>> the development and human rights of all in our region. >>> >>> >>> *We're very happy to let you know that remote participation will >>> be available. *For more information on remote participation and >>> the event in general, please see the event website >>> . Or follow us on Twitter @WSISAsia >>> #wsis10. >>> >>> >>> We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let me >>> know if you have any comments or questions. >>> >>> >>> Warm regards, >>> >>> Anja >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> The Internet Democracy Project >>> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named > and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended > recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or > disclose its contents. > Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Sep 9 04:47:57 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 14:17:57 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] CIS comments to the ICG In-Reply-To: <55EF9962.7010600@cis-india.org> References: <55EF6D40.6040806@cis-india.org> <55EF9962.7010600@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <55EFF23D.8010800@itforchange.net> Dear Pranesh and Jyoti, Thanks for this excellent paper - also extremely well researched and presented.. I fully agree with it. (Please note that in the sentence "The consolidated proposal as it stands is reflective of a truly global multi-stakeholder Internet community", evidently, a 'NOT' is missing.) The problem is that even with such serious and widespread dissatisfaction with the final proposals on the table, it is being pushed and will be legitimised as having the consensus of the community. And if you ask what is meant by 'community' you get very slippery responses. 'Community' can be those who actually traditionally engage with the ICANN processes, and at other times it can be the global public, in which sense I understand the NTIA framed its criterion of transition of oversight to 'the global multistakeholder community'. It is between these two very different meanings of 'community' that the entire exercise hides its lack of legitimacy, and is able to produce 'outcomes' that merely cement the status quo, as you argue so well. This I think is particularly disingenuous and must be called out. It is, unfortunately, a good case study of how 'openness' can be twisted (openness in the meaning of 'flexibility' instead of what it should be, 'equitable participation'). Also, points to some theoretical problems with multistakehoderism. A stakeholder gets defined by the degree of engagement (this is how the ICANN oversight process gets away with its definition of 'community') while 'public' is defined by default political ownership, whether or not one is able to engage, and independent of the degree of actual engagement. parminder On Wednesday 09 September 2015 07:58 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > Dear all, > This is what we submitted from the Centre for Internet and Society. > We invoked IGC statements from 2005, during the WSIS process, in our > submission. > > Regards, > Pranesh > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 901 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Sep 9 10:03:13 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 10:03:13 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Reminder: Call for applications for online course on civil resistance Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: *From: ***ICNC** *Subject: **Reminder: Call for applications for online course on civil resistance* *Date: *September 9, 2015 at 9:34:48 AM EDT *To: *mackinnon at newamerica.net *Reply-To: *academicinitiative at nonviolent-conflict.org *Call for Applications: Credited ICNC-Rutgers Online Course on Civil Resistance * View the introductory video for the course "I already begun disseminating the knowledge that I gained from this course in my country. We need to know about nonviolent movements and need to know the people power." *-2014 course participant* "Everyone was engaged and made interesting contributions; there was real debate in the forums, with the facilitators adding new ideas and summaries." *-2013 course participant* "The readings were stimulating. The feedback was useful and relevant. The times when we connected via web chat and video conference were most engaging." *-2012 course participant* The* International Center on Nonviolent Conflict* (ICNC) and the *Rutgers International Institute for Peace* are now accepting applications for the online course, "*People Power: The Study of Strategic Nonviolent Resistance*" that will take place between October 9 and November 25, 2015. This online course is designed to provide an in-depth and multidisciplinary perspective on civilian-based movements and campaigns that defend and obtain basic rights and justice around the world with the use of nonviolent tactics and strategies - from Lebanon to Guatemala, from Armenia to West Papua. We consider various cases of civil resistance struggles, including those that go beyond resistance against states and will study nonviolent organizing and actions to curb corruption, fight unaccountable elites and abusive business practices and challenge violent non-state groups. We will also reflect on the skills and agency of ordinary people, their strategies and tactics, backfire, role of gender in civil resistance, and long-term impact of civil resistance. *Course goals* - provide interactive and structured learning environment for studying civil resistance - introduce participants to the main concepts and ideas of civil resistance - reflect on effectiveness of civil resistance, and its power to overcome adversarial conditions - facilitate moderated discussions among participants, including their on-the-ground experience - help participants become effective conveyors of civil resistance knowledge *When*: October 9 - November 25, 2015 *Where*: Online Learning Platform: civilresistancestudies.org. *Who should apply*: Graduate students, field practitioners, civil society and policy professionals and educators from around the world interested in the subject matter. *Graduate Credits*: Participants may choose to take this course for academic credits. Info on credit fee & additional assignments is available in the online application. *Deadline to apply*: September 27, 2015 - Click here to learn more and apply --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC) is an independent, nonprofit educational foundation that works with leading scholars, educators and practitioners to broaden an understanding about the use of civilian-based, nonmilitary strategies in defense of human rights, democratic self-rule and justice worldwide. Contact: academicinitiative at nonviolent-conflict.org Forward this email This email was sent to mackinnon at newamerica.net by academicinitiative at nonviolent-conflict.org | Update Profile/Email Address | Rapid removal with SafeUnsubscribe ™ | About our service provider . ICNC | P.O. Box 18218 | Washington | DC | 20036 -- *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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 507 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lea at gp-digital.org Wed Sep 9 15:02:43 2015 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:02:43 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] New GPD report: WSIS+10 Country Mapping Report now published online Message-ID: [apologies for cross-posting] Dear all, Earlier this week, as part of our ongoing engagement in the WSIS Review, we have published a report "The Road to WSIS+10: Key Country Perspectives in the Ten-Year Review of the World Summit on the Information Society". The report can be accessed by visiting: http://www.gp-digital.org/ publication /the-road-to-wsis10-key-country-perspectives-in-the-ten-year-review-of-the-world-summit-on-the-information-society/ The report aims to inform engagement in the Review by mapping the positions of 15 key governments in the process, namely: Brazil, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States. Most chapters were written by local researchers - many of them active on this list, providing a rich account of local actors and conditions. We hope that this report proves useful in your own engagement efforts and encourage you to share it with your networks. Best, *Lea Kaspar* Head of Programmes and International Policy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar gp-digital.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deji at accessnow.org Wed Sep 9 16:02:30 2015 From: deji at accessnow.org (Deji Olukotun) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 16:02:30 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Join coalition letter to Twitter on Politwoops? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi to All, Apologies for cross posting. Please find below an open letter to Twitter about its decision to turn off Politwoops, a crucial tool for holding politicians accountable in 32 countries. We've had great coverage of the campaign so far (you can see media hits at the bottom). Help us make a broader impact. *Please let us know if your group will sign on by Friday 9am NYC.* This an important fight for transparency, accountability, and free expression. Best, Deji https://www.accessnow.org/pages/open-letter-twitter-restore-politwoops-access-api Open letter to Twitter to restore Politwoops access to API *September 2015 * We, the undersigned, are international human rights and transparency groups based around the world. We are writing in opposition to Twitter’s recent decision to revoke the ability of the tool Politwoops and similar tools to utilize Twitter’s Application Programming Interface, or API. We believe Twitter’s decision holds grave consequences for free expression and transparency around the world. *Background* In 2010, the Netherlands-based Open State Foundation created the Politwoops tool to publish Tweets deleted by politicians. From then onwards, the Open State Foundation rolled out Politwoops with the help of individuals and organizations in 32 countries, including the Sunlight Foundation in the U.S. Twitter then revoked the ability of the Sunlight Foundation to use its API in May 2015 and it revoked the Open State Foundation’s access to the API on August 21. *Transparency and due process* To justify its decision, Twitter explained that, “No one user is more deserving of that ability [to delete a tweet] than another. Indeed, deleting a tweet is an expression of one’s voice.” Twitter’s reasoning conflates transparency and accountability with privacy. We agree that when users decide to delete tweets they are engaging in expression—but add that the public has a compelling interest in the expression of public officials. Recognizing this public interest, courts have long held that public officials do not receive the same treatment for privacy. Further, when public officials use Twitter to amplify their political views, they invite greater scrutiny of their expression. Journalists and civil society utilize tools like Politwoops to understand the views and commitments of the people these politicians represent—and the politician or candidate’s own intents and perspective. In this case, the citizen’s right to freedom of expression —which includes access to information—outweighs the official’s right to a retroactive edit. In terms of process, this decision involved minimal dialogue with the Open State Foundation and the Sunlight Foundation. There was no opportunity to appeal the decision, which impacted a widely-used, volunteer-run service. The action carried out by Twitter was arbitrary and cuts against the very principles of transparency that Politwoops was designed to confront. We recognize that the API license gives Twitter discretion to enforce its terms. However, Twitter should also take into account human rights when it exercises that discretion—and particularly the right of people to access to information where it serves the interest of public accountability and transparency in a democratic society. There are times when what is legal must be outweighed by what is right. *Recommendations* We note that Twitter has been a leader in transparency and free expression since its founding. The platform has helped foster numerous advances in journalism and in accountability. This makes the unilateral decision by Twitter so troubling and off-course. Accordingly, we urge you to: - immediately restore access for the Politwoops tool to the Twitter API in every country around the world; - convene stakeholders to develop a forward-looking API policy, or other constructive solution, that allows civil society groups to effectively promote accountability and transparency for the public interest; - make clear exceptions in the “Twitter Developer Agreement & Policy” for information shared in the public interest, such as for transparency or journalistic purposes; and - participate in multistakeholder organizations which facilitate meetings between civil society, investors, academics, and corporations on decisions impacting human rights. Signed, Access Alternatif Bilisim (Turkey) American Civil Liberties Union Art 34-bis (Italy) Asociacion por los Derechos Civiles (Argentina) Bits of Freedom (Netherlands) Blueprint for Free Speech (Australia) Civio Foundation (Spain) Clean Air Action Group (Hungary) Derechos Digitales (Latin America) Electronic Frontier Foundation Electronic Frontiers Australia EDRi European Federation of Journalists Fondation Sciences Citoyennes (France) Free Press Fundación Ciudadana Civio (Spain) GovTrack.us Hiperderecho (Peru) Human Rights Watch Iraqi Network for Social Media Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet Nederlandse Vereniging van Journalisten (Netherlands) Open Knowledge Foundation (Australia) OpenMedia (Canada) Open State Foundation Paradigm Initiative (Nigeria) Pirate Party (Turkey) La Quadrature du Net (France) Red en Defensa de los Derechos Digitales (Mexico) Sunlight Foundation (U.S.) Support for Information Technology Center (Egypt) Vrijschrift (Netherlands) Web Foundation *Learn more about the open letter: *Fortune , The Verge , Fast Company , The Hill , Business Insider , Washington Post , TechCrunch , Dutch Radio 1 , Nu.nl , The Register , Tech Times , CNET , Villamedia , Ansa , Arizona Wildcat , Nieman Lab , Nos -- Deji Olukotun Senior Global Advocacy Manager Access | accessnow.org tel: +1 415-935-4572 | @dejiridoo PGP: 0x6012CDA8 Fingerprint: 3AEE 4194 F70E C806 A810 857A 6AD5 8F48 6012 CDA8 *Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter on digital rights, the Access Express: accessnow.org/express * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca Wed Sep 9 18:36:49 2015 From: roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 18:36:49 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] RFP / Fellowships announced from the UC Berkeley Center for Technology, Society & Policy Message-ID: > > > > > > > > > > > CTSP Request for Proposals, Fellowships Announced > As a new ³multidisciplinary research and design/build center,² the Center for > Technology, Society & Policy at UC Berkeley is excited to seek proposals > &id=503c77fc24&e=946d733a51> for short-term collaborative projects from a > wide range of disciplines and with a wide range of outcomes. Projects may > include publishable research, a design or engineering prototype, a whitepaper > or regulatory proposal, a public event, a documentary film or other outcomes. > Projects should address one or more of our four focus areas, broadly defined: > engineering ethics; technology and well-being; infrastructure, standards and > governance; and digital citizenship. This will be an annual RFP. Each member > of an accepted project proposal team becomes a CTSP Fellow for one year and > receives $1,500 in funding toward the project. Applications open on Monday, > September 28th and close with a deadline of Monday, October 12th, 2015. View > more details on the CTSP website > &id=b4792fdfc2&e=946d733a51> > > > > > > Attend the Proposal Hackathon! > The CTSP Proposal Hackathon > id=3125ace9a6&e=946d733a51> is a fun half-day event where potential > applicants can find collaborators, form teams and work on project ideas > together. Attendees will have an opportunity to pitch ideas and join projects > that interest them, and will have dedicated time to start working together to > develop the project idea and try out the team dynamic. Saturday, September > 26th, 2015 > South Hall, UC Berkeley, School of Information > 11 a.m. ­ 4 p.m. RSVP for the Proposal Hackathon > id=b98976ec6c&e=946d733a51> > > > > > > Introducing Citizen Technologist, the Blog > We¹ve been hearing increasing interest in the concept of a ³citizen > technologist² ‹ someone who works at the intersection of technical > architecture, social norms and public policy. Citizen Technologist > id=53aa777429&e=946d733a51> is a blog for writings from, for and about these > citizen technologists. We¹ve written some thoughts this week on ³what is a > citizen technologist² for the blog and we hope to make it an outlet for > writing related to the broader topic. Let us know > id=690284616b&e=946d733a51> if you¹d like to write for this audience. > > > > > Be a Mentor > And we¹re looking for your help! We want project teams to be successful and > to that end we¹d like to give them expert advice from people in the field. If > you¹re working in this general area and might be interested in providing > formal or informal advice to fellows of the Center, please get in touch > or apply directly > id=ee9fa7a6c3&e=946d733a51> . We¹ll match project teams with relevant mentors > in academia, civil society and industry. > > > > Some Interesting Writing from the Web > ³Making our information society safe and fair > &id=bde3b700c3&e=946d733a51> ² by Francis Irving > "Look at other engineers. Look at other professions, like doctors and > lawyers. Join and improve ethical professional bodies. Consciously try to not > harm the freedom which general access to programming gives in the process. > Create standards." > > > A review of John Markoff¹s Machines of Loving Grace > id=ed51bcee10&e=946d733a51> by Evan Selinger > We¹re looking forward to reading Markoff¹s book and the argument about making > ethical decisions during the design of new technologies, like self-driving > cars. > > > Social and Ethical Issues in Computing syllabus > id=52869186b4&e=946d733a51> from Patrick Gage Kelley > What would you put on a syllabus for ethical and social issues in computing? > We expect to see a lot more of these, and hope to organize some discussion > about coordinating curriculum development. > > edium=email&utm_campaign=monkey_rewards&aid=ae58ddf12409ee6c1408a4a8b&afl=1> > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Tue Sep 1 14:22:37 2015 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 23:52:37 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available In-Reply-To: <55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net> References: <55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but as the person who first came up with this idea and also the one to send the message to which you responded, I am happy to provide some answers. Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do here. As we all know, the modalities explicitly made the Review a government-led process. Also, details on the way in which the informal consultations with other stakeholders would be facilitated remained extremely scanty even eight months before the review was supposed to take place. Even when the Review process was formally announced, it wasn't clear to what extent inputs from stakeholders other than governments would be taken into account. This meeting is an attempt to be proactive in that situation, trying to amplify voices from our region to make sure that concerns from this region actually find resonance in New York - something that, seeing how far removed we are from there, isn't guaranteed at all. The organisations that are co-organising this meeting are organisations that all got enthused by this prospect, and were willing to put part of their organisational budgets, of their staff's time and minds, or of all of these up to make this event happen. No funding was secured specifically for this meeting (though I tried). What this meant is that the funding pool was limited, and difficult decisions indeed did have to be made. What we aimed for was to have a balanced representation across Asia's sub-regions as well as a group that could address a mix of issues from a range of perspectives. A direct engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past two years was definitely seen as a plus, but not a must. As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are indeed people who would be able to offer valuable inputs to the meeting but who we were not able to offer funding. Luckily, some of those are able to self-fund their attendance. In addition, we tried to alleviate the restrictions imposed by the limited funding by deciding to provide remote participation, so as to allow all those interested in participating to do so. The full modalities of how this will work is something that we are still working out: as this is intended to be a working meeting, ensuring that remote participation is substantive is not a given. We are doing our very best to try and pull off successfully what I think is a first in our region for a meeting of this kind. Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition has been invited is of course not correct. One organisation was on our shortlist from day one. Another is attending on its own force, and we are very happy that they, as well as others, have been able to draw on their own resources to attend this event and contribute to its success. On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to hear that they are now intending to work on issues related to science and technology as well, and that they are even engaging with the Internet Social Forum initiative on this. Though I am on an email list that is dedicated to discussing the Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to locate that information there. Do please feel free to pass on the message about this event to them though. If any representative of APRCEM would be interested in attending, either in person or remotely, they are very welcome to do so, as are you. Hope this clarifies. Regards, Anja On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder wrote: > Dear organisers of the > > *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10 Review, *With your permission > I have some questions to ask you. I know this is a treacherous territory, > given an extra ordinary (and completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being > asked questions by some groups, but my apologies, I cannot but ask them in > pursuance of my public interest work, however distasteful it may be even > for me to get into this thing.... > > This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian Regional' > consultation, on what is a global governance process, and so some questions > arise in my mind: > > (1) who is funding this 'consultation' > > (2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations sent, > and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my view, would be > a consultation) > > (3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and by whom, > and who decided it.. > > Thanks for answering these public interest questions... > > I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge that no > member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT for Change is among > very few groups in Asia Pacific which has been engaged with the WSIS > process from the start, and very thoroughly engaged. Further, there is in > fact an Asia Pacific Regional CSO Engagement Mechanism > , which describes itself as > > "APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger > cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of all sub-regions > of Asia Pacific are heard in intergovernmental processes in regional and > global level. The platform is initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and > has been set up under the auspices of UN-ESCAP and seeks to engage with UN > agencies and Member States on the Post-2015 as well as other development > related issues/processes. " > > In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology Constituency which > works as an active network (of which IT for Change is a member) which has > begun to work closely with the Just Net Coalition (many JNC members also > being its members) and the Internet Social Forum initiatives, which shows > its interest in Internet issues... As far as I know no member of this > network, or the network as a whole, has been involved in this so-called > "Asia Regional Consultation' which being on a UN process this group would > be natural constituency... All of which makes me wonder, and so my > questions.. > > > parminder > > > On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Dear all, > > The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the Association for > Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global Partners Digital and ICT Watch are > together organising an *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10 Review* > from 3 to 5 September in Pattaya, Thailand. > > > The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will bring together > experts from different backgrounds and from around the Asian region who are > concerned about issues concerning ICTs, sustainable development, human > rights and Internet governance, to ask: > *what are the issues that our governments need to squarely address in the > process of the review? * > > > The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment on the > non-paper that will have been released by the co-facilitators of the review > process in late August (inputs into that paper can be made by all > stakeholders and are due on 31 July). The group will take stock of the > extent to which priorities for the Asian region have been reflected in the > non-paper, and will work together on formulating a joint comment on the > non-paper (comments on the non-paper will be due in mid-September, and > will be drawn on by the co-facilitators to formulate a zero-draft). The > group will also look forward to consider which further inputs could be made > or actions could be taken strategically to ensure that priorities from the > Asian region are fully taken onto board in the final WSIS+10 Review outcome > documents. If there are other processes the group believes this work > could usefully feed into, these might be taken into consideration as well. > > > *The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working meeting that is > geared towards producing a joint submission to the next input round on the > Review outcome document. *Participants will be drawn from all > non-government stakeholder groups, and will have a wide and rich variety of > backgrounds, both in terms of professional expertise and geographical > location. What unites all, however, is a shared commitment to a free and > open Internet and to the use of technology to benefit the development and > human rights of all in our region. > > > *We're very happy to let you know that remote participation will be > available. *For more information on remote participation and the event in > general, please see the event website . Or > follow us on Twitter @WSISAsia #wsis10. > > > We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let me know if > you have any comments or questions. > > > Warm regards, > > Anja > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iza at anr.org Wed Sep 9 23:01:08 2015 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:01:08 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review: Voices from the Asia-Pacific Region Message-ID: Hi, (Sorry for multi-posting), Some 38 people had a 3-day meeting in Pattaya on the WSIS+10 review and produced the following "Key Messages". Having seen no post [yet], I am tempted to share the link here as one of the participants of the meeting. http://www.wsis10.asia/ It was an interesting exercise, and most of the process of the discussions are documented here. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dPU7Vv4W6hcRtOopMxXn6H_2e3LUiN4ckLdVv3FPQoQ/edit By using Google Doc, we were making and sharing realtime notes during the meeting, was very productive to make it an inclusive meeting in my view. Many thanks to the organizers! izumi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From valeriab at apc.org Wed Sep 9 23:24:06 2015 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 22:24:06 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Taking place next week: Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available In-Reply-To: <55E6ACD0.70802@itforchange.net> References: <55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net> <55E6ACD0.70802@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <55F0F7D6.6070000@apc.org> Dear Parminder, I am sending a message on behalf of my colleague Chat Garcia Ramilo, who is not subscribed to these lists. Best, Valeria ---- APC has been engaged in the WSIS process since the 2003 phase, which helped shape the Civil Society Declaration to WSIS and has been actively participating in each phase of follow up on the WSIS outcomes as well as the Review. Unfortunately, the WSIS+10 Overall Review is less inclusive than the WSIS summits and many other global internet governance processes convened since. APC has therefore identified how we from civil society can get engaged and influence the process both formally and informally, including participation in regional meetings that open up opportunities for coordination and input among stakeholders in Latin America, Africa and Asia. In the absence of official publicly funded review meetings, APC welcomed the opportunity to collaborate and work with other stakeholders in Asia in covening a regional meeting. As Anja explained, the organisers put in funds, time and effort voluntarily. The organisers all identified participants from our organisations and networks who we thought can contribute to the discussions. APC drew from our organisational budget to fund our members and staff and from projects to fund partners where this is possible. In total we funded 7 participants with support from Sida, DGIS and EIDHR. From iza at anr.org Thu Sep 10 02:25:28 2015 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:25:28 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review: Voices from the Asia-Pacific Region In-Reply-To: <783726763.275907.1441864677672.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <783726763.275907.1441864677672.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thanks Imran, yes, making real-time discussion and document at the same time was a very challenging, but also rewarding experiment - everyone was able to participate in the discussion, could see the other groups work in progress during the break-out Working Group sessions in real time, etc, etc. Instead of chatting or tweeting, all are documented in a single file, or linked file, so that we became much more structured and logical, could stay more focused. Making a poll in the middle of sessions was also quite effective, putting photos were fun and added more color. Worth to continue this kind of experience. izumi 2015-09-10 14:57 GMT+09:00 Imran Ahmed Shah : > Thanks Izumi for sharing the discussion document of Interactive and > Interesting Sessions. > > Regards > > Imran > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Izumi AIZU > *To:* governance ; "< > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" > *Sent:* Thursday, 10 September 2015, 8:01 > *Subject:* [governance] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review: > Voices from the Asia-Pacific Region > > Hi, (Sorry for multi-posting), > > Some 38 people had a 3-day meeting in Pattaya on the WSIS+10 review and > produced the following "Key Messages". > > Having seen no post [yet], I am tempted to share the link here as one of > the participants of the meeting. > > http://www.wsis10.asia/ > > It was an interesting exercise, and most of the process of the discussions > are documented here. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dPU7Vv4W6hcRtOopMxXn6H_2e3LUiN4ckLdVv3FPQoQ/edit > > By using Google Doc, we were making and sharing realtime notes during the > meeting, was very productive to make it an inclusive meeting in my view. > > Many thanks to the organizers! > > izumi > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 10 02:45:39 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:15:39 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Taking place next week: Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available In-Reply-To: <55F0F7D6.6070000@apc.org> References: <55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net> <55E6ACD0.70802@itforchange.net> <55F0F7D6.6070000@apc.org> Message-ID: <55F12713.909@itforchange.net> Dear Valeria and Chat, Thanks for the below. Yours disclosures are exemplary. I hope others follow the example. I think that it is best to just declare full details - esp funding and decision making processes - of such meetings by the organisers. And I keep repeating, particularly bec this meeting was called Asia Pacific Consultation ... parminder On Thursday 10 September 2015 08:54 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > I am sending a message on behalf of my colleague Chat Garcia Ramilo, who > is not subscribed to these lists. > > Best, > > Valeria > ---- > > APC has been engaged in the WSIS process since the 2003 phase, which > helped shape the Civil Society Declaration to WSIS and has been actively > participating in each phase of follow up on the WSIS outcomes as well as > the Review. Unfortunately, the WSIS+10 Overall Review is less inclusive > than the WSIS summits and many other global internet governance > processes convened since. APC has therefore identified how we from civil > society can get engaged and influence the process both formally and > informally, including participation in regional meetings that open up > opportunities for coordination and input among stakeholders in Latin > America, Africa and Asia. > > In the absence of official publicly funded review meetings, APC welcomed > the opportunity to collaborate and work with other stakeholders in Asia > in covening a regional meeting. As Anja explained, the organisers put in > funds, time and effort voluntarily. The organisers all identified > participants from our organisations and networks who we thought can > contribute to the discussions. APC drew from our organisational budget > to fund our members and staff and from projects to fund partners where > this is possible. In total we funded 7 participants with support from > Sida, DGIS and EIDHR. > > >From the onset, the organisers were aware that we could only bring a > limited number of participants and do not claim to be representative of > all the diverse voices in the region. This was a sentiment that was > expressed and recognised during the meeting itself. However, we believe > that those who participated in the meeting and produced its outcome > document all have a stake in the region through our engagement in the > various issues under review. This meeting and its outcome document was > meant to contribute to the official review and we intend to make > submissions and participate in the process up to the UN GA High Level > meeting in December. > > For more information about APC's WSIS engagement see: > https://www.apc.org/en/news/looking-back-move-ahead-recap-wsis10-overall-revie > > Best, > > Chat > > On 02/09/15 3:01, parminder wrote: >> Hi Anja >> >> There were two levels of issues that I had raised. First (which I call >> as category 1) is simple, direct, objective and fully-self contained, >> public interest information about what is supposed to be a public >> interest activity. I have covered this aspect in the email I sent just now. >> >> The second (category 2) is connected, but a slightly lower level issue >> because it involves judgements, and judgements about judgements, about >> who was invited, who was funded, who was informed in time enough to >> consider participating, and so on....( In fact, this part is also >> greatly helped by a full declaration of the decision process, the group >> involved in making the judgements, and so on, which basic info is part >> of category 1 above.) >> >> I do not want to mix issues of category 1 and 2, so that the clarity of >> category 1 issues, and the basic and objective imperatives involved, may >> not get diluted. So please provide meseparatelythe fully objective >> information under category 1 sought in my earlier email . >> >> Meanwhile, this email will deal with some admittedly judgemental issues >> that are involved, which while being not fully objective are still a >> worthy subject of public debate. Please see inline.... >> >> >> On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> Hi Parminder, >>> >>> I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but as the person who >>> first came up with this idea and also the one to send the message to >>> which you responded, I am happy to provide some answers. >>> >>> Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do here. As we all know, >>> the modalities explicitly made the Review a government-led process. >>> Also, details on the way in which the informal consultations with >>> other stakeholders would be facilitated remained extremely scanty even >>> eight months before the review was supposed to take place. Even when >>> the Review process was formally announced, it wasn't clear to what >>> extent inputs from stakeholders other than governments would be taken >>> into account. This meeting is an attempt to be proactive in that >>> situation, trying to amplify voices from our region to make sure that >>> concerns from this region actually find resonance in New York - >>> something that, seeing how far removed we are from there, isn't >>> guaranteed at all. >> Sure... I note the term /'amplify voices/' and the neutrality of the >> platform which is thus suggested.... Hope you note it too, and your >> responses are informed with this fact . (The conference website >> carries this blurb "Amplifying Asian >> Voices in the WSIS + 10 Process" - which raises the important public >> interest question about who determines and filters what are 'Asian Voices') >> >>> The organisations that are co-organising this meeting are >>> organisations that all got enthused by this prospect, and were willing >>> to put part of their organisational budgets, of their staff's time and >>> minds, or of all of these up to make this event happen. >> Who funded what - especially in terms of actual money.... Lets not >> generalise clear and objective issues and questions. What you refuse to >> answer, you should just say so. >> >>> No funding was secured specifically for this meeting (though I tried). >>> What this meant is that the funding pool was limited, and difficult >>> decisions indeed did have to be made. >> Who made the decisions, what was the process... This being after all an >> "Asia Regional Consultation" whereby the outputs of it will also carry >> that label. >> >>> What we aimed for was to have a balanced representation across Asia's >>> sub-regions as well as a group that could address a mix of issues from >>> a range of perspectives. >> 'Balanced representation'.... and 'mix of issues from a range of >> perspectives' :) . You must be joking.... One cant just write anything, >> just because it sounds good and is of a general nature.... Can you show >> how is it balanced and admits a range of perspective, about which more >> below... >> >> >>> A direct engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past two >>> years was definitely seen as a plus, but not a must. >> Sure. Then maybe engagement with WSIS for 12 years would be a big plus >> plus plus ... but it did not seem to count here among a 'range of >> perspectives' and 'balanced views'..... You need to justify with facts >> all the good and general things you are writing here if we are to have a >> meaningful dialogue and not just confuse people. >> >>> As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are indeed people >>> who would be able to offer valuable inputs to the meeting but who we >>> were not able to offer funding. >> Just wanted to understand the 'process'.. Who was actually making the >> decisions. >> >>> Luckily, some of those are able to self-fund their attendance. >> But then they at least need to know about the event, which I first heard >> about exactly 10 days before the meeting from your email below -- this >> even when we were in conversation over another issue, in fact a meeting >> my organisation is organising in Delhi on the 5th of Sept to which we >> invited you, but you said you cannot come, even at that stage not >> revealing why you could not - which I now gather was bec you had this >> Asia Consultation meeting on the 5th. Anja, the meeting plans and dates >> were clearly kept under wraps till the very last minute - so I do not >> understand this 'self funding' business either.... Other than it being >> another link in the long chain of general, good sounding, statements, >> which are not very well founded on facts, and thus do not contribute to >> a serious and useful discussion. Maybe some people could have self >> funded (although I could not have) if they knew about this meeting... >> But the problem is that a so called 'Asia Regional Consultation' of a UN >> process is being held even without sufficient notice to people (all of >> 10 days)... >> >> >>> In addition, we tried to alleviate the restrictions imposed by the >>> limited funding by deciding to provide remote participation, so as to >>> allow all those interested in participating to do so. The full >>> modalities of how this will work is something that we are still >>> working out: as this is intended to be a working meeting, ensuring >>> that remote participation is substantive is not a given. We are doing >>> our very best to try and pull off successfully what I think is a first >>> in our region for a meeting of this kind. >> I am not sure what you mean by first of this kind.... The original WSIS >> process had publicly funded regional review meetings, in both its phases... >> >>> Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition has been invited is >>> of course not correct. One organisation was on our shortlist from day >>> one. Another is attending on its own force, and we are very happy that >>> they, as well as others, have been able to draw on their own resources >>> to attend this event and contribute to its success. >> But perhaps you could have put the info on the Just Net Coalition elist, >> so that all would know, also also engaged with other JNC members >> especially those who were most active in WSIS + 10 engagement including >> developing JNC's statement towards it. That reminds me - the resource >> page of your proposed 'Consultation', which carry a number of >> contributions to the WSIS + 10 process of NGOs and even of non-NGOs, >> chose to specifically censor the contribution of Just Net Coalition. >> This says a lot to your commitment to 'balanced views' and 'range of >> perspectives'. >> >> (Well, very interestingly, I now see that JNC's contribution has been >> added now after I wrote the email yesterday, but /it wasnt there till >> yesterday/, and I did take the enclosed print out which shows that it >> wasnt . Anja, another specific question, is it not true that the JNC >> contribution was not there on your list of contributions page till >> yesterday? ) >>> On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to hear that they are >>> now intending to work on issues related to science and technology as well, >> They have worked in this area for quite some time.. >> >>> and that they are even engaging with the Internet Social Forum >>> initiative on this. Though I am on an email list that is dedicated to >>> discussing the Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to >>> locate that information there. Do please feel free to pass on the >>> message about this event to them though. If any representative of >>> APRCEM would be interested in attending, either in person or remotely, >>> they are very welcome to do so, as are you. >> Dont you think this is very late for meeting in 3 days! But again, the >> real issues here are structural ones around civil society processes and >> transparency/ accountability, and not about individuals... >> >>> Hope this clarifies. >> My apologies, but it doesnt. >> >> Best, parminder >>> Regards, >>> Anja >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder >> > wrote: >>> >>> Dear organisers of the *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10 >>> Review, >>> >>> *With your permission I have some questions to ask you. I know >>> this is a treacherous territory, given an extra ordinary (and >>> completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being asked questions by >>> some groups, but my apologies, I cannot but ask them in pursuance >>> of my public interest work, however distasteful it may be even for >>> me to get into this thing.... >>> >>> This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian >>> Regional' consultation, on what is a global governance process, >>> and so some questions arise in my mind: >>> >>> (1) who is funding this 'consultation' >>> >>> (2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations >>> sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my >>> view, would be a consultation) >>> >>> (3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and >>> by whom, and who decided it.. >>> >>> Thanks for answering these public interest questions... >>> >>> I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge that >>> no member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT for >>> Change is among very few groups in Asia Pacific which has been >>> engaged with the WSIS process from the start, and very thoroughly >>> engaged. Further, there is in fact an Asia Pacific Regional CSO >>> Engagement Mechanism , which >>> describes itself as >>> >>> "APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger >>> cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of all >>> sub-regions of Asia Pacific are heard in intergovernmental >>> processes in regional and global level. The platform is >>> initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and has been set up >>> under the auspices of UN-ESCAP and seeks to engage with UN >>> agencies and Member States on the Post-2015 as well as other >>> development related issues/processes. " >>> >>> In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology Constituency >>> which works as an active network (of which IT for Change is a >>> member) which has begun to work closely with the Just Net >>> Coalition (many JNC members also being its members) and the >>> Internet Social Forum initiatives, which shows its interest in >>> Internet issues... As far as I know no member of this network, or >>> the network as a whole, has been involved in this so-called "Asia >>> Regional Consultation' which being on a UN process this group >>> would be natural constituency... All of which makes me wonder, and >>> so my questions.. >>> >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the >>>> Association for Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global Partners >>>> Digital and ICT Watch are together organising an *Asian Regional >>>> Consultation on the WIS+10 Review* from 3 to 5 September in >>>> Pattaya, Thailand. >>>> >>>> >>>> The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will bring >>>> together experts from different backgrounds and from around the >>>> Asian region who are concerned about issues concerning ICTs, >>>> sustainable development, human rights and Internet governance, to >>>> ask: *what are the issues that our governments need to squarely >>>> address in the process of the review? >>>> * >>>> >>>> >>>> The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment on >>>> the non-paper that will have been released by the co-facilitators >>>> of the review process in late August (inputs into that paper can >>>> be made by all stakeholders and are due on 31 July).The group >>>> will take stock of the extent to which priorities for the Asian >>>> region have been reflected in the non-paper, and will work >>>> together on formulating a joint comment on the non-paper >>>> (comments on the non-paper will be due in mid-September, and will >>>> be drawn on by the co-facilitators to formulate a zero-draft). >>>> The group will also look forward to consider which further inputs >>>> could be made or actions could be taken strategically to ensure >>>> that priorities from the Asian region are fully taken onto board >>>> in the final WSIS+10 Review outcome documents. If there are other >>>> processes the group believes this work could usefully feed into, >>>> these might be taken into consideration as well. >>>> >>>> >>>> *The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working meeting >>>> that is geared towards producing a joint submission to the next >>>> input round on the Review outcome document. *Participants will be >>>> drawn from all non-government stakeholder groups, and will have a >>>> wide and rich variety of backgrounds, both in terms of >>>> professional expertise and geographical location. What unites >>>> all, however, is a shared commitment to a free and open Internet >>>> and to the use of technology to benefit the development and human >>>> rights of all in our region. >>>> >>>> >>>> *We're very happy to let you know that remote participation will >>>> be available. *For more information on remote participation and >>>> the event in general, please see the event website >>>> . Or follow us on Twitter @WSISAsia #wsis10. >>>> >>>> >>>> We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let me >>>> know if you have any comments or questions. >>>> >>>> >>>> Warm regards, >>>> >>>> Anja >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>> >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> The Internet Democracy Project >>> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gangesh.varma at nludelhi.ac.in Thu Sep 10 03:09:20 2015 From: gangesh.varma at nludelhi.ac.in (Gangesh S. Varma Varma) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:39:20 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] CCG-NLU Delhi's Comments on the ICG IANA Transition Proposal Message-ID: Dear All, Please find attached Comments from the Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University Delhi on the IANA Transition Proposal. We have highlighted few of the gaps in the proposal particularly with reference to root zone management, absence of articulating the 'global public interest' mandate in the new PTI context and the lack of clarity on contracting between the ICANN, PTI and Communities. We would be grateful for your comments/feedback/suggestions. Thanks and regards Gangesh -- Gangesh Sreekumar Varma Senior Fellow Centre for Communication Governance National Law University Delhi Dwaraka Sector 14 New Delhi Mobile: +91 8447159123 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: (CCG- NLUD) Comments to ICG Proposal.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 234714 bytes Desc: not available URL: From iza at anr.org Thu Sep 10 04:12:26 2015 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:12:26 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review: Voices from the Asia-Pacific Region In-Reply-To: References: <783726763.275907.1441864677672.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Yes, the outcome doc is already posited here, as my first message showed you. http://www.wsis10.asia/ izumi 2015-09-10 15:36 GMT+09:00 Arun Mohan Sukumar : > Izumi, thanks for posting this - has the draft outcome doc from the > consultation been published? I may have missed it, apologies if it's > already been put out. > > Best, > Arun > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iza at anr.org Thu Sep 10 04:22:30 2015 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:22:30 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review: Voices from the Asia-Pacific Region In-Reply-To: <132276918.280790.1441868382047.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <132276918.280790.1441868382047.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi, 2015-09-10 15:59 GMT+09:00 Imran Ahmed Shah : > Yes, I was also thinking that how it would be difficult for either making > real-time discussion [in which one have to be remain an active listener to > others speaker and respond to what other have spoke] and documenting the > notes at same time. I thing everyone was noting the abstract of his/er own > discussion once have spoken. Notes taking would also have been interactive > and could be further collaborative if the group members also take part as a > reviewer and editor as third person, so if person A has missed some > sentences, person C or D could complete or correct it. > ​Yes, sometimes one first takes the floor and make comments, other one takes short notes, as much as s/he could, then after finishing the comments, she or he gets back to the note just taken and corrects and adds what was said, or intended to say. This makes more guarantee for accuracy, instead of reading the real-time scripts on the screen taken by some stenographers, finding some errors but have no means to correct, at least on the fly. ​ > > By the way how the final message (Final-Pattaya-Key-Messages-2015.pdf) was > developed? is it developed in the same way live contribution and > interaction or only few people finalized the summary document? > ​It is also documented in the later half of our Collective Notes, but it is not easy to follow with the current (lack of) editorial works. We should perhaps have Outline or Executive Summary and Table of Contents linked to corresponding sections. We were broken into 6 working groups with each subject, and one rep from each group was selected to form an drafting group for the final message​, they worked late into night, presented the draft next morning, round of sessions on each para and sentences, drafting group met again, finalized the text, one more round of discussion, online approval. That was the rough process. izumi > > Thanks and Regards > > Imran > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Izumi AIZU > *To:* Imran Ahmed Shah > *Cc:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; "< > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" > *Sent:* Thursday, 10 September 2015, 11:25 > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review: > Voices from the Asia-Pacific Region > > Thanks Imran, > > yes, making real-time discussion and document at the same time was a very > challenging, but also rewarding experiment - everyone was able to > participate in the discussion, could see the other groups work in progress > during the break-out Working Group sessions in real time, etc, etc. > > Instead of chatting or tweeting, all are documented in a single file, or > linked file, so that we became much more structured and logical, could stay > more focused. > > Making a poll in the middle of sessions was also quite effective, putting > photos were fun and added more color. > > Worth to continue this kind of experience. > > izumi > > 2015-09-10 14:57 GMT+09:00 Imran Ahmed Shah : > > > Thanks Izumi for sharing the discussion document of Interactive and > Interesting Sessions. > > Regards > > Imran > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Izumi AIZU > *To:* governance ; "< > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" > *Sent:* Thursday, 10 September 2015, 8:01 > *Subject:* [governance] Pattaya Key Messages on the WSIS+10 Review: > Voices from the Asia-Pacific Region > > Hi, (Sorry for multi-posting), > > Some 38 people had a 3-day meeting in Pattaya on the WSIS+10 review and > produced the following "Key Messages". > > Having seen no post [yet], I am tempted to share the link here as one of > the participants of the meeting. > > http://www.wsis10.asia/ > > It was an interesting exercise, and most of the process of the discussions > are documented here. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dPU7Vv4W6hcRtOopMxXn6H_2e3LUiN4ckLdVv3FPQoQ/edit > > By using Google Doc, we were making and sharing realtime notes during the > meeting, was very productive to make it an inclusive meeting in my view. > > Many thanks to the organizers! > > izumi > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 10 07:35:33 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:05:33 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Taking place next week: Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available In-Reply-To: References: <55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net> <55E6ACD0.70802@itforchange.net> <55EFDA0F.4010009@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <55F16B05.5020403@itforchange.net> On Thursday 10 September 2015 03:36 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: > Hi Parminder. > > By response, I meant a big-picture response as opposed to replies to > the specific questions, which I am not able to answer them as I was > not involved in the decisions. > > My big picture response is based on my previous experience with you re > the first few APrIGFs. > > I note that APC has responded since your email and you have called it > exemplary. I take it that you are satisfied. Dear Peng Hwa, my degree of satisfaction or otherwise with regard to my transparency questions is clearly indicated in my email that you refer to... Best, parmidner > > Regards, > Peng Hwa > > From: Parminder Singh > > Date: Wednesday, 9 September 2015 3:04 pm > To: Ang Peng Hwa >, > "governance at lists.igcaucus.org " > >, BestBitsList > >, > Anja Kovacs > > Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian > Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation > available > > On Monday 07 September 2015 09:21 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: >> Hi Parminder. >> >> I wanted to understand the picture better before writing a response. >> As I have gone and returned from the Consultation at Pattaya, I feel >> more able to respond. > > Dear Peng Hwa, > > I read your email several times, because you call it a response to my > email, but I still could not see the response. As you will see from > the trailing emails, I deliberately sent two different emails raising > two sets of issues - one set more important, primary, and > substantively clear and precise, and the other kind of subsidiary, > although also quite important. I requested that the first set be > addressed separately so that there is no loss of focus from the > primary set of the most important and, to repeat, precise and clear > issues of transparency and accountability. I repeat them; > > (1) who is funding this 'consultation' > > (2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations > sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my > view, would be a consultation) > > (3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and by > whom, and who decided it.. > > (Let me also stress the issue of it being a 'consultation' and an > 'Asia Pacific consultation' at that which greatly increases the > salience of the above points.) > > The only response I can understand to this request is either to agree > that these questions of transparency and accountability are important, > and add your voice to them, or disagree and hold them to be not > important or necessary. I really am not able to see from your email > which of the two possible responses are you indicating. I will request > you to clarify this . Thanks. > >> Fwiw, the outcome document is available >> at http://wsis10.asia/index.php/outcomes. > > Yes, I saw it. Notably, it says " Accountability and transparency must > also be applied to other stakeholder groups, including but not limited > to the private sector..." and "Transparent and accountable procedural > rules that empower marginalised voices and those who lack technical > expertise need to be developed." > > !!?? > > I want to be very respectful to those who evolved this document, but > seriously, I am fully confounded.... Can one get away by saying and > claiming anything, while publicly acting in quite the opposite manner > (this is with regard to the organisers), that too in the civil society > space that is supposed to be the morality holder of the society. Maybe > you have some comments on this. > > Best regards > parminder > >> >> Your questions remind me of a similar set of criteria you asked of me >> re the APrIGF when we held the meeting first in HK and then >> Singapore. So it’s with that sense of deja vu that I’m writing this >> email. >> >> I will not go into the details of your questions. (One long reply can >> only beget another.) Instead, I will focus on what I consider to be >> the larger issues. >> >> 1. I think that such bottom-up initiatives should be encouraged. >> It is a lot of work to get going a meeting that attempts to represent >> AP views. In this consultation, there were forces working against it >> happening, because of fears that the group might raise sensitive >> issues. (I hope it did.) You probably mean well but some cheerleading >> with some gentle nudges (instead of harrumphs) should the group stray >> would be more encouraging to current and future initiatives. >> >> 2. There is a tension between legitimacy and efficacy. >> They are not in total contradiction because a non-legitimate outcome >> will likely not be efficacious. But I hope you can see how trying to >> cross all the “T"s and dotting the “I"s may mean not moving forward >> in such situations. For example Edmon and I were so enthused about >> getting the APrIGF going so that there would be some form of feedback >> from Asia-Pac to the IGF in 2010 that it took us two years for the >> APrIGF MSG (a culturally appropriate term) to have me elected as >> Chair. Before that, as Edmon was leading the event in HK, he chaired >> the meetings that year; and when I did Singapore, I chaired the >> meetings for that year. There was sufficient buy-in from the AP >> organisations in our nascent stage that the APrIGF was able to move >> forward. >> >> 3. So how does one recognise legitimacy? >> I don’t see one size fitting all. It is a mix of process and outcome, >> of being open and inclusive and being transparent in processes and >> outcomes. But also in achieving at least a reasonable outcome. The >> ultimate test is acceptance by the Internet community. In the present >> case, the acceptance of the Pattaya key messages. (Google obviously >> has questions about legitimacy; it asks, "Did you mean: pattaya >> massages?”) >> >> 4. In the interest of transparency, I declare that the organisers >> paid for my budget airline ticket from Singapore to Bangkok, the >> transfers to and from Bangkok airport and the stay in Pattaya. The >> transfers in Singapore, the tips to the drivers and tips to the staff >> who serviced my hotel room were paid by me. >> >> Regards, >> Peng Hwa >> >> From: > > on behalf of >> Parminder Singh > > >> Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> " >> > >, Parminder Singh >> > >> Date: Wednesday, 2 September 2015 3:01 pm >> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> " >> > >, BestBitsList >> >, >> Anja Kovacs > > >> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian >> Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation >> available >> >> Hi Anja >> >> There were two levels of issues that I had raised. First (which I >> call as category 1) is simple, direct, objective and fully-self >> contained, public interest information about what is supposed to be a >> public interest activity. I have covered this aspect in the email I >> sent just now. >> >> The second (category 2) is connected, but a slightly lower level >> issue because it involves judgements, and judgements about >> judgements, about who was invited, who was funded, who was informed >> in time enough to consider participating, and so on....( In fact, >> this part is also greatly helped by a full declaration of the >> decision process, the group involved in making the judgements, and so >> on, which basic info is part of category 1 above.) >> >> I do not want to mix issues of category 1 and 2, so that the clarity >> of category 1 issues, and the basic and objective imperatives >> involved, may not get diluted. So please provide meseparatelythe >> fully objective information under category 1 sought in my earlier >> email . >> >> Meanwhile, this email will deal with some admittedly judgemental >> issues that are involved, which while being not fully objective are >> still a worthy subject of public debate. Please see inline.... >> >> >> On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> Hi Parminder, >>> >>> I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but as the person >>> who first came up with this idea and also the one to send the >>> message to which you responded, I am happy to provide some answers. >>> >>> Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do here. As we all >>> know, the modalities explicitly made the Review a government-led >>> process. Also, details on the way in which the informal >>> consultations with other stakeholders would be facilitated remained >>> extremely scanty even eight months before the review was supposed to >>> take place. Even when the Review process was formally announced, it >>> wasn't clear to what extent inputs from stakeholders other than >>> governments would be taken into account. This meeting is an attempt >>> to be proactive in that situation, trying to amplify voices from our >>> region to make sure that concerns from this region actually find >>> resonance in New York - something that, seeing how far removed we >>> are from there, isn't guaranteed at all. >> >> Sure... I note the term /'amplify voices/' and the neutrality of the >> platform which is thus suggested.... Hope you note it too, and your >> responses are informed with this fact . (The conference website >> carries this blurb "Amplifying >> Asian Voices in the WSIS + 10 Process" - which raises the important >> public interest question about who determines and filters what are >> 'Asian Voices') >> >>> >>> The organisations that are co-organising this meeting are >>> organisations that all got enthused by this prospect, and were >>> willing to put part of their organisational budgets, of their >>> staff's time and minds, or of all of these up to make this event happen. >> >> Who funded what - especially in terms of actual money.... Lets not >> generalise clear and objective issues and questions. What you refuse >> to answer, you should just say so. >> >>> No funding was secured specifically for this meeting (though I >>> tried). What this meant is that the funding pool was limited, and >>> difficult decisions indeed did have to be made. >> >> Who made the decisions, what was the process... This being after all >> an "Asia Regional Consultation" whereby the outputs of it will also >> carry that label. >> >>> What we aimed for was to have a balanced representation across >>> Asia's sub-regions as well as a group that could address a mix of >>> issues from a range of perspectives. >> >> 'Balanced representation'.... and 'mix of issues from a range of >> perspectives' :) . You must be joking.... One cant just write >> anything, just because it sounds good and is of a general nature.... >> Can you show how is it balanced and admits a range of perspective, >> about which more below... >> >> >>> A direct engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past >>> two years was definitely seen as a plus, but not a must. >> >> Sure. Then maybe engagement with WSIS for 12 years would be a big >> plus plus plus ... but it did not seem to count here among a 'range >> of perspectives' and 'balanced views'..... You need to justify with >> facts all the good and general things you are writing here if we are >> to have a meaningful dialogue and not just confuse people. >> >>> >>> As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are indeed people >>> who would be able to offer valuable inputs to the meeting but who we >>> were not able to offer funding. >> >> Just wanted to understand the 'process'.. Who was actually making the >> decisions. >> >>> Luckily, some of those are able to self-fund their attendance. >> >> But then they at least need to know about the event, which I first >> heard about exactly 10 days before the meeting from your email below >> -- this even when we were in conversation over another issue, in fact >> a meeting my organisation is organising in Delhi on the 5th of Sept >> to which we invited you, but you said you cannot come, even at that >> stage not revealing why you could not - which I now gather was bec >> you had this Asia Consultation meeting on the 5th. Anja, the meeting >> plans and dates were clearly kept under wraps till the very last >> minute - so I do not understand this 'self funding' business >> either.... Other than it being another link in the long chain of >> general, good sounding, statements, which are not very well founded >> on facts, and thus do not contribute to a serious and useful >> discussion. Maybe some people could have self funded (although I >> could not have) if they knew about this meeting... But the problem >> is that a so called 'Asia Regional Consultation' of a UN process is >> being held even without sufficient notice to people (all of 10 days)... >> >> >>> In addition, we tried to alleviate the restrictions imposed by the >>> limited funding by deciding to provide remote participation, so as >>> to allow all those interested in participating to do so. The full >>> modalities of how this will work is something that we are still >>> working out: as this is intended to be a working meeting, ensuring >>> that remote participation is substantive is not a given. We are >>> doing our very best to try and pull off successfully what I think is >>> a first in our region for a meeting of this kind. >> >> I am not sure what you mean by first of this kind.... The original >> WSIS process had publicly funded regional review meetings, in both >> its phases... >> >>> >>> Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition has been invited >>> is of course not correct. One organisation was on our shortlist from >>> day one. Another is attending on its own force, and we are very >>> happy that they, as well as others, have been able to draw on their >>> own resources to attend this event and contribute to its success. >> >> But perhaps you could have put the info on the Just Net Coalition >> elist, so that all would know, also also engaged with other JNC >> members especially those who were most active in WSIS + 10 engagement >> including developing JNC's statement towards it. That reminds me - >> the resource page of your proposed 'Consultation', which carry a >> number of contributions to the WSIS + 10 process of NGOs and even of >> non-NGOs, chose to specifically censor the contribution of Just Net >> Coalition. This says a lot to your commitment to 'balanced views' and >> 'range of perspectives'. >> >> (Well, very interestingly, I now see that JNC's contribution has been >> added now after I wrote the email yesterday, but /it wasnt there till >> yesterday/, and I did take the enclosed print out which shows that it >> wasnt . Anja, another specific question, is it not true that the JNC >> contribution was not there on your list of contributions page till >> yesterday? ) >>> >>> On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to hear that they are >>> now intending to work on issues related to science and technology as >>> well, >> >> They have worked in this area for quite some time.. >> >>> and that they are even engaging with the Internet Social Forum >>> initiative on this. Though I am on an email list that is dedicated >>> to discussing the Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to >>> locate that information there. Do please feel free to pass on the >>> message about this event to them though. If any representative of >>> APRCEM would be interested in attending, either in person or >>> remotely, they are very welcome to do so, as are you. >> >> Dont you think this is very late for meeting in 3 days! But again, >> the real issues here are structural ones around civil society >> processes and transparency/ accountability, and not about individuals... >> >>> >>> Hope this clarifies. >> >> My apologies, but it doesnt. >> >> Best, parminder >>> >>> Regards, >>> Anja >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder >> > wrote: >>> >>> Dear organisers of the *Asian Regional Consultation on the >>> WIS+10 Review, >>> >>> *With your permission I have some questions to ask you. I know >>> this is a treacherous territory, given an extra ordinary (and >>> completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being asked questions >>> by some groups, but my apologies, I cannot but ask them in >>> pursuance of my public interest work, however distasteful it may >>> be even for me to get into this thing.... >>> >>> This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian >>> Regional' consultation, on what is a global governance process, >>> and so some questions arise in my mind: >>> >>> (1) who is funding this 'consultation' >>> >>> (2) on what criteria participants were determined, and >>> invitations sent, and by whom - were all concerned people >>> invited (that, in my view, would be a consultation) >>> >>> (3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and >>> by whom, and who decided it.. >>> >>> Thanks for answering these public interest questions... >>> >>> I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge >>> that no member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT >>> for Change is among very few groups in Asia Pacific which has >>> been engaged with the WSIS process from the start, and very >>> thoroughly engaged. Further, there is in fact an Asia Pacific >>> Regional CSO Engagement Mechanism >>> , which describes itself as >>> >>> "APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger >>> cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of >>> all sub-regions of Asia Pacific are heard in >>> intergovernmental processes in regional and global level. >>> The platform is initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and >>> has been set up under the auspices of UN-ESCAP and seeks to >>> engage with UN agencies and Member States on the Post-2015 >>> as well as other development related issues/processes. " >>> >>> In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology >>> Constituency which works as an active network (of which IT for >>> Change is a member) which has begun to work closely with the >>> Just Net Coalition (many JNC members also being its members) and >>> the Internet Social Forum initiatives, which shows its interest >>> in Internet issues... As far as I know no member of this >>> network, or the network as a whole, has been involved in this >>> so-called "Asia Regional Consultation' which being on a UN >>> process this group would be natural constituency... All of which >>> makes me wonder, and so my questions.. >>> >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the >>>> Association for Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global >>>> Partners Digital and ICT Watch are together organising an >>>> *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10 Review* from 3 to 5 >>>> September in Pattaya, Thailand. >>>> >>>> >>>> The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will >>>> bring together experts from different backgrounds and from >>>> around the Asian region who are concerned about issues >>>> concerning ICTs, sustainable development, human rights and >>>> Internet governance, to ask: *what are the issues that our >>>> governments need to squarely address in the process of the review? >>>> * >>>> >>>> >>>> The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment >>>> on the non-paper that will have been released by the >>>> co-facilitators of the review process in late August (inputs >>>> into that paper can be made by all stakeholders and are due on >>>> 31 July).The group will take stock of the extent to which >>>> priorities for the Asian region have been reflected in the >>>> non-paper, and will work together on formulating a joint >>>> comment on the non-paper (comments on the non-paper will be due >>>> in mid-September, and will be drawn on by the co-facilitators >>>> to formulate a zero-draft). The group will also look forward to >>>> consider which further inputs could be made or actions could be >>>> taken strategically to ensure that priorities from the Asian >>>> region are fully taken onto board in the final WSIS+10 Review >>>> outcome documents. If there are other processes the group >>>> believes this work could usefully feed into, these might be >>>> taken into consideration as well. >>>> >>>> >>>> *The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working >>>> meeting that is geared towards producing a joint submission to >>>> the next input round on the Review outcome document. >>>> *Participants will be drawn from all non-government stakeholder >>>> groups, and will have a wide and rich variety of backgrounds, >>>> both in terms of professional expertise and geographical >>>> location. What unites all, however, is a shared commitment to a >>>> free and open Internet and to the use of technology to benefit >>>> the development and human rights of all in our region. >>>> >>>> >>>> *We're very happy to let you know that remote participation >>>> will be available. *For more information on remote >>>> participation and the event in general, please see the event >>>> website . Or follow us on Twitter >>>> @WSISAsia #wsis10. >>>> >>>> >>>> We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let >>>> me know if you have any comments or questions. >>>> >>>> >>>> Warm regards, >>>> >>>> Anja >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>> >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> The Internet Democracy Project >>> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) >> named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the >> intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, >> or disclose its contents. >> Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Thu Sep 10 11:12:26 2015 From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:12:26 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] CCG-NLU Delhi's Comments on the ICG IANA Transition Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F19DDA.3090202@riseup.net> Dear Gangesh, i tried to read the text completely. But it was not possible. I do not understand, why you does not develop your own ideas for a real Internet? Why are you oriented as slaves to the rulers? If we want to create a real Internet, then we do not need these organizations. They are all unnecessary. And that is why the attempt to deal with them is unnecessary, too. many greetings, willi Recife, Brasil Am 10/09/2015 um 04:09 schrieb Gangesh S. Varma Varma: > Dear All, > > Please find attached Comments from the Centre for Communication Governance, > National Law University Delhi on the IANA Transition Proposal. We have > highlighted few of the gaps in the proposal particularly with reference to > root zone management, absence of articulating the 'global public interest' > mandate in the new PTI context and the lack of clarity on contracting > between the ICANN, PTI and Communities. > > We would be grateful for your comments/feedback/suggestions. > > Thanks and regards > > Gangesh From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Thu Sep 10 23:13:48 2015 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:13:48 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Taking place next week: Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available In-Reply-To: <55F12713.909@itforchange.net> References: <55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net> <55E6ACD0.70802@itforchange.net> <55F0F7D6.6070000@apc.org> <55F12713.909@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <55F246EC.1000708@bytesforall.pk> Dear Parminder, We understand the urgency of your emails but really sorry that we could not respond earlier as were first busy with the logistics of the consultation and then in transit for another duty travel. As you very well know that in our part of the world, the kind of political environment we work in, we have to be very transparent and accountable in our income and expenditure and all kinds of people ask similar questions so very happy to furnish this information to you too. Bytes for All and ICT Watch had a joint pot of funds from our ongoing Internet Freedom Program. Both the organizations agreed to invest in the consultation so drew on this funding and there were 19 people funded by these funds. Some of them were fully funded, those who could partially contribute we provided either travel or accommodation, some were supported only for the conference package. No funds were raised specifically for this consultation though. In addition, Bytes for All and its partners also used some travel funds from another regional project called APC-IMPACT with project partners in India, Pakistan and Malaysia. We still needed more money to make this important consultation happen so Bytes for All contributed a bit more money from our organizational funds, which we keep for different emergency activities. Best wishes and regards Shahzad On 9/10/15 11:45 AM, parminder wrote: > Dear Valeria and Chat, > > Thanks for the below. Yours disclosures are exemplary. I hope others > follow the example. > > I think that it is best to just declare full details - esp funding and > decision making processes - of such meetings by the organisers. And I > keep repeating, particularly bec this meeting was called Asia Pacific > Consultation ... > > parminder > > On Thursday 10 September 2015 08:54 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: >> Dear Parminder, >> >> I am sending a message on behalf of my colleague Chat Garcia Ramilo, who >> is not subscribed to these lists. >> >> Best, >> >> Valeria >> ---- >> >> APC has been engaged in the WSIS process since the 2003 phase, which >> helped shape the Civil Society Declaration to WSIS and has been actively >> participating in each phase of follow up on the WSIS outcomes as well as >> the Review. Unfortunately, the WSIS+10 Overall Review is less inclusive >> than the WSIS summits and many other global internet governance >> processes convened since. APC has therefore identified how we from civil >> society can get engaged and influence the process both formally and >> informally, including participation in regional meetings that open up >> opportunities for coordination and input among stakeholders in Latin >> America, Africa and Asia. >> >> In the absence of official publicly funded review meetings, APC welcomed >> the opportunity to collaborate and work with other stakeholders in Asia >> in covening a regional meeting. As Anja explained, the organisers put in >> funds, time and effort voluntarily. The organisers all identified >> participants from our organisations and networks who we thought can >> contribute to the discussions. APC drew from our organisational budget >> to fund our members and staff and from projects to fund partners where >> this is possible. In total we funded 7 participants with support from >> Sida, DGIS and EIDHR. >> >> >From the onset, the organisers were aware that we could only bring a >> limited number of participants and do not claim to be representative of >> all the diverse voices in the region. This was a sentiment that was >> expressed and recognised during the meeting itself. However, we believe >> that those who participated in the meeting and produced its outcome >> document all have a stake in the region through our engagement in the >> various issues under review. This meeting and its outcome document was >> meant to contribute to the official review and we intend to make >> submissions and participate in the process up to the UN GA High Level >> meeting in December. >> >> For more information about APC's WSIS engagement see: >> https://www.apc.org/en/news/looking-back-move-ahead-recap-wsis10-overall-revie >> >> Best, >> >> Chat >> >> On 02/09/15 3:01, parminder wrote: >>> Hi Anja >>> >>> There were two levels of issues that I had raised. First (which I call >>> as category 1) is simple, direct, objective and fully-self contained, >>> public interest information about what is supposed to be a public >>> interest activity. I have covered this aspect in the email I sent just now. >>> >>> The second (category 2) is connected, but a slightly lower level issue >>> because it involves judgements, and judgements about judgements, about >>> who was invited, who was funded, who was informed in time enough to >>> consider participating, and so on....( In fact, this part is also >>> greatly helped by a full declaration of the decision process, the group >>> involved in making the judgements, and so on, which basic info is part >>> of category 1 above.) >>> >>> I do not want to mix issues of category 1 and 2, so that the clarity of >>> category 1 issues, and the basic and objective imperatives involved, may >>> not get diluted. So please provide meseparatelythe fully objective >>> information under category 1 sought in my earlier email . >>> >>> Meanwhile, this email will deal with some admittedly judgemental issues >>> that are involved, which while being not fully objective are still a >>> worthy subject of public debate. Please see inline.... >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>> Hi Parminder, >>>> >>>> I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but as the person who >>>> first came up with this idea and also the one to send the message to >>>> which you responded, I am happy to provide some answers. >>>> >>>> Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do here. As we all know, >>>> the modalities explicitly made the Review a government-led process. >>>> Also, details on the way in which the informal consultations with >>>> other stakeholders would be facilitated remained extremely scanty even >>>> eight months before the review was supposed to take place. Even when >>>> the Review process was formally announced, it wasn't clear to what >>>> extent inputs from stakeholders other than governments would be taken >>>> into account. This meeting is an attempt to be proactive in that >>>> situation, trying to amplify voices from our region to make sure that >>>> concerns from this region actually find resonance in New York - >>>> something that, seeing how far removed we are from there, isn't >>>> guaranteed at all. >>> Sure... I note the term /'amplify voices/' and the neutrality of the >>> platform which is thus suggested.... Hope you note it too, and your >>> responses are informed with this fact . (The conference website >>> carries this blurb "Amplifying Asian >>> Voices in the WSIS + 10 Process" - which raises the important public >>> interest question about who determines and filters what are 'Asian Voices') >>> >>>> The organisations that are co-organising this meeting are >>>> organisations that all got enthused by this prospect, and were willing >>>> to put part of their organisational budgets, of their staff's time and >>>> minds, or of all of these up to make this event happen. >>> Who funded what - especially in terms of actual money.... Lets not >>> generalise clear and objective issues and questions. What you refuse to >>> answer, you should just say so. >>> >>>> No funding was secured specifically for this meeting (though I tried). >>>> What this meant is that the funding pool was limited, and difficult >>>> decisions indeed did have to be made. >>> Who made the decisions, what was the process... This being after all an >>> "Asia Regional Consultation" whereby the outputs of it will also carry >>> that label. >>> >>>> What we aimed for was to have a balanced representation across Asia's >>>> sub-regions as well as a group that could address a mix of issues from >>>> a range of perspectives. >>> 'Balanced representation'.... and 'mix of issues from a range of >>> perspectives' :) . You must be joking.... One cant just write anything, >>> just because it sounds good and is of a general nature.... Can you show >>> how is it balanced and admits a range of perspective, about which more >>> below... >>> >>> >>>> A direct engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past two >>>> years was definitely seen as a plus, but not a must. >>> Sure. Then maybe engagement with WSIS for 12 years would be a big plus >>> plus plus ... but it did not seem to count here among a 'range of >>> perspectives' and 'balanced views'..... You need to justify with facts >>> all the good and general things you are writing here if we are to have a >>> meaningful dialogue and not just confuse people. >>> >>>> As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are indeed people >>>> who would be able to offer valuable inputs to the meeting but who we >>>> were not able to offer funding. >>> Just wanted to understand the 'process'.. Who was actually making the >>> decisions. >>> >>>> Luckily, some of those are able to self-fund their attendance. >>> But then they at least need to know about the event, which I first heard >>> about exactly 10 days before the meeting from your email below -- this >>> even when we were in conversation over another issue, in fact a meeting >>> my organisation is organising in Delhi on the 5th of Sept to which we >>> invited you, but you said you cannot come, even at that stage not >>> revealing why you could not - which I now gather was bec you had this >>> Asia Consultation meeting on the 5th. Anja, the meeting plans and dates >>> were clearly kept under wraps till the very last minute - so I do not >>> understand this 'self funding' business either.... Other than it being >>> another link in the long chain of general, good sounding, statements, >>> which are not very well founded on facts, and thus do not contribute to >>> a serious and useful discussion. Maybe some people could have self >>> funded (although I could not have) if they knew about this meeting... >>> But the problem is that a so called 'Asia Regional Consultation' of a UN >>> process is being held even without sufficient notice to people (all of >>> 10 days)... >>> >>> >>>> In addition, we tried to alleviate the restrictions imposed by the >>>> limited funding by deciding to provide remote participation, so as to >>>> allow all those interested in participating to do so. The full >>>> modalities of how this will work is something that we are still >>>> working out: as this is intended to be a working meeting, ensuring >>>> that remote participation is substantive is not a given. We are doing >>>> our very best to try and pull off successfully what I think is a first >>>> in our region for a meeting of this kind. >>> I am not sure what you mean by first of this kind.... The original WSIS >>> process had publicly funded regional review meetings, in both its phases... >>> >>>> Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition has been invited is >>>> of course not correct. One organisation was on our shortlist from day >>>> one. Another is attending on its own force, and we are very happy that >>>> they, as well as others, have been able to draw on their own resources >>>> to attend this event and contribute to its success. >>> But perhaps you could have put the info on the Just Net Coalition elist, >>> so that all would know, also also engaged with other JNC members >>> especially those who were most active in WSIS + 10 engagement including >>> developing JNC's statement towards it. That reminds me - the resource >>> page of your proposed 'Consultation', which carry a number of >>> contributions to the WSIS + 10 process of NGOs and even of non-NGOs, >>> chose to specifically censor the contribution of Just Net Coalition. >>> This says a lot to your commitment to 'balanced views' and 'range of >>> perspectives'. >>> >>> (Well, very interestingly, I now see that JNC's contribution has been >>> added now after I wrote the email yesterday, but /it wasnt there till >>> yesterday/, and I did take the enclosed print out which shows that it >>> wasnt . Anja, another specific question, is it not true that the JNC >>> contribution was not there on your list of contributions page till >>> yesterday? ) >>>> On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to hear that they are >>>> now intending to work on issues related to science and technology as well, >>> They have worked in this area for quite some time.. >>> >>>> and that they are even engaging with the Internet Social Forum >>>> initiative on this. Though I am on an email list that is dedicated to >>>> discussing the Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to >>>> locate that information there. Do please feel free to pass on the >>>> message about this event to them though. If any representative of >>>> APRCEM would be interested in attending, either in person or remotely, >>>> they are very welcome to do so, as are you. >>> Dont you think this is very late for meeting in 3 days! But again, the >>> real issues here are structural ones around civil society processes and >>> transparency/ accountability, and not about individuals... >>> >>>> Hope this clarifies. >>> My apologies, but it doesnt. >>> >>> Best, parminder >>>> Regards, >>>> Anja >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear organisers of the *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10 >>>> Review, >>>> >>>> *With your permission I have some questions to ask you. I know >>>> this is a treacherous territory, given an extra ordinary (and >>>> completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being asked questions by >>>> some groups, but my apologies, I cannot but ask them in pursuance >>>> of my public interest work, however distasteful it may be even for >>>> me to get into this thing.... >>>> >>>> This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian >>>> Regional' consultation, on what is a global governance process, >>>> and so some questions arise in my mind: >>>> >>>> (1) who is funding this 'consultation' >>>> >>>> (2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations >>>> sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my >>>> view, would be a consultation) >>>> >>>> (3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and >>>> by whom, and who decided it.. >>>> >>>> Thanks for answering these public interest questions... >>>> >>>> I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge that >>>> no member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT for >>>> Change is among very few groups in Asia Pacific which has been >>>> engaged with the WSIS process from the start, and very thoroughly >>>> engaged. Further, there is in fact an Asia Pacific Regional CSO >>>> Engagement Mechanism , which >>>> describes itself as >>>> >>>> "APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger >>>> cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of all >>>> sub-regions of Asia Pacific are heard in intergovernmental >>>> processes in regional and global level. The platform is >>>> initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and has been set up >>>> under the auspices of UN-ESCAP and seeks to engage with UN >>>> agencies and Member States on the Post-2015 as well as other >>>> development related issues/processes. " >>>> >>>> In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology Constituency >>>> which works as an active network (of which IT for Change is a >>>> member) which has begun to work closely with the Just Net >>>> Coalition (many JNC members also being its members) and the >>>> Internet Social Forum initiatives, which shows its interest in >>>> Internet issues... As far as I know no member of this network, or >>>> the network as a whole, has been involved in this so-called "Asia >>>> Regional Consultation' which being on a UN process this group >>>> would be natural constituency... All of which makes me wonder, and >>>> so my questions.. >>>> >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the >>>>> Association for Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global Partners >>>>> Digital and ICT Watch are together organising an *Asian Regional >>>>> Consultation on the WIS+10 Review* from 3 to 5 September in >>>>> Pattaya, Thailand. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will bring >>>>> together experts from different backgrounds and from around the >>>>> Asian region who are concerned about issues concerning ICTs, >>>>> sustainable development, human rights and Internet governance, to >>>>> ask: *what are the issues that our governments need to squarely >>>>> address in the process of the review? >>>>> * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment on >>>>> the non-paper that will have been released by the co-facilitators >>>>> of the review process in late August (inputs into that paper can >>>>> be made by all stakeholders and are due on 31 July).The group >>>>> will take stock of the extent to which priorities for the Asian >>>>> region have been reflected in the non-paper, and will work >>>>> together on formulating a joint comment on the non-paper >>>>> (comments on the non-paper will be due in mid-September, and will >>>>> be drawn on by the co-facilitators to formulate a zero-draft). >>>>> The group will also look forward to consider which further inputs >>>>> could be made or actions could be taken strategically to ensure >>>>> that priorities from the Asian region are fully taken onto board >>>>> in the final WSIS+10 Review outcome documents. If there are other >>>>> processes the group believes this work could usefully feed into, >>>>> these might be taken into consideration as well. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working meeting >>>>> that is geared towards producing a joint submission to the next >>>>> input round on the Review outcome document. *Participants will be >>>>> drawn from all non-government stakeholder groups, and will have a >>>>> wide and rich variety of backgrounds, both in terms of >>>>> professional expertise and geographical location. What unites >>>>> all, however, is a shared commitment to a free and open Internet >>>>> and to the use of technology to benefit the development and human >>>>> rights of all in our region. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *We're very happy to let you know that remote participation will >>>>> be available. *For more information on remote participation and >>>>> the event in general, please see the event website >>>>> . Or follow us on Twitter @WSISAsia #wsis10. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let me >>>>> know if you have any comments or questions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Warm regards, >>>>> >>>>> Anja >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>>> >>>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>> >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Shahzad Ahmad Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan IM: shahzad at jit.si | Google Talk: bytesforall Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup Office Direct Landline: +92 51 8437981 Cell. +92 333 5236060 PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Sep 2 02:41:41 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 12:11:41 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available In-Reply-To: References: <55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <55E69A25.3000804@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but as the person who > first came up with this idea and also the one to send the message to > which you responded, I am happy to provide some answers. Hi Anja I am unable to see in your email answers to the questions that I asked. 40 people gathering for an international meeting for 3 days involves a huge sum. I am asking, who is paying for it? I have no problem about groups and networks holding their meetings as they please - although funding transparency is a basic requirement for all civil society activity. The real issue here is that you are speaking about a "Regional Asia Consultation" for a UN process - a point I emphasized in my email but which finds no reference in your response... Any such meeting must be fully transparent in its funding, and the manner of making organisational decisions, including giving invitation and participation funding.... Why do you not just share that information upfront? Why are you keeping it back? (When Just Net Coalition held a meeting last year - even though it was clearly declared to be a /partisan meeting/ for evolving a new civil society network around certain key advocacy issues, with no claims at all to be representative of all views etc- as your meeting is - much less a 'consultation' with the self-assumed name of 'Asia Regional Consultation' - we shared every bit of information about the meeting, including full details of financial contributions. Why are you hesitating? Is there nothing like civil society/ NGO governance, transparency and accountability? ) I look forward to the information that I have requested. I am asking for it not because I need it, but because it is in public interest. Thanks, parminder > > Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do here. As we all know, > the modalities explicitly made the Review a government-led process. > Also, details on the way in which the informal consultations with > other stakeholders would be facilitated remained extremely scanty even > eight months before the review was supposed to take place. Even when > the Review process was formally announced, it wasn't clear to what > extent inputs from stakeholders other than governments would be taken > into account. This meeting is an attempt to be proactive in that > situation, trying to amplify voices from our region to make sure that > concerns from this region actually find resonance in New York - > something that, seeing how far removed we are from there, isn't > guaranteed at all. > > The organisations that are co-organising this meeting are > organisations that all got enthused by this prospect, and were willing > to put part of their organisational budgets, of their staff's time and > minds, or of all of these up to make this event happen. No funding was > secured specifically for this meeting (though I tried). What this > meant is that the funding pool was limited, and difficult decisions > indeed did have to be made. What we aimed for was to have a balanced > representation across Asia's sub-regions as well as a group that could > address a mix of issues from a range of perspectives. A direct > engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past two years was > definitely seen as a plus, but not a must. > > As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are indeed people > who would be able to offer valuable inputs to the meeting but who we > were not able to offer funding. Luckily, some of those are able to > self-fund their attendance. In addition, we tried to alleviate the > restrictions imposed by the limited funding by deciding to provide > remote participation, so as to allow all those interested in > participating to do so. The full modalities of how this will work is > something that we are still working out: as this is intended to be a > working meeting, ensuring that remote participation is substantive is > not a given. We are doing our very best to try and pull off > successfully what I think is a first in our region for a meeting of > this kind. > > Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition has been invited is > of course not correct. One organisation was on our shortlist from day > one. Another is attending on its own force, and we are very happy that > they, as well as others, have been able to draw on their own resources > to attend this event and contribute to its success. > > On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to hear that they are > now intending to work on issues related to science and technology as > well, and that they are even engaging with the Internet Social Forum > initiative on this. Though I am on an email list that is dedicated to > discussing the Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to > locate that information there. Do please feel free to pass on the > message about this event to them though. If any representative of > APRCEM would be interested in attending, either in person or remotely, > they are very welcome to do so, as are you. > > Hope this clarifies. > > Regards, > Anja > > > > > On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder > wrote: > > Dear organisers of the *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10 > Review, > > *With your permission I have some questions to ask you. I know > this is a treacherous territory, given an extra ordinary (and > completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being asked questions by > some groups, but my apologies, I cannot but ask them in pursuance > of my public interest work, however distasteful it may be even for > me to get into this thing.... > > This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian > Regional' consultation, on what is a global governance process, > and so some questions arise in my mind: > > (1) who is funding this 'consultation' > > (2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations > sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my > view, would be a consultation) > > (3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and > by whom, and who decided it.. > > Thanks for answering these public interest questions... > > I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge that > no member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT for > Change is among very few groups in Asia Pacific which has been > engaged with the WSIS process from the start, and very thoroughly > engaged. Further, there is in fact an Asia Pacific Regional CSO > Engagement Mechanism , which > describes itself as > > "APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger > cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of all > sub-regions of Asia Pacific are heard in intergovernmental > processes in regional and global level. The platform is > initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and has been set up > under the auspices of UN-ESCAP and seeks to engage with UN > agencies and Member States on the Post-2015 as well as other > development related issues/processes. " > > In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology Constituency > which works as an active network (of which IT for Change is a > member) which has begun to work closely with the Just Net > Coalition (many JNC members also being its members) and the > Internet Social Forum initiatives, which shows its interest in > Internet issues... As far as I know no member of this network, or > the network as a whole, has been involved in this so-called "Asia > Regional Consultation' which being on a UN process this group > would be natural constituency... All of which makes me wonder, and > so my questions.. > > > parminder > > > On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the >> Association for Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global Partners >> Digital and ICT Watch are together organising an *Asian Regional >> Consultation on the WIS+10 Review* from 3 to 5 September in >> Pattaya, Thailand. >> >> >> The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will bring >> together experts from different backgrounds and from around the >> Asian region who are concerned about issues concerning ICTs, >> sustainable development, human rights and Internet governance, to >> ask: *what are the issues that our governments need to squarely >> address in the process of the review? >> * >> >> >> The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment on >> the non-paper that will have been released by the co-facilitators >> of the review process in late August (inputs into that paper can >> be made by all stakeholders and are due on 31 July).The group >> will take stock of the extent to which priorities for the Asian >> region have been reflected in the non-paper, and will work >> together on formulating a joint comment on the non-paper >> (comments on the non-paper will be due in mid-September, and will >> be drawn on by the co-facilitators to formulate a zero-draft). >> The group will also look forward to consider which further inputs >> could be made or actions could be taken strategically to ensure >> that priorities from the Asian region are fully taken onto board >> in the final WSIS+10 Review outcome documents. If there are other >> processes the group believes this work could usefully feed into, >> these might be taken into consideration as well. >> >> >> *The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working meeting >> that is geared towards producing a joint submission to the next >> input round on the Review outcome document. *Participants will be >> drawn from all non-government stakeholder groups, and will have a >> wide and rich variety of backgrounds, both in terms of >> professional expertise and geographical location. What unites >> all, however, is a shared commitment to a free and open Internet >> and to the use of technology to benefit the development and human >> rights of all in our region. >> >> >> *We're very happy to let you know that remote participation will >> be available. *For more information on remote participation and >> the event in general, please see the event website >> . Or follow us on Twitter @WSISAsia #wsis10. >> >> >> We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let me >> know if you have any comments or questions. >> >> >> Warm regards, >> >> Anja >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Fri Sep 11 01:49:29 2015 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:19:29 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Taking place next week: Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available In-Reply-To: <55F246EC.1000708@bytesforall.pk> References: <55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net> <55E6ACD0.70802@itforchange.net> <55F0F7D6.6070000@apc.org> <55F12713.909@itforchange.net> <55F246EC.1000708@bytesforall.pk> Message-ID: Hi Parminder and all, To add to Chat's and Shahzad's emails, the Internet Democracy Project funded 3 people for this meeting, and covered the flight of a fourth. The costs we covered included those of Internet Democracy Project staff. The funding we used from this comes from some work we are doing around the WSIS together with Global Partners Digital, with support from the UK FCO. The substantial time investment we made in organising this meeting was covered by organisational funds. Just on Parminder's question of whether JNC's contribution was added to the website's resource page after you wrote your email but wasn't there earlier: that is indeed correct. Nor were the contributions of Global Partners - supported by Bytes for All and ICT Watch amongst others - or of the Regional Internet Registries - supported by APNIC - there until then (all of whom were co-organisers of the meeting). All of these, and a few additional ones, including the Just Net Coalition contribution, were added on the same day. The Internet Democracy Project has been working intensively on the WSIS+10 Review for the past two and half years. Some of that work is documented here: http://internetdemocracy.in/issues/the-wsis10-review/, though this doesn't reflect our intense involvement in the ten month MPP process for the ITU-coordinated high level meeting in June 2014, including preparation of a clean draft of the vision part of the outcome document, on the request of the MPP Chair, Prof. Minkin. Written inputs we made into that process can be found here: http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/pages/consolidated-texts.html. Regards, Anja On 11 September 2015 at 08:43, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > We understand the urgency of your emails but really sorry that we could > not respond earlier as were first busy with the logistics of the > consultation and then in transit for another duty travel. > > As you very well know that in our part of the world, the kind of political > environment we work in, we have to be very transparent and accountable in > our income and expenditure and all kinds of people ask similar questions so > very happy to furnish this information to you too. > > Bytes for All and ICT Watch had a joint pot of funds from our ongoing > Internet Freedom Program. Both the organizations agreed to invest in the > consultation so drew on this funding and there were 19 people funded by > these funds. Some of them were fully funded, those who could partially > contribute we provided either travel or accommodation, some were supported > only for the conference package. No funds were raised specifically for this > consultation though. > > In addition, Bytes for All and its partners also used some travel funds > from another regional project called APC-IMPACT with project partners in > India, Pakistan and Malaysia. > > We still needed more money to make this important consultation happen so > Bytes for All contributed a bit more money from our organizational funds, > which we keep for different emergency activities. > > Best wishes and regards > > Shahzad > > > > > > On 9/10/15 11:45 AM, parminder wrote: > > Dear Valeria and Chat, > > Thanks for the below. Yours disclosures are exemplary. I hope others > follow the example. > > I think that it is best to just declare full details - esp funding and > decision making processes - of such meetings by the organisers. And I > keep repeating, particularly bec this meeting was called Asia Pacific > Consultation ... > > parminder > > On Thursday 10 September 2015 08:54 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > > Dear Parminder, > > I am sending a message on behalf of my colleague Chat Garcia Ramilo, who > is not subscribed to these lists. > > Best, > > Valeria > ---- > > APC has been engaged in the WSIS process since the 2003 phase, which > helped shape the Civil Society Declaration to WSIS and has been actively > participating in each phase of follow up on the WSIS outcomes as well as > the Review. Unfortunately, the WSIS+10 Overall Review is less inclusive > than the WSIS summits and many other global internet governance > processes convened since. APC has therefore identified how we from civil > society can get engaged and influence the process both formally and > informally, including participation in regional meetings that open up > opportunities for coordination and input among stakeholders in Latin > America, Africa and Asia. > > In the absence of official publicly funded review meetings, APC welcomed > the opportunity to collaborate and work with other stakeholders in Asia > in covening a regional meeting. As Anja explained, the organisers put in > funds, time and effort voluntarily. The organisers all identified > participants from our organisations and networks who we thought can > contribute to the discussions. APC drew from our organisational budget > to fund our members and staff and from projects to fund partners where > this is possible. In total we funded 7 participants with support from > Sida, DGIS and EIDHR. > > >From the onset, the organisers were aware that we could only bring a > limited number of participants and do not claim to be representative of > all the diverse voices in the region. This was a sentiment that was > expressed and recognised during the meeting itself. However, we believe > that those who participated in the meeting and produced its outcome > document all have a stake in the region through our engagement in the > various issues under review. This meeting and its outcome document was > meant to contribute to the official review and we intend to make > submissions and participate in the process up to the UN GA High Level > meeting in December. > > For more information about APC's WSIS engagement see:https://www.apc.org/en/news/looking-back-move-ahead-recap-wsis10-overall-revie > > Best, > > Chat > > On 02/09/15 3:01, parminder wrote: > > Hi Anja > > There were two levels of issues that I had raised. First (which I call > as category 1) is simple, direct, objective and fully-self contained, > public interest information about what is supposed to be a public > interest activity. I have covered this aspect in the email I sent just now. > > The second (category 2) is connected, but a slightly lower level issue > because it involves judgements, and judgements about judgements, about > who was invited, who was funded, who was informed in time enough to > consider participating, and so on....( In fact, this part is also > greatly helped by a full declaration of the decision process, the group > involved in making the judgements, and so on, which basic info is part > of category 1 above.) > > I do not want to mix issues of category 1 and 2, so that the clarity of > category 1 issues, and the basic and objective imperatives involved, may > not get diluted. So please provide meseparatelythe fully objective > information under category 1 sought in my earlier email . > > Meanwhile, this email will deal with some admittedly judgemental issues > that are involved, which while being not fully objective are still a > worthy subject of public debate. Please see inline.... > > > On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Hi Parminder, > > I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but as the person who > first came up with this idea and also the one to send the message to > which you responded, I am happy to provide some answers. > > Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do here. As we all know, > the modalities explicitly made the Review a government-led process. > Also, details on the way in which the informal consultations with > other stakeholders would be facilitated remained extremely scanty even > eight months before the review was supposed to take place. Even when > the Review process was formally announced, it wasn't clear to what > extent inputs from stakeholders other than governments would be taken > into account. This meeting is an attempt to be proactive in that > situation, trying to amplify voices from our region to make sure that > concerns from this region actually find resonance in New York - > something that, seeing how far removed we are from there, isn't > guaranteed at all. > > Sure... I note the term /'amplify voices/' and the neutrality of the > platform which is thus suggested.... Hope you note it too, and your > responses are informed with this fact . (The conference website carries this blurb "Amplifying Asian > Voices in the WSIS + 10 Process" - which raises the important public > interest question about who determines and filters what are 'Asian Voices') > > > The organisations that are co-organising this meeting are > organisations that all got enthused by this prospect, and were willing > to put part of their organisational budgets, of their staff's time and > minds, or of all of these up to make this event happen. > > Who funded what - especially in terms of actual money.... Lets not > generalise clear and objective issues and questions. What you refuse to > answer, you should just say so. > > > No funding was secured specifically for this meeting (though I tried). > What this meant is that the funding pool was limited, and difficult > decisions indeed did have to be made. > > Who made the decisions, what was the process... This being after all an > "Asia Regional Consultation" whereby the outputs of it will also carry > that label. > > > What we aimed for was to have a balanced representation across Asia's > sub-regions as well as a group that could address a mix of issues from > a range of perspectives. > > 'Balanced representation'.... and 'mix of issues from a range of > perspectives' :) . You must be joking.... One cant just write anything, > just because it sounds good and is of a general nature.... Can you show > how is it balanced and admits a range of perspective, about which more > below... > > > > A direct engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past two > years was definitely seen as a plus, but not a must. > > Sure. Then maybe engagement with WSIS for 12 years would be a big plus > plus plus ... but it did not seem to count here among a 'range of > perspectives' and 'balanced views'..... You need to justify with facts > all the good and general things you are writing here if we are to have a > meaningful dialogue and not just confuse people. > > > As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are indeed people > who would be able to offer valuable inputs to the meeting but who we > were not able to offer funding. > > Just wanted to understand the 'process'.. Who was actually making the > decisions. > > > Luckily, some of those are able to self-fund their attendance. > > But then they at least need to know about the event, which I first heard > about exactly 10 days before the meeting from your email below -- this > even when we were in conversation over another issue, in fact a meeting > my organisation is organising in Delhi on the 5th of Sept to which we > invited you, but you said you cannot come, even at that stage not > revealing why you could not - which I now gather was bec you had this > Asia Consultation meeting on the 5th. Anja, the meeting plans and dates > were clearly kept under wraps till the very last minute - so I do not > understand this 'self funding' business either.... Other than it being > another link in the long chain of general, good sounding, statements, > which are not very well founded on facts, and thus do not contribute to > a serious and useful discussion. Maybe some people could have self > funded (although I could not have) if they knew about this meeting... > But the problem is that a so called 'Asia Regional Consultation' of a UN > process is being held even without sufficient notice to people (all of > 10 days)... > > > > In addition, we tried to alleviate the restrictions imposed by the > limited funding by deciding to provide remote participation, so as to > allow all those interested in participating to do so. The full > modalities of how this will work is something that we are still > working out: as this is intended to be a working meeting, ensuring > that remote participation is substantive is not a given. We are doing > our very best to try and pull off successfully what I think is a first > in our region for a meeting of this kind. > > I am not sure what you mean by first of this kind.... The original WSIS > process had publicly funded regional review meetings, in both its phases... > > > Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition has been invited is > of course not correct. One organisation was on our shortlist from day > one. Another is attending on its own force, and we are very happy that > they, as well as others, have been able to draw on their own resources > to attend this event and contribute to its success. > > But perhaps you could have put the info on the Just Net Coalition elist, > so that all would know, also also engaged with other JNC members > especially those who were most active in WSIS + 10 engagement including > developing JNC's statement towards it. That reminds me - the resource > page of your proposed 'Consultation', which carry a number of > contributions to the WSIS + 10 process of NGOs and even of non-NGOs, > chose to specifically censor the contribution of Just Net Coalition. > This says a lot to your commitment to 'balanced views' and 'range of > perspectives'. > > (Well, very interestingly, I now see that JNC's contribution has been > added now after I wrote the email yesterday, but /it wasnt there till > yesterday/, and I did take the enclosed print out which shows that it > wasnt . Anja, another specific question, is it not true that the JNC > contribution was not there on your list of contributions page till > yesterday? ) > > On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to hear that they are > now intending to work on issues related to science and technology as well, > > They have worked in this area for quite some time.. > > > and that they are even engaging with the Internet Social Forum > initiative on this. Though I am on an email list that is dedicated to > discussing the Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to > locate that information there. Do please feel free to pass on the > message about this event to them though. If any representative of > APRCEM would be interested in attending, either in person or remotely, > they are very welcome to do so, as are you. > > Dont you think this is very late for meeting in 3 days! But again, the > real issues here are structural ones around civil society processes and > transparency/ accountability, and not about individuals... > > > Hope this clarifies. > > My apologies, but it doesnt. > > Best, parminder > > Regards, > Anja > > > > > On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder > wrote: > > Dear organisers of the *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10 > Review, > > *With your permission I have some questions to ask you. I know > this is a treacherous territory, given an extra ordinary (and > completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being asked questions by > some groups, but my apologies, I cannot but ask them in pursuance > of my public interest work, however distasteful it may be even for > me to get into this thing.... > > This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian > Regional' consultation, on what is a global governance process, > and so some questions arise in my mind: > > (1) who is funding this 'consultation' > > (2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations > sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my > view, would be a consultation) > > (3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and > by whom, and who decided it.. > > Thanks for answering these public interest questions... > > I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge that > no member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT for > Change is among very few groups in Asia Pacific which has been > engaged with the WSIS process from the start, and very thoroughly > engaged. Further, there is in fact an Asia Pacific Regional CSO > Engagement Mechanism , which > describes itself as > > "APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger > cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of all > sub-regions of Asia Pacific are heard in intergovernmental > processes in regional and global level. The platform is > initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and has been set up > under the auspices of UN-ESCAP and seeks to engage with UN > agencies and Member States on the Post-2015 as well as other > development related issues/processes. " > > In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology Constituency > which works as an active network (of which IT for Change is a > member) which has begun to work closely with the Just Net > Coalition (many JNC members also being its members) and the > Internet Social Forum initiatives, which shows its interest in > Internet issues... As far as I know no member of this network, or > the network as a whole, has been involved in this so-called "Asia > Regional Consultation' which being on a UN process this group > would be natural constituency... All of which makes me wonder, and > so my questions.. > > > parminder > > > On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Dear all, > > The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the > Association for Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global Partners > Digital and ICT Watch are together organising an *Asian Regional > Consultation on the WIS+10 Review* from 3 to 5 September in > Pattaya, Thailand. > > > The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will bring > together experts from different backgrounds and from around the > Asian region who are concerned about issues concerning ICTs, > sustainable development, human rights and Internet governance, to > ask: *what are the issues that our governments need to squarely > address in the process of the review? > * > > > The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment on > the non-paper that will have been released by the co-facilitators > of the review process in late August (inputs into that paper can > be made by all stakeholders and are due on 31 July).The group > will take stock of the extent to which priorities for the Asian > region have been reflected in the non-paper, and will work > together on formulating a joint comment on the non-paper > (comments on the non-paper will be due in mid-September, and will > be drawn on by the co-facilitators to formulate a zero-draft). > The group will also look forward to consider which further inputs > could be made or actions could be taken strategically to ensure > that priorities from the Asian region are fully taken onto board > in the final WSIS+10 Review outcome documents. If there are other > processes the group believes this work could usefully feed into, > these might be taken into consideration as well. > > > *The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working meeting > that is geared towards producing a joint submission to the next > input round on the Review outcome document. *Participants will be > drawn from all non-government stakeholder groups, and will have a > wide and rich variety of backgrounds, both in terms of > professional expertise and geographical location. What unites > all, however, is a shared commitment to a free and open Internet > and to the use of technology to benefit the development and human > rights of all in our region. > > > *We're very happy to let you know that remote participation will > be available. *For more information on remote participation and > the event in general, please see the event website > . Or follow us on Twitter @WSISAsia #wsis10. > > > We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let me > know if you have any comments or questions. > > > Warm regards, > > Anja > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacswww.internetdemocracy.in > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- > Shahzad Ahmad > Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan > IM: shahzad at jit.si | Google Talk: bytesforall > Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup > Office Direct Landline: +92 51 8437981 Cell. +92 333 5236060 > > PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Sep 11 16:14:27 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:14:27 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] PK's comments on IANA transition Message-ID: https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/iana-transition-proposals-major-steps-towards-success-but-still-room-for-improvement IANA Transition Proposals: Major Steps Towards Success, but Still Room for Improvement[image: img] By Melanie Penagos September 11, 2015 Internet Governance , NTIA , ICANN , IANA Transition [image: img] *This post discusses Public Knowledge’s comments regarding the **Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the IANA Functions* * and the**Enhancing ICANN Accountability 2nd Draft Report* *. The first proposal comment deadline was**September 8th* *. The second proposal comment deadline is **September 12th* *.* This week marks the end of an important public comment period regarding the transfer of key Internet domain name functions from the purview of the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the global multistakeholder community. Two draft proposals put forth for public comment represent months of hard work on behalf of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) and the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability). The proposals outline the procedural details of the IANA transition, and in parallel, ensure that accountability mechanisms are set in place for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), before and after the transfer occurs. This is essential in order to empower the multistakeholder community, generate greater trust between the community and ICANN, and to create checks and balances among relevant actors. Public Knowledge strongly supports the efforts that have gone into the development of both proposals and we commend the working groups for their persistence and dedication to this process. While we believe that the draft proposals represent a positive step towards achieving a successful transition, we have some concerns regarding a few of the proposed elements being introduced in this process. *Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the IANA Functions* The P roposal to Transition the Stewardship of the IANA Functions represents the consolidated version of three draft proposals from the names, numbers, and protocol parameters communities. Our comments focused on the fulfillment of specific NTIA criteria for the transition, such as the requirement to (1) maintain the openness of the Internet, (2) ensure that the transition does not replace NTIA’s role with a government or intergovernmental organization, and (3) support and enhance of the multistakeholder model. We believe that this proposal makes many strides in achieving this criteria and we are satisfied with its efforts to do so. In regards to the Post-Transition IANA (PTI) - the newly proposed, separate legal entity overseeing the IANA functions - we caution against the potential of any one particular group to acquire an abundance of influence in this model, specifically within the PTI Board. We believe that it is essential for the PTI to remain as independent and accountable as possible, and we stress the importance of making a clear link between the ICANN accountability mechanisms and the ICG proposal. *Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability 2nd Draft Report* The 2nd Draft Report on Enhancing ICANN Accountability focuses on essential accountability mechanisms that need to be set in place before the IANA transition can occur. These details have been enumerated and developed under Work Stream 1 . Our comments include a call to carefully consider the voting allocations proposed within theSole Member Model and the need to give a greater voice to technical organizations responsible for the security and stability of the Internet, rather than governmental organizations. This would prevent a disproportionate balance of power and would meet the NTIA’s requirement to avoid the replacement of their role by a government or intergovernmental organization. We also support the proposed community powers to remove individual ICANN Board members and the option to recall the entire ICANN Board of Directors, as an additional check on the Board. However, we’re concerned that the minimum criteria to initiate these processes has not been adequately identified. We encourage the intention to develop these standards under Work Stream 2 , but believe that a basic outline of minimum standards should accompany this proposal to set community and professional expectations at this time. Finally, we support the inclusion of a commitment to human rights within ICANN’s Bylaws and look forward to contributing to its further development under Work Stream 2 . *What’s Next* As a next step , the goal of the respective working groups is to incorporate these comments into the proposals and finalize them by mid-October, in time for the next ICANN meeting in Dublin . Once this is accomplished, it is expected that the final proposals will be sent to the NTIA for their approval, via the ICANN board , by late October or early November (in line with the extended September 2016 deadline for the transition). *Image credit: Wikimedia Commons user Jamj2000 * -- *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 aarti.bhavana at nludelhi.ac.in Sat Sep 12 17:17:28 2015 From: aarti.bhavana at nludelhi.ac.in (Aarti Bhavana) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 02:47:28 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] CCG-NLU Delhi's Comments on the Accountability Proposal Message-ID: Dear All, Please find attached the Comments from the Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University, Delhi. We would appreciate your comments and suggestions . Warm regards, Aarti Aarti Bhavana | Research Fellow Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 965-464-6846 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.ccgtlr.org . www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @ccgdelhi . @aartibhavana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: (CCG-NLUD) Comments on the CCWG - Accountability 2nd Draft Proposal on WS1 Reccomendations.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 222952 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Sep 13 07:07:18 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 16:37:18 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Taking place next week: Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available In-Reply-To: References: <55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net> <55E6ACD0.70802@itforchange.net> <55F0F7D6.6070000@apc.org> <55F12713.909@itforchange.net> <55F246EC.1000708@bytesforall.pk> Message-ID: <55F558E6.40203@itforchange.net> Thanks Shahzad and Anja. This covers a lot of ground. So thanks again. Apart from these separate declarations by organisers, and not yet all of them, would it not be so much better if some central party/ group who held the workshop and would have all the required information provide it publicly in one go. For instance, apart from participant sponsorship costs, of which we still only have a partial picture, someone would have put in a pretty big sum on the venue etc... Thanks. It is of course more than a bit tiring and embarrassing, knowing how these transparent demands are resented by many, to keep pressing for them. I do it because I think that this is the right thing to do for civil society. Perhaps it is relevant to note the accent in the US electoral battle on transparency in campaign financing, with Hillary Clinton now declaring that if elected she will ensure mandating a much greater transparency (and the existing protections like coming from the 'Citizens United' court decision are dismantled). "We have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans," Clinton said in a statement released to the media. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/32754-clinton-proposes-campaign-finance-reform-while-raking-in-millions-from-wall-street If political parties should be accountable for their financing I dont understand how civil society can be resistant to it. We in fact need to be many steps ahead. Drowning out voices takes place in many forms, and all are bad. parminder On Friday 11 September 2015 11:19 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Hi Parminder and all, > > To add to Chat's and Shahzad's emails, the Internet Democracy Project > funded 3 people for this meeting, and covered the flight of a fourth. > The costs we covered included those of Internet Democracy Project > staff. The funding we used from this comes from some work we are doing > around the WSIS together with Global Partners Digital, with support > from the UK FCO. The substantial time investment we made in organising > this meeting was covered by organisational funds. > > Just on Parminder's question of whether JNC's contribution was added > to the website's resource page after you wrote your email but wasn't > there earlier: that is indeed correct. Nor were the contributions of > Global Partners - supported by Bytes for All and ICT Watch amongst > others - or of the Regional Internet Registries - supported by APNIC - > there until then (all of whom were co-organisers of the meeting). All > of these, and a few additional ones, including the Just Net Coalition > contribution, were added on the same day. > > The Internet Democracy Project has been working intensively on the > WSIS+10 Review for the past two and half years. Some of that work is > documented here: > http://internetdemocracy.in/issues/the-wsis10-review/, though this > doesn't reflect our intense involvement in the ten month MPP process > for the ITU-coordinated high level meeting in June 2014, including > preparation of a clean draft of the vision part of the outcome > document, on the request of the MPP Chair, Prof. Minkin. Written > inputs we made into that process can be found here: > http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/pages/consolidated-texts.html. > > Regards, > Anja > > > > On 11 September 2015 at 08:43, Shahzad Ahmad > wrote: > > Dear Parminder, > > We understand the urgency of your emails but really sorry that we > could not respond earlier as were first busy with the logistics of > the consultation and then in transit for another duty travel. > > As you very well know that in our part of the world, the kind of > political environment we work in, we have to be very transparent > and accountable in our income and expenditure and all kinds of > people ask similar questions so very happy to furnish this > information to you too. > > Bytes for All and ICT Watch had a joint pot of funds from our > ongoing Internet Freedom Program. Both the organizations agreed to > invest in the consultation so drew on this funding and there were > 19 people funded by these funds. Some of them were fully funded, > those who could partially contribute we provided either travel or > accommodation, some were supported only for the conference > package. No funds were raised specifically for this consultation > though. > > In addition, Bytes for All and its partners also used some travel > funds from another regional project called APC-IMPACT with project > partners in India, Pakistan and Malaysia. > > We still needed more money to make this important consultation > happen so Bytes for All contributed a bit more money from our > organizational funds, which we keep for different emergency > activities. > > Best wishes and regards > > Shahzad > > > > > > On 9/10/15 11:45 AM, parminder wrote: >> Dear Valeria and Chat, >> >> Thanks for the below. Yours disclosures are exemplary. I hope others >> follow the example. >> >> I think that it is best to just declare full details - esp funding and >> decision making processes - of such meetings by the organisers. And I >> keep repeating, particularly bec this meeting was called Asia Pacific >> Consultation ... >> >> parminder >> >> On Thursday 10 September 2015 08:54 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: >>> Dear Parminder, >>> >>> I am sending a message on behalf of my colleague Chat Garcia Ramilo, who >>> is not subscribed to these lists. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Valeria >>> ---- >>> >>> APC has been engaged in the WSIS process since the 2003 phase, which >>> helped shape the Civil Society Declaration to WSIS and has been actively >>> participating in each phase of follow up on the WSIS outcomes as well as >>> the Review. Unfortunately, the WSIS+10 Overall Review is less inclusive >>> than the WSIS summits and many other global internet governance >>> processes convened since. APC has therefore identified how we from civil >>> society can get engaged and influence the process both formally and >>> informally, including participation in regional meetings that open up >>> opportunities for coordination and input among stakeholders in Latin >>> America, Africa and Asia. >>> >>> In the absence of official publicly funded review meetings, APC welcomed >>> the opportunity to collaborate and work with other stakeholders in Asia >>> in covening a regional meeting. As Anja explained, the organisers put in >>> funds, time and effort voluntarily. The organisers all identified >>> participants from our organisations and networks who we thought can >>> contribute to the discussions. APC drew from our organisational budget >>> to fund our members and staff and from projects to fund partners where >>> this is possible. In total we funded 7 participants with support from >>> Sida, DGIS and EIDHR. >>> >>> >From the onset, the organisers were aware that we could only bring a >>> limited number of participants and do not claim to be representative of >>> all the diverse voices in the region. This was a sentiment that was >>> expressed and recognised during the meeting itself. However, we believe >>> that those who participated in the meeting and produced its outcome >>> document all have a stake in the region through our engagement in the >>> various issues under review. This meeting and its outcome document was >>> meant to contribute to the official review and we intend to make >>> submissions and participate in the process up to the UN GA High Level >>> meeting in December. >>> >>> For more information about APC's WSIS engagement see: >>> https://www.apc.org/en/news/looking-back-move-ahead-recap-wsis10-overall-revie >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Chat >>> >>> On 02/09/15 3:01, parminder wrote: >>>> Hi Anja >>>> >>>> There were two levels of issues that I had raised. First (which I call >>>> as category 1) is simple, direct, objective and fully-self contained, >>>> public interest information about what is supposed to be a public >>>> interest activity. I have covered this aspect in the email I sent just now. >>>> >>>> The second (category 2) is connected, but a slightly lower level issue >>>> because it involves judgements, and judgements about judgements, about >>>> who was invited, who was funded, who was informed in time enough to >>>> consider participating, and so on....( In fact, this part is also >>>> greatly helped by a full declaration of the decision process, the group >>>> involved in making the judgements, and so on, which basic info is part >>>> of category 1 above.) >>>> >>>> I do not want to mix issues of category 1 and 2, so that the clarity of >>>> category 1 issues, and the basic and objective imperatives involved, may >>>> not get diluted. So please provide meseparatelythe fully objective >>>> information under category 1 sought in my earlier email . >>>> >>>> Meanwhile, this email will deal with some admittedly judgemental issues >>>> that are involved, which while being not fully objective are still a >>>> worthy subject of public debate. Please see inline.... >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>>> Hi Parminder, >>>>> >>>>> I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but as the person who >>>>> first came up with this idea and also the one to send the message to >>>>> which you responded, I am happy to provide some answers. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do here. As we all know, >>>>> the modalities explicitly made the Review a government-led process. >>>>> Also, details on the way in which the informal consultations with >>>>> other stakeholders would be facilitated remained extremely scanty even >>>>> eight months before the review was supposed to take place. Even when >>>>> the Review process was formally announced, it wasn't clear to what >>>>> extent inputs from stakeholders other than governments would be taken >>>>> into account. This meeting is an attempt to be proactive in that >>>>> situation, trying to amplify voices from our region to make sure that >>>>> concerns from this region actually find resonance in New York - >>>>> something that, seeing how far removed we are from there, isn't >>>>> guaranteed at all. >>>> Sure... I note the term /'amplify voices/' and the neutrality of the >>>> platform which is thus suggested.... Hope you note it too, and your >>>> responses are informed with this fact . (The conference website >>>> carries this blurb "Amplifying Asian >>>> Voices in the WSIS + 10 Process" - which raises the important public >>>> interest question about who determines and filters what are 'Asian Voices') >>>> >>>>> The organisations that are co-organising this meeting are >>>>> organisations that all got enthused by this prospect, and were willing >>>>> to put part of their organisational budgets, of their staff's time and >>>>> minds, or of all of these up to make this event happen. >>>> Who funded what - especially in terms of actual money.... Lets not >>>> generalise clear and objective issues and questions. What you refuse to >>>> answer, you should just say so. >>>> >>>>> No funding was secured specifically for this meeting (though I tried). >>>>> What this meant is that the funding pool was limited, and difficult >>>>> decisions indeed did have to be made. >>>> Who made the decisions, what was the process... This being after all an >>>> "Asia Regional Consultation" whereby the outputs of it will also carry >>>> that label. >>>> >>>>> What we aimed for was to have a balanced representation across Asia's >>>>> sub-regions as well as a group that could address a mix of issues from >>>>> a range of perspectives. >>>> 'Balanced representation'.... and 'mix of issues from a range of >>>> perspectives' :) . You must be joking.... One cant just write anything, >>>> just because it sounds good and is of a general nature.... Can you show >>>> how is it balanced and admits a range of perspective, about which more >>>> below... >>>> >>>> >>>>> A direct engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past two >>>>> years was definitely seen as a plus, but not a must. >>>> Sure. Then maybe engagement with WSIS for 12 years would be a big plus >>>> plus plus ... but it did not seem to count here among a 'range of >>>> perspectives' and 'balanced views'..... You need to justify with facts >>>> all the good and general things you are writing here if we are to have a >>>> meaningful dialogue and not just confuse people. >>>> >>>>> As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are indeed people >>>>> who would be able to offer valuable inputs to the meeting but who we >>>>> were not able to offer funding. >>>> Just wanted to understand the 'process'.. Who was actually making the >>>> decisions. >>>> >>>>> Luckily, some of those are able to self-fund their attendance. >>>> But then they at least need to know about the event, which I first heard >>>> about exactly 10 days before the meeting from your email below -- this >>>> even when we were in conversation over another issue, in fact a meeting >>>> my organisation is organising in Delhi on the 5th of Sept to which we >>>> invited you, but you said you cannot come, even at that stage not >>>> revealing why you could not - which I now gather was bec you had this >>>> Asia Consultation meeting on the 5th. Anja, the meeting plans and dates >>>> were clearly kept under wraps till the very last minute - so I do not >>>> understand this 'self funding' business either.... Other than it being >>>> another link in the long chain of general, good sounding, statements, >>>> which are not very well founded on facts, and thus do not contribute to >>>> a serious and useful discussion. Maybe some people could have self >>>> funded (although I could not have) if they knew about this meeting... >>>> But the problem is that a so called 'Asia Regional Consultation' of a UN >>>> process is being held even without sufficient notice to people (all of >>>> 10 days)... >>>> >>>> >>>>> In addition, we tried to alleviate the restrictions imposed by the >>>>> limited funding by deciding to provide remote participation, so as to >>>>> allow all those interested in participating to do so. The full >>>>> modalities of how this will work is something that we are still >>>>> working out: as this is intended to be a working meeting, ensuring >>>>> that remote participation is substantive is not a given. We are doing >>>>> our very best to try and pull off successfully what I think is a first >>>>> in our region for a meeting of this kind. >>>> I am not sure what you mean by first of this kind.... The original WSIS >>>> process had publicly funded regional review meetings, in both its phases... >>>> >>>>> Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition has been invited is >>>>> of course not correct. One organisation was on our shortlist from day >>>>> one. Another is attending on its own force, and we are very happy that >>>>> they, as well as others, have been able to draw on their own resources >>>>> to attend this event and contribute to its success. >>>> But perhaps you could have put the info on the Just Net Coalition elist, >>>> so that all would know, also also engaged with other JNC members >>>> especially those who were most active in WSIS + 10 engagement including >>>> developing JNC's statement towards it. That reminds me - the resource >>>> page of your proposed 'Consultation', which carry a number of >>>> contributions to the WSIS + 10 process of NGOs and even of non-NGOs, >>>> chose to specifically censor the contribution of Just Net Coalition. >>>> This says a lot to your commitment to 'balanced views' and 'range of >>>> perspectives'. >>>> >>>> (Well, very interestingly, I now see that JNC's contribution has been >>>> added now after I wrote the email yesterday, but /it wasnt there till >>>> yesterday/, and I did take the enclosed print out which shows that it >>>> wasnt . Anja, another specific question, is it not true that the JNC >>>> contribution was not there on your list of contributions page till >>>> yesterday? ) >>>>> On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to hear that they are >>>>> now intending to work on issues related to science and technology as well, >>>> They have worked in this area for quite some time.. >>>> >>>>> and that they are even engaging with the Internet Social Forum >>>>> initiative on this. Though I am on an email list that is dedicated to >>>>> discussing the Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to >>>>> locate that information there. Do please feel free to pass on the >>>>> message about this event to them though. If any representative of >>>>> APRCEM would be interested in attending, either in person or remotely, >>>>> they are very welcome to do so, as are you. >>>> Dont you think this is very late for meeting in 3 days! But again, the >>>> real issues here are structural ones around civil society processes and >>>> transparency/ accountability, and not about individuals... >>>> >>>>> Hope this clarifies. >>>> My apologies, but it doesnt. >>>> >>>> Best, parminder >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Anja >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear organisers of the *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10 >>>>> Review, >>>>> >>>>> *With your permission I have some questions to ask you. I know >>>>> this is a treacherous territory, given an extra ordinary (and >>>>> completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being asked questions by >>>>> some groups, but my apologies, I cannot but ask them in pursuance >>>>> of my public interest work, however distasteful it may be even for >>>>> me to get into this thing.... >>>>> >>>>> This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian >>>>> Regional' consultation, on what is a global governance process, >>>>> and so some questions arise in my mind: >>>>> >>>>> (1) who is funding this 'consultation' >>>>> >>>>> (2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations >>>>> sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my >>>>> view, would be a consultation) >>>>> >>>>> (3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and >>>>> by whom, and who decided it.. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for answering these public interest questions... >>>>> >>>>> I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge that >>>>> no member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT for >>>>> Change is among very few groups in Asia Pacific which has been >>>>> engaged with the WSIS process from the start, and very thoroughly >>>>> engaged. Further, there is in fact an Asia Pacific Regional CSO >>>>> Engagement Mechanism , which >>>>> describes itself as >>>>> >>>>> "APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger >>>>> cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of all >>>>> sub-regions of Asia Pacific are heard in intergovernmental >>>>> processes in regional and global level. The platform is >>>>> initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and has been set up >>>>> under the auspices of UN-ESCAP and seeks to engage with UN >>>>> agencies and Member States on the Post-2015 as well as other >>>>> development related issues/processes. " >>>>> >>>>> In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology Constituency >>>>> which works as an active network (of which IT for Change is a >>>>> member) which has begun to work closely with the Just Net >>>>> Coalition (many JNC members also being its members) and the >>>>> Internet Social Forum initiatives, which shows its interest in >>>>> Internet issues... As far as I know no member of this network, or >>>>> the network as a whole, has been involved in this so-called "Asia >>>>> Regional Consultation' which being on a UN process this group >>>>> would be natural constituency... All of which makes me wonder, and >>>>> so my questions.. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the >>>>>> Association for Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global Partners >>>>>> Digital and ICT Watch are together organising an *Asian Regional >>>>>> Consultation on the WIS+10 Review* from 3 to 5 September in >>>>>> Pattaya, Thailand. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will bring >>>>>> together experts from different backgrounds and from around the >>>>>> Asian region who are concerned about issues concerning ICTs, >>>>>> sustainable development, human rights and Internet governance, to >>>>>> ask: *what are the issues that our governments need to squarely >>>>>> address in the process of the review? >>>>>> * >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment on >>>>>> the non-paper that will have been released by the co-facilitators >>>>>> of the review process in late August (inputs into that paper can >>>>>> be made by all stakeholders and are due on 31 July).The group >>>>>> will take stock of the extent to which priorities for the Asian >>>>>> region have been reflected in the non-paper, and will work >>>>>> together on formulating a joint comment on the non-paper >>>>>> (comments on the non-paper will be due in mid-September, and will >>>>>> be drawn on by the co-facilitators to formulate a zero-draft). >>>>>> The group will also look forward to consider which further inputs >>>>>> could be made or actions could be taken strategically to ensure >>>>>> that priorities from the Asian region are fully taken onto board >>>>>> in the final WSIS+10 Review outcome documents. If there are other >>>>>> processes the group believes this work could usefully feed into, >>>>>> these might be taken into consideration as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working meeting >>>>>> that is geared towards producing a joint submission to the next >>>>>> input round on the Review outcome document. *Participants will be >>>>>> drawn from all non-government stakeholder groups, and will have a >>>>>> wide and rich variety of backgrounds, both in terms of >>>>>> professional expertise and geographical location. What unites >>>>>> all, however, is a shared commitment to a free and open Internet >>>>>> and to the use of technology to benefit the development and human >>>>>> rights of all in our region. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *We're very happy to let you know that remote participation will >>>>>> be available. *For more information on remote participation and >>>>>> the event in general, please see the event website >>>>>> . Or follow us on Twitter @WSISAsia #wsis10. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let me >>>>>> know if you have any comments or questions. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Warm regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Anja >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>>>> >>>>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>>> >>>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- > Shahzad Ahmad > Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan > IM: shahzad at jit.si | Google Talk: bytesforall > Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup > Office Direct Landline: +92 51 8437981 Cell. +92 333 5236060 > > PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 alex at privacyinternational.org Mon Sep 14 09:32:25 2015 From: alex at privacyinternational.org (Alexandrine Pirlot de Corbion) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:32:25 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Next stage of PI campaign "Did GCHQ Illegally Spy On You?" Message-ID: <34415A04-03FB-48AD-A4B7-FCFFD963107B@privacyinternational.org> Hello everyone, As you may remember, in February 2015 Privacy International launched a campaign called "Did GCHQ Illegally Spy On You? ". Today, we have launched the next stage of this campaign which consists of submitting individual claims directly to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), the British court solely responsible for overseeing intelligence agencies, to see if their communications were part of those unlawfully shared. Privacy International has published a platform that simplifies this filing process with the Tribunal. Organisations and individuals, anywhere in the world, who wish to take part in this process can sign up here or read the FAQ for further information. As part of this next phase, Human Rights Watch as well as three other individuals working in security research, investigative journalism, and in law, will also be lodging complaints. We invite you to share this widely amongst your networks and with individuals/organisations you think would be interested in joining our campaign. You can also help us by Tweeting (#DidGCHQSpyOnYou and @privacyint) and/or following the campaign on Facebook . Thank you very much for the help and support, and if you have any questions or comments, please get in touch with us! Best, Alexandrine Ms. Alexandrine Pirlot de Corbion Advocacy Officer Privacy International 62 Britton Street London, EC1M 5UY United Kingdom E: alex at privacyinternational.org W: www.privacyinternational.org T: +44 (0) 203 422 4321 Skype: alexpdec.pi PGP: 61C308AF Privacy International is a registered charity (No. 1147471). -------------- 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 deborah at apc.org Tue Sep 15 13:21:17 2015 From: deborah at apc.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:21:17 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Internet Rights @HRC30 Message-ID: <55F8538D.9080800@apc.org> Dear all, APC and Access have prepared a briefing on internet rights issues on the agenda for the 30th session of the Human Rights Council, which started yesterday: https://www.apc.org/en/news/internet-rights-human-rights-council%E2%80%99s-30th-sessio All the best, Deborah -- Deborah Brown Senior Project Coordinator Association for Progressive Communications (APC) www.apc.org deborah at apc.org @deblebrown From nashton at consensus.pro Tue Sep 15 14:13:43 2015 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:13:43 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Internet Rights @HRC30 In-Reply-To: <55F8538D.9080800@apc.org> References: <55F8538D.9080800@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear Deborah, I saw this come through on Twitter a bit ago - it is really superb. Regards, Nick > On 15 Sep 2015, at 19:21, Deborah Brown wrote: > > Dear all, > > APC and Access have prepared a briefing on internet rights issues on the > agenda for the 30th session of the Human Rights Council, which started > yesterday: > > https://www.apc.org/en/news/internet-rights-human-rights-council%E2%80%99s-30th-sessio > > All the best, > Deborah > > -- > > Deborah Brown > Senior Project Coordinator > Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > www.apc.org > deborah at apc.org > @deblebrown > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From lea at gp-digital.org Tue Sep 15 14:58:28 2015 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:58:28 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [Call for expressions of interest] WSIS Review: Civil society coordination meeting in October Message-ID: Dear friends, [with apologies for cross-posting] We would like to bring to your attention *the call for expressions of interest* to participate in *a meeting to facilitate civil society engagement in the WSIS Review process, *scheduled to take place on *October 14-15, in New York.* The meeting is being organised by Global Partners Digital (GPD), in collaboration with the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), Access Now, the Centre for Communication Governance at the National Law University in Delhi, Coding Rights, FGV/ CTS, Internet Democracy Project, KICTANet, and Public Knowledge, with support of the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The WSIS process has been a unique vehicle in promoting a development-oriented, human rights respecting information society, recognizing the important role played by all stakeholders in its governance. This year, as WSIS marks its 10th anniversary, the UN General Assembly is set to evaluate its progress and decide its future . In order for the WSIS to continue acting as a conduit for ICT4D underpinned by human rights beyond 2015, it is important that views of all stakeholders, especially those from developing countries, are reflected in its outcomes. To contribute to this goal, this meeting will aim to further coordinate global civil society priorities, input and engagement in the Review process. The New York meeting will take place in advance of the deadline for submissions on the zero-draft of the Review outcome document (October 15) as well as the informal interactive consultations on October 19. The meeting agenda will be shared closer to the date. Those interested in attending should fill in the expression of interest form available here . Limited financial support is available for a number of participants and the information given will help decide who will receive support. Applications will be reviewed and evaluated by GPD and the Dutch government, based on the following criteria: - An active member of civil society/relevant organisation (e.g. no private sector or government organisations) - Previous engagement in the WSIS process and its Review - Ability to show motivation and benefit to the applicant's future work from participating in the meeting - Ability to show how the applicant's participation in the meeting would enhance civil society engagement in the WSIS and its Review - Geographic and gender diversity Criteria for financial support are designed to ensure that a diverse spread of participants - with focus on global south applicants and those who have previously been engaged in the Review - is achieved, and to secure gender and regional diversity. Due to time constraints and difficulties this poses for obtaining visas, visa status may be taken into account for applications received after the second deadline (24 September). The applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis and successful applicants will be notified within 3 working days of each deadline: - *Round 1 deadline: Friday, September 18th* - Round 2 deadline: Thursday, September 24th* - Round 3 deadline: Thursday, October 1st* **We advise those who require visas to apply as soon as possible, ideally by the first deadline.* Lastly, *if you or your organisation are interested in co-organising the meeting* - either by dedicating your time and energy to develop the concept, agenda and outputs, or by contributing funding towards participation of participants or logistical costs of the meeting, *let us know by Friday 18th September*. Please share this call widely. P.S. Please note that Coding Rights has set up a WSIS+10 resource platform for the Latin American context, and all are invited to engage there [see note below for more information]. Best, On behalf of the co-organisers, Lea ************ Note: Particularly for the Latin American and Caribbean context, Coding Rights, in partnership with APC and support of GPD, is developing a WSIS+10 resources platform at http://wsislatam.codingrights.org. The goal is to highlight the core issues that are at the stake for the region and enable people to comment in a specific session/paragraph of the next documents that are/will be under consultation (namely the non-paper; zero draft and second draft). The goal is to enable civil society representatives to quickly collaborate in an issue based approach, according to their field of knowledge, research and concern, even if they do not have the time to engage in all the issues of the WSIS review process to organise their own submission. Comments in that platform will be simply compiled and forwarded to the Secretariat, according to Preparatory Process Roadmap reviewing WSIS+10, to amplify voices from the region and posted at wsislatam.codingrights.org as a reference for next steps of regional advocacy strategies. Please, feel invited to engage there. --- *Lea Kaspar* Head of Programmes and International Policy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar gp-digital.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Sep 16 16:17:23 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:17:23 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Internet Rights @HRC30 In-Reply-To: <55F8538D.9080800@apc.org> References: <55F8538D.9080800@apc.org> Message-ID: Deborah, I just sent to the BB WSIS WG the draft comments on the non-paper. I think those comments would gain if you insert this document in the footnotes, making a cross-reference of this processes, when we discuss the human rights section of the non-paper. Let me know if makes sense. Cheers On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Dear all, > > APC and Access have prepared a briefing on internet rights issues on the > agenda for the 30th session of the Human Rights Council, which started > yesterday: > > > https://www.apc.org/en/news/internet-rights-human-rights-council%E2%80%99s-30th-sessio > > All the best, > Deborah > > -- > > Deborah Brown > Senior Project Coordinator > Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > www.apc.org > deborah at apc.org > @deblebrown > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Sun Sep 20 09:01:22 2015 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:31:22 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Submission to WSIS+10 Review based on Pattaya Key Messages - additional supporters welcome Message-ID: Dear all, I wanted to share with you all the submission that was made to the WSIS+10 Review using the Pattaya Key Messages, the outcome document of the Asian Regional on the WSIS+10 Review that took place in Pattaya, Thailand, earlier this month (see wsis10.asia for more information). This has been sent off as is already, but if you are working in the Asia Pacific region and want to endorse this either individually or institutionally, please let me know within the next 26 hours and so - hoping this will still be taken into account, we plan to send an updated (and final) list of endorsements of this WSIS+10 Review submission on Monday. Thanks and best regards, Anja -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Pattaya Key Messages - Voices from the Asia Pacific - Comment on WSIS+10 Review Non-paper September 2015.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 599539 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Sep 2 04:01:20 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 13:31:20 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Taking place next week: Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available In-Reply-To: References: <55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <55E6ACD0.70802@itforchange.net> Hi Anja There were two levels of issues that I had raised. First (which I call as category 1) is simple, direct, objective and fully-self contained, public interest information about what is supposed to be a public interest activity. I have covered this aspect in the email I sent just now. The second (category 2) is connected, but a slightly lower level issue because it involves judgements, and judgements about judgements, about who was invited, who was funded, who was informed in time enough to consider participating, and so on....( In fact, this part is also greatly helped by a full declaration of the decision process, the group involved in making the judgements, and so on, which basic info is part of category 1 above.) I do not want to mix issues of category 1 and 2, so that the clarity of category 1 issues, and the basic and objective imperatives involved, may not get diluted. So please provide meseparatelythe fully objective information under category 1 sought in my earlier email . Meanwhile, this email will deal with some admittedly judgemental issues that are involved, which while being not fully objective are still a worthy subject of public debate. Please see inline.... On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but as the person who > first came up with this idea and also the one to send the message to > which you responded, I am happy to provide some answers. > > Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do here. As we all know, > the modalities explicitly made the Review a government-led process. > Also, details on the way in which the informal consultations with > other stakeholders would be facilitated remained extremely scanty even > eight months before the review was supposed to take place. Even when > the Review process was formally announced, it wasn't clear to what > extent inputs from stakeholders other than governments would be taken > into account. This meeting is an attempt to be proactive in that > situation, trying to amplify voices from our region to make sure that > concerns from this region actually find resonance in New York - > something that, seeing how far removed we are from there, isn't > guaranteed at all. Sure... I note the term /'amplify voices/' and the neutrality of the platform which is thus suggested.... Hope you note it too, and your responses are informed with this fact . (The conference website carries this blurb "Amplifying Asian Voices in the WSIS + 10 Process" - which raises the important public interest question about who determines and filters what are 'Asian Voices') > > The organisations that are co-organising this meeting are > organisations that all got enthused by this prospect, and were willing > to put part of their organisational budgets, of their staff's time and > minds, or of all of these up to make this event happen. Who funded what - especially in terms of actual money.... Lets not generalise clear and objective issues and questions. What you refuse to answer, you should just say so. > No funding was secured specifically for this meeting (though I tried). > What this meant is that the funding pool was limited, and difficult > decisions indeed did have to be made. Who made the decisions, what was the process... This being after all an "Asia Regional Consultation" whereby the outputs of it will also carry that label. > What we aimed for was to have a balanced representation across Asia's > sub-regions as well as a group that could address a mix of issues from > a range of perspectives. 'Balanced representation'.... and 'mix of issues from a range of perspectives' :) . You must be joking.... One cant just write anything, just because it sounds good and is of a general nature.... Can you show how is it balanced and admits a range of perspective, about which more below... > A direct engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past two > years was definitely seen as a plus, but not a must. Sure. Then maybe engagement with WSIS for 12 years would be a big plus plus plus ... but it did not seem to count here among a 'range of perspectives' and 'balanced views'..... You need to justify with facts all the good and general things you are writing here if we are to have a meaningful dialogue and not just confuse people. > > As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are indeed people > who would be able to offer valuable inputs to the meeting but who we > were not able to offer funding. Just wanted to understand the 'process'.. Who was actually making the decisions. > Luckily, some of those are able to self-fund their attendance. But then they at least need to know about the event, which I first heard about exactly 10 days before the meeting from your email below -- this even when we were in conversation over another issue, in fact a meeting my organisation is organising in Delhi on the 5th of Sept to which we invited you, but you said you cannot come, even at that stage not revealing why you could not - which I now gather was bec you had this Asia Consultation meeting on the 5th. Anja, the meeting plans and dates were clearly kept under wraps till the very last minute - so I do not understand this 'self funding' business either.... Other than it being another link in the long chain of general, good sounding, statements, which are not very well founded on facts, and thus do not contribute to a serious and useful discussion. Maybe some people could have self funded (although I could not have) if they knew about this meeting... But the problem is that a so called 'Asia Regional Consultation' of a UN process is being held even without sufficient notice to people (all of 10 days)... > In addition, we tried to alleviate the restrictions imposed by the > limited funding by deciding to provide remote participation, so as to > allow all those interested in participating to do so. The full > modalities of how this will work is something that we are still > working out: as this is intended to be a working meeting, ensuring > that remote participation is substantive is not a given. We are doing > our very best to try and pull off successfully what I think is a first > in our region for a meeting of this kind. I am not sure what you mean by first of this kind.... The original WSIS process had publicly funded regional review meetings, in both its phases... > > Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition has been invited is > of course not correct. One organisation was on our shortlist from day > one. Another is attending on its own force, and we are very happy that > they, as well as others, have been able to draw on their own resources > to attend this event and contribute to its success. But perhaps you could have put the info on the Just Net Coalition elist, so that all would know, also also engaged with other JNC members especially those who were most active in WSIS + 10 engagement including developing JNC's statement towards it. That reminds me - the resource page of your proposed 'Consultation', which carry a number of contributions to the WSIS + 10 process of NGOs and even of non-NGOs, chose to specifically censor the contribution of Just Net Coalition. This says a lot to your commitment to 'balanced views' and 'range of perspectives'. (Well, very interestingly, I now see that JNC's contribution has been added now after I wrote the email yesterday, but /it wasnt there till yesterday/, and I did take the enclosed print out which shows that it wasnt . Anja, another specific question, is it not true that the JNC contribution was not there on your list of contributions page till yesterday? ) > > On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to hear that they are > now intending to work on issues related to science and technology as well, They have worked in this area for quite some time.. > and that they are even engaging with the Internet Social Forum > initiative on this. Though I am on an email list that is dedicated to > discussing the Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to > locate that information there. Do please feel free to pass on the > message about this event to them though. If any representative of > APRCEM would be interested in attending, either in person or remotely, > they are very welcome to do so, as are you. Dont you think this is very late for meeting in 3 days! But again, the real issues here are structural ones around civil society processes and transparency/ accountability, and not about individuals... > > Hope this clarifies. My apologies, but it doesnt. Best, parminder > > Regards, > Anja > > > > > On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder > wrote: > > Dear organisers of the *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10 > Review, > > *With your permission I have some questions to ask you. I know > this is a treacherous territory, given an extra ordinary (and > completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being asked questions by > some groups, but my apologies, I cannot but ask them in pursuance > of my public interest work, however distasteful it may be even for > me to get into this thing.... > > This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian > Regional' consultation, on what is a global governance process, > and so some questions arise in my mind: > > (1) who is funding this 'consultation' > > (2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations > sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my > view, would be a consultation) > > (3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and > by whom, and who decided it.. > > Thanks for answering these public interest questions... > > I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge that > no member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT for > Change is among very few groups in Asia Pacific which has been > engaged with the WSIS process from the start, and very thoroughly > engaged. Further, there is in fact an Asia Pacific Regional CSO > Engagement Mechanism , which > describes itself as > > "APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger > cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of all > sub-regions of Asia Pacific are heard in intergovernmental > processes in regional and global level. The platform is > initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and has been set up > under the auspices of UN-ESCAP and seeks to engage with UN > agencies and Member States on the Post-2015 as well as other > development related issues/processes. " > > In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology Constituency > which works as an active network (of which IT for Change is a > member) which has begun to work closely with the Just Net > Coalition (many JNC members also being its members) and the > Internet Social Forum initiatives, which shows its interest in > Internet issues... As far as I know no member of this network, or > the network as a whole, has been involved in this so-called "Asia > Regional Consultation' which being on a UN process this group > would be natural constituency... All of which makes me wonder, and > so my questions.. > > > parminder > > > On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the >> Association for Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global Partners >> Digital and ICT Watch are together organising an *Asian Regional >> Consultation on the WIS+10 Review* from 3 to 5 September in >> Pattaya, Thailand. >> >> >> The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will bring >> together experts from different backgrounds and from around the >> Asian region who are concerned about issues concerning ICTs, >> sustainable development, human rights and Internet governance, to >> ask: *what are the issues that our governments need to squarely >> address in the process of the review? >> * >> >> >> The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment on >> the non-paper that will have been released by the co-facilitators >> of the review process in late August (inputs into that paper can >> be made by all stakeholders and are due on 31 July).The group >> will take stock of the extent to which priorities for the Asian >> region have been reflected in the non-paper, and will work >> together on formulating a joint comment on the non-paper >> (comments on the non-paper will be due in mid-September, and will >> be drawn on by the co-facilitators to formulate a zero-draft). >> The group will also look forward to consider which further inputs >> could be made or actions could be taken strategically to ensure >> that priorities from the Asian region are fully taken onto board >> in the final WSIS+10 Review outcome documents. If there are other >> processes the group believes this work could usefully feed into, >> these might be taken into consideration as well. >> >> >> *The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working meeting >> that is geared towards producing a joint submission to the next >> input round on the Review outcome document. *Participants will be >> drawn from all non-government stakeholder groups, and will have a >> wide and rich variety of backgrounds, both in terms of >> professional expertise and geographical location. What unites >> all, however, is a shared commitment to a free and open Internet >> and to the use of technology to benefit the development and human >> rights of all in our region. >> >> >> *We're very happy to let you know that remote participation will >> be available. *For more information on remote participation and >> the event in general, please see the event website >> . Or follow us on Twitter @WSISAsia #wsis10. >> >> >> We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let me >> know if you have any comments or questions. >> >> >> Warm regards, >> >> Anja >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: resources page asai wsis 10 meeting 010915 Type: application/pdf Size: 41322 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lea at gp-digital.org Mon Sep 21 08:08:41 2015 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:08:41 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Submission to WSIS+10 Review based on Pattaya Key Messages - additional supporters welcome In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations on putting this together, Anja and all who contributed. Thanks for sharing! Best, Lea On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > I wanted to share with you all the submission that was made to the WSIS+10 > Review using the Pattaya Key Messages, the outcome document of the Asian > Regional on the WSIS+10 Review that took place in Pattaya, Thailand, > earlier this month (see wsis10.asia for more information). > > This has been sent off as is already, but if you are working in the Asia > Pacific region and want to endorse this either individually or > institutionally, please let me know within the next 26 hours and so - > hoping this will still be taken into account, we plan to send an updated > (and final) list of endorsements of this WSIS+10 Review submission on > Monday. > > Thanks and best regards, > Anja > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Mon Sep 21 09:08:42 2015 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 09:08:42 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Submission to WSIS+10 Review based on Pattaya Key Messages - additional supporters welcome In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1, Excellent collaboration and very strong document! Thanks for leading us on this On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Congratulations on putting this together, Anja and all who contributed. > Thanks for sharing! > > Best, > Lea > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Anja Kovacs > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> I wanted to share with you all the submission that was made to the >> WSIS+10 Review using the Pattaya Key Messages, the outcome document of the >> Asian Regional on the WSIS+10 Review that took place in Pattaya, Thailand, >> earlier this month (see wsis10.asia for more information). >> >> This has been sent off as is already, but if you are working in the Asia >> Pacific region and want to endorse this either individually or >> institutionally, please let me know within the next 26 hours and so - >> hoping this will still be taken into account, we plan to send an updated >> (and final) list of endorsements of this WSIS+10 Review submission on >> Monday. >> >> Thanks and best regards, >> Anja >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 mishi at softwarefreedom.org Mon Sep 21 14:24:24 2015 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:24:24 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Indian Encryption Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56004B58.7050706@softwarefreedom.org> Worrisome development from India through this encryption policy http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/draft%20Encryption%20Policyv1.pdf -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Sep 21 15:33:17 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:33:17 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Indian Encryption Policy In-Reply-To: <56004B58.7050706@softwarefreedom.org> References: <56004B58.7050706@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: <662B4EBE-DDDB-4E53-AF16-AE74E89749BB@gmail.com> Hi folks, I feel this could be a good topic for a coalition response through the BB platform. Can the folks for India give some context to the folks in this list? Let us know if such an action would be helpful. Carol Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 21, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Mishi Choudhary wrote: > > Worrisome development from India through this encryption policy > > > http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/draft%20Encryption%20Policyv1.pdf > > -- > Warm Regards > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > Legal Director > Software Freedom Law Center > 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > New York, NY-10023 > (tel) 212-461-1912 > (fax) 212-580-0898 > www.softwarefreedom.org > > > Executive Director > SFLC.IN > K-9, Second Floor > Jangpura Extn. > New Delhi-110014 > (tel) +91-11-43587126 > (fax) +91-11-24323530 > www.sflc.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 mishi at softwarefreedom.org Mon Sep 21 15:42:05 2015 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:42:05 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Indian Encryption Policy In-Reply-To: <662B4EBE-DDDB-4E53-AF16-AE74E89749BB@gmail.com> References: <56004B58.7050706@softwarefreedom.org> <662B4EBE-DDDB-4E53-AF16-AE74E89749BB@gmail.com> Message-ID: <56005D8D.5050503@softwarefreedom.org> Hi Carol, Thanks for highlighting this. Its a draft National Encryption Policy and public comments are invited by October 16, 2015. Comments are to be emailed to Mr A,S.A. Krishnan, akrishnan at deity.gov.in The key highlights of the policy are : 1. A stipulation that businesses and citizens are to maintain plain text (unencrypted) copies of encrypted content for a period of 90 days, to be made available to Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) when so directed under law. 2. Vendors of encryption products are required to register their products with the Government as a pre-condition to conducting business in India. They are also expected to re-register their products with every update. This requirement is not limited to vendors of dedicated encryption products, and seemingly includes even products that use encryption in the course of providing a larger service such as messaging or e-commerce. (Service Providers located within and outside India, using Encryption technology for providing any type of services in India must enter into an agreement with the Government for providing such services in India). 3. Encryption algorithms and key sizes shall be prescribed by the Government through Notifications from time to time. On 09/21/2015 03:33 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Hi folks, I feel this could be a good topic for a coalition response through the BB platform. Can the folks for India give some context to the folks in this list? Let us know if such an action would be helpful. > > Carol > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Sep 21, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Mishi Choudhary wrote: >> >> Worrisome development from India through this encryption policy >> >> >> http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/draft%20Encryption%20Policyv1.pdf >> >> -- >> Warm Regards >> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >> Legal Director >> Software Freedom Law Center >> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >> New York, NY-10023 >> (tel) 212-461-1912 >> (fax) 212-580-0898 >> www.softwarefreedom.org >> >> >> Executive Director >> SFLC.IN >> K-9, Second Floor >> Jangpura Extn. >> New Delhi-110014 >> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >> www.sflc.in >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in From raman at accessnow.org Mon Sep 21 15:46:12 2015 From: raman at accessnow.org (Raman Jit Singh Chima) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 01:16:12 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Indian Encryption Policy In-Reply-To: <56005D8D.5050503@softwarefreedom.org> References: <56004B58.7050706@softwarefreedom.org> <662B4EBE-DDDB-4E53-AF16-AE74E89749BB@gmail.com> <56005D8D.5050503@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: Happy to add a few brief notes on the background to this if it is helpful: - The Indian Govt has had encryption policy discussions ongoing for about a decade. Pre-existing telecom sector regulation placed a limit of 40 bits on the encryption that could be deployed by ISPs or telcos on their networks, though that arguably applied only to them directly and was unclear as to how it affected third parties - A provision in the Information Technology Act (Section 69) allowed the Union Government to issue orders forcing decryption of data in addition to allowing for interception requests. When the Information Technology Act was amended in 2008, another provision was added (Section 84A) which allowed the Union Government to specify "modes or methods for encryption" by executive rule-making. The text of the provision said that this was supposed to be for "secure use of the electronic medium and for promotion of e-governance and e-commerce". The internal political context for this included strong political pressure from law enforcement and the security establishment, who raised concerns about not being able to intercept encrypted communications - No rules for the above provision was publicly brought up from 2008 until now, though there have been regular internal discussions - mostly with industry and intergovernmental consultation Additionally - perhaps in response to the initial negative reaction in the press - the Indian Dept. of Electronics and IT released an addendum document today. It essentially appears to be trying to suggest that the draft rules could exempt "mass use encryption products" along with SSL/TLS products used for Internet banking (though only those specified by the Reserve Bank of India) or for e-Commerce passwords. Sincerely, Raman. On 22 September 2015 at 01:12, Mishi Choudhary wrote: > Hi Carol, > > Thanks for highlighting this. Its a draft National Encryption Policy > and public comments are invited by October 16, 2015. Comments are to be > emailed to Mr A,S.A. Krishnan, akrishnan at deity.gov.in > > The key highlights of the policy are : > > > 1. A stipulation that businesses and citizens are to maintain plain text > (unencrypted) copies of encrypted content for a period of 90 days, to be > made available to Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) when so directed under > law. > > 2. Vendors of encryption products are required to register their > products with the Government as a pre-condition to conducting business > in India. They are also expected to re-register their products with > every update. This requirement is not limited to vendors of dedicated > encryption products, and seemingly includes even products that use > encryption in the course of providing a larger service such as messaging > or e-commerce. (Service Providers located within and > outside India, using Encryption technology for providing any type of > services in India must enter into an agreement with the Government > for providing such services in India). > > 3. Encryption algorithms and key sizes shall be prescribed > by the Government through Notifications from time to time. > > > On 09/21/2015 03:33 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > Hi folks, I feel this could be a good topic for a coalition response > through the BB platform. Can the folks for India give some context to the > folks in this list? Let us know if such an action would be helpful. > > > > Carol > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > >> On Sep 21, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Mishi Choudhary > wrote: > >> > >> Worrisome development from India through this encryption policy > >> > >> > >> > http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/draft%20Encryption%20Policyv1.pdf > >> > >> -- > >> Warm Regards > >> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > >> Legal Director > >> Software Freedom Law Center > >> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > >> New York, NY-10023 > >> (tel) 212-461-1912 > >> (fax) 212-580-0898 > >> www.softwarefreedom.org > >> > >> > >> Executive Director > >> SFLC.IN > >> K-9, Second Floor > >> Jangpura Extn. > >> New Delhi-110014 > >> (tel) +91-11-43587126 > >> (fax) +91-11-24323530 > >> www.sflc.in > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as 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 > > -- > Warm Regards > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > Legal Director > Software Freedom Law Center > 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > New York, NY-10023 > (tel) 212-461-1912 > (fax) 212-580-0898 > www.softwarefreedom.org > > > Executive Director > SFLC.IN > K-9, Second Floor > Jangpura Extn. > New Delhi-110014 > (tel) +91-11-43587126 > (fax) +91-11-24323530 > www.sflc.in > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Raman Jit Singh Chima* Policy Director Access | accessnow.org Email: raman at accessnow.org Skype: raman.chima PGP ID: 0x2A186000 *Join the Access team - *we're hiring ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gangesh.varma at nludelhi.ac.in Mon Sep 21 17:46:53 2015 From: gangesh.varma at nludelhi.ac.in (Gangesh S. Varma) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 03:16:53 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] CCG's Comments on the WSIS+10 Review Non-Paper Message-ID: Dear all, We at the Centre for Communication Governance at the National Law University Delhi are pleased to share with you our comments on the WSIS+10 Review Non-paper. We welcome your comments and feedback. Thanks and regards Gangesh -- Gangesh Sreekumar Varma | Senior Fellow Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 8447159123 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.ccgtlr.org . www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @ccgdelhi . @gangeshvarma -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: (CCG-NLUD) UNGA WSIS Review Comments on Non-paper (2).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 246527 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Sep 21 21:52:36 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:52:36 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Invitation / Preparing for the 10th Internet Governance Forum: exchange of views with European business and civil society In-Reply-To: <14CAA51FE6117747A4353B806942EE965E0F2D37@S-DC-ESTD04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> References: <1CE9542B07571149A7CD4AB01871A95F363B7B9E@S-DC-ESTF02-J.net1.cec.eu.int> <14CAA51FE6117747A4353B806942EE965E0F2D37@S-DC-ESTD04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:46 PM Subject: Invitation / Preparing for the 10th Internet Governance Forum: exchange of views with European business and civil society To: Cc: CNECT-D1-EVENTS at ec.europa.eu, Cristina.MONTI at ec.europa.eu Dear all, In preparation of the upcoming IGF meeting in João Pessoa (Brazil), you are kindly invited to an exchange of information and views on on-going global discussions on Internet governance and specifically on the implications and the significance for European businesses and civil society. *Date*: 09 October 2015 *Time*: 09:30 – 12:00 *Venue*: DG CONNECT, room BU25 0/S1, Av. de Beaulieu 25, 1160 Brussels *Remote participation*: Participants can also participate remotely. Login details will be provided after registration. For additional details and the agenda of the meeting, please see: https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/content/preparing-10th-internet-governance-forum-exchange-views-european-business-and-civil-society On this page, you can also *share any key messages* you would like to be delivered in João Pessoa as well as *details on your engagement and participation* in the IGF. *To register*, please send an email to CNECT-D1-EVENTS at ec.europa.eu mentioning the subject "Internet governance" and specifying whether you will participate physically or remotely, by 6 October. Best regards, Cristina *CRISTINA MONTI* International Relations Officer *European Commission* Directorate-General for Communication Networks, Content and Technology International Unit BU25 04/95 B-1049 Brussels/Belgium Office: +32 229 69467 Mobile: +32 460 769467 cristina.monti at ec.europa.eu Think before you print! -- *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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3898 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Tue Sep 22 11:03:21 2015 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:03:21 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Update: Indian Encryption Policy In-Reply-To: References: <56004B58.7050706@softwarefreedom.org> <662B4EBE-DDDB-4E53-AF16-AE74E89749BB@gmail.com> <56005D8D.5050503@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: <56016DB9.7050309@softwarefreedom.org> Post a public outcry, DEITY has withdrawn this policy. On 09/21/2015 03:46 PM, Raman Jit Singh Chima wrote: > Happy to add a few brief notes on the background to this if it is helpful: > > > - The Indian Govt has had encryption policy discussions ongoing for > about a decade. Pre-existing telecom sector regulation placed a limit of 40 > bits on the encryption that could be deployed by ISPs or telcos on their > networks, though that arguably applied only to them directly and was > unclear as to how it affected third parties > - A provision in the Information Technology Act (Section 69) allowed the > Union Government to issue orders forcing decryption of data in addition to > allowing for interception requests. When the Information Technology Act was > amended in 2008, another provision was added (Section 84A) which allowed > the Union Government to specify "modes or methods for encryption" by > executive rule-making. The text of the provision said that this was > supposed to be for "secure use of the electronic medium and for promotion > of e-governance and e-commerce". The internal political context for this > included strong political pressure from law enforcement and the security > establishment, who raised concerns about not being able to intercept > encrypted communications > - No rules for the above provision was publicly brought up from 2008 > until now, though there have been regular internal discussions - mostly > with industry and intergovernmental consultation > > > Additionally - perhaps in response to the initial negative reaction in the > press - the Indian Dept. of Electronics and IT released an addendum document > > today. It essentially appears to be trying to suggest that the draft rules > could exempt "mass use encryption products" along with SSL/TLS products > used for Internet banking (though only those specified by the Reserve Bank > of India) or for e-Commerce passwords. > > Sincerely, > Raman. > > On 22 September 2015 at 01:12, Mishi Choudhary > wrote: > >> Hi Carol, >> >> Thanks for highlighting this. Its a draft National Encryption Policy >> and public comments are invited by October 16, 2015. Comments are to be >> emailed to Mr A,S.A. Krishnan, akrishnan at deity.gov.in >> >> The key highlights of the policy are : >> >> >> 1. A stipulation that businesses and citizens are to maintain plain text >> (unencrypted) copies of encrypted content for a period of 90 days, to be >> made available to Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) when so directed under >> law. >> >> 2. Vendors of encryption products are required to register their >> products with the Government as a pre-condition to conducting business >> in India. They are also expected to re-register their products with >> every update. This requirement is not limited to vendors of dedicated >> encryption products, and seemingly includes even products that use >> encryption in the course of providing a larger service such as messaging >> or e-commerce. (Service Providers located within and >> outside India, using Encryption technology for providing any type of >> services in India must enter into an agreement with the Government >> for providing such services in India). >> >> 3. Encryption algorithms and key sizes shall be prescribed >> by the Government through Notifications from time to time. >> >> >> On 09/21/2015 03:33 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>> Hi folks, I feel this could be a good topic for a coalition response >> through the BB platform. Can the folks for India give some context to the >> folks in this list? Let us know if such an action would be helpful. >>> >>> Carol >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Sep 21, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Mishi Choudhary >> wrote: >>>> >>>> Worrisome development from India through this encryption policy >>>> >>>> >>>> >> http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/draft%20Encryption%20Policyv1.pdf >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Warm Regards >>>> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >>>> Legal Director >>>> Software Freedom Law Center >>>> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >>>> New York, NY-10023 >>>> (tel) 212-461-1912 >>>> (fax) 212-580-0898 >>>> www.softwarefreedom.org >>>> >>>> >>>> Executive Director >>>> SFLC.IN >>>> K-9, Second Floor >>>> Jangpura Extn. >>>> New Delhi-110014 >>>> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >>>> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >>>> www.sflc.in >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as 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 >> >> -- >> Warm Regards >> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >> Legal Director >> Software Freedom Law Center >> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >> New York, NY-10023 >> (tel) 212-461-1912 >> (fax) 212-580-0898 >> www.softwarefreedom.org >> >> >> Executive Director >> SFLC.IN >> K-9, Second Floor >> Jangpura Extn. >> New Delhi-110014 >> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >> www.sflc.in >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Tue Sep 22 11:06:54 2015 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (shahzad ahmad) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 20:06:54 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Update: Indian Encryption Policy In-Reply-To: <56016DB9.7050309@softwarefreedom.org> References: <56004B58.7050706@softwarefreedom.org> <662B4EBE-DDDB-4E53-AF16-AE74E89749BB@gmail.com> <56005D8D.5050503@softwarefreedom.org> <56016DB9.7050309@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: Beautiful news Mishi! Excellent development. This news must be publicised as far and wide possible so if there are other authorities thinking on the same lines should refrain from it. Best wishes Shahzad On 22 Sep 2015 20:03, "Mishi Choudhary" wrote: > Post a public outcry, DEITY has withdrawn this policy. > > On 09/21/2015 03:46 PM, Raman Jit Singh Chima wrote: > > Happy to add a few brief notes on the background to this if it is > helpful: > > > > > > - The Indian Govt has had encryption policy discussions ongoing for > > about a decade. Pre-existing telecom sector regulation placed a limit > of 40 > > bits on the encryption that could be deployed by ISPs or telcos on > their > > networks, though that arguably applied only to them directly and was > > unclear as to how it affected third parties > > - A provision in the Information Technology Act (Section 69) allowed > the > > Union Government to issue orders forcing decryption of data in > addition to > > allowing for interception requests. When the Information Technology > Act was > > amended in 2008, another provision was added (Section 84A) which > allowed > > the Union Government to specify "modes or methods for encryption" by > > executive rule-making. The text of the provision said that this was > > supposed to be for "secure use of the electronic medium and for > promotion > > of e-governance and e-commerce". The internal political context for > this > > included strong political pressure from law enforcement and the > security > > establishment, who raised concerns about not being able to intercept > > encrypted communications > > - No rules for the above provision was publicly brought up from 2008 > > until now, though there have been regular internal discussions - > mostly > > with industry and intergovernmental consultation > > > > > > Additionally - perhaps in response to the initial negative reaction in > the > > press - the Indian Dept. of Electronics and IT released an addendum > document > > < > http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/Addendum%20-%20NEP-1_0.pdf > > > > today. It essentially appears to be trying to suggest that the draft > rules > > could exempt "mass use encryption products" along with SSL/TLS products > > used for Internet banking (though only those specified by the Reserve > Bank > > of India) or for e-Commerce passwords. > > > > Sincerely, > > Raman. > > > > On 22 September 2015 at 01:12, Mishi Choudhary < > mishi at softwarefreedom.org> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Carol, > >> > >> Thanks for highlighting this. Its a draft National Encryption Policy > >> and public comments are invited by October 16, 2015. Comments are to be > >> emailed to Mr A,S.A. Krishnan, akrishnan at deity.gov.in > >> > >> The key highlights of the policy are : > >> > >> > >> 1. A stipulation that businesses and citizens are to maintain plain text > >> (unencrypted) copies of encrypted content for a period of 90 days, to be > >> made available to Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) when so directed under > >> law. > >> > >> 2. Vendors of encryption products are required to register their > >> products with the Government as a pre-condition to conducting business > >> in India. They are also expected to re-register their products with > >> every update. This requirement is not limited to vendors of dedicated > >> encryption products, and seemingly includes even products that use > >> encryption in the course of providing a larger service such as messaging > >> or e-commerce. (Service Providers located within and > >> outside India, using Encryption technology for providing any type of > >> services in India must enter into an agreement with the Government > >> for providing such services in India). > >> > >> 3. Encryption algorithms and key sizes shall be prescribed > >> by the Government through Notifications from time to time. > >> > >> > >> On 09/21/2015 03:33 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > >>> Hi folks, I feel this could be a good topic for a coalition response > >> through the BB platform. Can the folks for India give some context to > the > >> folks in this list? Let us know if such an action would be helpful. > >>> > >>> Carol > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPhone > >>> > >>>> On Sep 21, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Mishi Choudhary < > mishi at softwarefreedom.org> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Worrisome development from India through this encryption policy > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/draft%20Encryption%20Policyv1.pdf > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Warm Regards > >>>> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > >>>> Legal Director > >>>> Software Freedom Law Center > >>>> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > >>>> New York, NY-10023 > >>>> (tel) 212-461-1912 > >>>> (fax) 212-580-0898 > >>>> www.softwarefreedom.org > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Executive Director > >>>> SFLC.IN > >>>> K-9, Second Floor > >>>> Jangpura Extn. > >>>> New Delhi-110014 > >>>> (tel) +91-11-43587126 > >>>> (fax) +91-11-24323530 > >>>> www.sflc.in > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as 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 > >> > >> -- > >> Warm Regards > >> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > >> Legal Director > >> Software Freedom Law Center > >> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > >> New York, NY-10023 > >> (tel) 212-461-1912 > >> (fax) 212-580-0898 > >> www.softwarefreedom.org > >> > >> > >> Executive Director > >> SFLC.IN > >> K-9, Second Floor > >> Jangpura Extn. > >> New Delhi-110014 > >> (tel) +91-11-43587126 > >> (fax) +91-11-24323530 > >> www.sflc.in > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > > > > > > > > -- > Warm Regards > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > Legal Director > Software Freedom Law Center > 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > New York, NY-10023 > (tel) 212-461-1912 > (fax) 212-580-0898 > www.softwarefreedom.org > > > Executive Director > SFLC.IN > K-9, Second Floor > Jangpura Extn. > New Delhi-110014 > (tel) +91-11-43587126 > (fax) +91-11-24323530 > www.sflc.in > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 anja at internetdemocracy.in Wed Sep 2 10:16:31 2015 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 19:46:31 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Update on remote participation Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review Message-ID: Dear all, As I had mentioned earlier, we would like to ensure that remote participants of the Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review are really able to substantively contribute to the outcome of the meeting. Below is an update on the process that we hope will facilitate this. The remote moderator will be happy to provide additional details when you join the session: 1. You can follow any of the sessions via Webex. When you join the teleconference in Webex, you will find a moderator who will also be in the meeting room in Pattaya. The moderator will be able to guide you through the process and also help you to convey your views to the other participants. Please be in constant contact with the moderator during the sessions. 2. You are also more than welcome to take part in the development of the outcome document. The remote moderator will create a chatroom and a mailing list with those remote participants that want to take part in this process. Please flag your availability to the moderator as soon as you join a session. 3. Discussions about the outcome document will take part in the Strategic sessions at the end of each day, Thursday 3 and Friday 4 of September at 16:00 (UTC+7)/9:00am UTC. During these sessions, remote participants will have a dedicated teleconference on Webex to share their views and collectively provide inputs which will be channeled via the moderator into the rest of the meeting. 4. Please also make sure you participate in the Strategic Session on Saturday 5 September at 9:15am (UTC+7)/02:00am UTC. This session will review and approve the final document. Hope this is useful. Best regards, Anja -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bankston at opentechinstitute.org Tue Sep 22 11:07:39 2015 From: bankston at opentechinstitute.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:07:39 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Update: Indian Encryption Policy In-Reply-To: <56016DB9.7050309@softwarefreedom.org> References: <56004B58.7050706@softwarefreedom.org> <662B4EBE-DDDB-4E53-AF16-AE74E89749BB@gmail.com> <56005D8D.5050503@softwarefreedom.org> <56016DB9.7050309@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: <5EFD20CD-BBA1-42C4-8FB4-C709C2C76E29@opentechinstitute.org> Is there a story or other link confirming that so we can tweet about our community winning a quick victory? Didn't even need to write comments! Sent via mobile __________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Director, Open Technology Institute Co-Director, Cybersecurity Initiative New America 1899 L Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 bankston at opentechinstitute.org Phone: 202-596-3415 Fax: 202-986-3696 @kevinbankston > On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Mishi Choudhary wrote: > > Post a public outcry, DEITY has withdrawn this policy. > >> On 09/21/2015 03:46 PM, Raman Jit Singh Chima wrote: >> Happy to add a few brief notes on the background to this if it is helpful: >> >> >> - The Indian Govt has had encryption policy discussions ongoing for >> about a decade. Pre-existing telecom sector regulation placed a limit of 40 >> bits on the encryption that could be deployed by ISPs or telcos on their >> networks, though that arguably applied only to them directly and was >> unclear as to how it affected third parties >> - A provision in the Information Technology Act (Section 69) allowed the >> Union Government to issue orders forcing decryption of data in addition to >> allowing for interception requests. When the Information Technology Act was >> amended in 2008, another provision was added (Section 84A) which allowed >> the Union Government to specify "modes or methods for encryption" by >> executive rule-making. The text of the provision said that this was >> supposed to be for "secure use of the electronic medium and for promotion >> of e-governance and e-commerce". The internal political context for this >> included strong political pressure from law enforcement and the security >> establishment, who raised concerns about not being able to intercept >> encrypted communications >> - No rules for the above provision was publicly brought up from 2008 >> until now, though there have been regular internal discussions - mostly >> with industry and intergovernmental consultation >> >> >> Additionally - perhaps in response to the initial negative reaction in the >> press - the Indian Dept. of Electronics and IT released an addendum document >> >> today. It essentially appears to be trying to suggest that the draft rules >> could exempt "mass use encryption products" along with SSL/TLS products >> used for Internet banking (though only those specified by the Reserve Bank >> of India) or for e-Commerce passwords. >> >> Sincerely, >> Raman. >> >> On 22 September 2015 at 01:12, Mishi Choudhary >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Carol, >>> >>> Thanks for highlighting this. Its a draft National Encryption Policy >>> and public comments are invited by October 16, 2015. Comments are to be >>> emailed to Mr A,S.A. Krishnan, akrishnan at deity.gov.in >>> >>> The key highlights of the policy are : >>> >>> >>> 1. A stipulation that businesses and citizens are to maintain plain text >>> (unencrypted) copies of encrypted content for a period of 90 days, to be >>> made available to Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) when so directed under >>> law. >>> >>> 2. Vendors of encryption products are required to register their >>> products with the Government as a pre-condition to conducting business >>> in India. They are also expected to re-register their products with >>> every update. This requirement is not limited to vendors of dedicated >>> encryption products, and seemingly includes even products that use >>> encryption in the course of providing a larger service such as messaging >>> or e-commerce. (Service Providers located within and >>> outside India, using Encryption technology for providing any type of >>> services in India must enter into an agreement with the Government >>> for providing such services in India). >>> >>> 3. Encryption algorithms and key sizes shall be prescribed >>> by the Government through Notifications from time to time. >>> >>> >>>> On 09/21/2015 03:33 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>> Hi folks, I feel this could be a good topic for a coalition response >>> through the BB platform. Can the folks for India give some context to the >>> folks in this list? Let us know if such an action would be helpful. >>>> >>>> Carol >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On Sep 21, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Mishi Choudhary >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Worrisome development from India through this encryption policy >>> http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/draft%20Encryption%20Policyv1.pdf >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Warm Regards >>>>> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >>>>> Legal Director >>>>> Software Freedom Law Center >>>>> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >>>>> New York, NY-10023 >>>>> (tel) 212-461-1912 >>>>> (fax) 212-580-0898 >>>>> www.softwarefreedom.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Executive Director >>>>> SFLC.IN >>>>> K-9, Second Floor >>>>> Jangpura Extn. >>>>> New Delhi-110014 >>>>> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >>>>> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >>>>> www.sflc.in >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as 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 >>> >>> -- >>> Warm Regards >>> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >>> Legal Director >>> Software Freedom Law Center >>> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >>> New York, NY-10023 >>> (tel) 212-461-1912 >>> (fax) 212-580-0898 >>> www.softwarefreedom.org >>> >>> >>> Executive Director >>> SFLC.IN >>> K-9, Second Floor >>> Jangpura Extn. >>> New Delhi-110014 >>> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >>> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >>> www.sflc.in >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- > Warm Regards > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > Legal Director > Software Freedom Law Center > 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > New York, NY-10023 > (tel) 212-461-1912 > (fax) 212-580-0898 > www.softwarefreedom.org > > > Executive Director > SFLC.IN > K-9, Second Floor > Jangpura Extn. > New Delhi-110014 > (tel) +91-11-43587126 > (fax) +91-11-24323530 > www.sflc.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 bankston at opentechinstitute.org Tue Sep 22 11:09:53 2015 From: bankston at opentechinstitute.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:09:53 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Update: Indian Encryption Policy In-Reply-To: <5EFD20CD-BBA1-42C4-8FB4-C709C2C76E29@opentechinstitute.org> References: <56004B58.7050706@softwarefreedom.org> <662B4EBE-DDDB-4E53-AF16-AE74E89749BB@gmail.com> <56005D8D.5050503@softwarefreedom.org> <56016DB9.7050309@softwarefreedom.org> <5EFD20CD-BBA1-42C4-8FB4-C709C2C76E29@opentechinstitute.org> Message-ID: <0AA76AED-4B91-4A02-BD90-1ABD6AB81550@opentechinstitute.org> Found this report via a different list: http://m.timesofindia.com/tech/tech-news/Government-withdraws-draft-of-encryption-policy/articleshow/49057232.cms Sent via mobile __________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Director, Open Technology Institute Co-Director, Cybersecurity Initiative New America 1899 L Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 bankston at opentechinstitute.org Phone: 202-596-3415 Fax: 202-986-3696 @kevinbankston > On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > > Is there a story or other link confirming that so we can tweet about our community winning a quick victory? Didn't even need to write comments! > > Sent via mobile > > __________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Director, Open Technology Institute > Co-Director, Cybersecurity Initiative > New America > 1899 L Street NW, Suite 400 > Washington, DC 20036 > bankston at opentechinstitute.org > Phone: 202-596-3415 > Fax: 202-986-3696 > @kevinbankston > >> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Mishi Choudhary wrote: >> >> Post a public outcry, DEITY has withdrawn this policy. >> >>> On 09/21/2015 03:46 PM, Raman Jit Singh Chima wrote: >>> Happy to add a few brief notes on the background to this if it is helpful: >>> >>> >>> - The Indian Govt has had encryption policy discussions ongoing for >>> about a decade. Pre-existing telecom sector regulation placed a limit of 40 >>> bits on the encryption that could be deployed by ISPs or telcos on their >>> networks, though that arguably applied only to them directly and was >>> unclear as to how it affected third parties >>> - A provision in the Information Technology Act (Section 69) allowed the >>> Union Government to issue orders forcing decryption of data in addition to >>> allowing for interception requests. When the Information Technology Act was >>> amended in 2008, another provision was added (Section 84A) which allowed >>> the Union Government to specify "modes or methods for encryption" by >>> executive rule-making. The text of the provision said that this was >>> supposed to be for "secure use of the electronic medium and for promotion >>> of e-governance and e-commerce". The internal political context for this >>> included strong political pressure from law enforcement and the security >>> establishment, who raised concerns about not being able to intercept >>> encrypted communications >>> - No rules for the above provision was publicly brought up from 2008 >>> until now, though there have been regular internal discussions - mostly >>> with industry and intergovernmental consultation >>> >>> >>> Additionally - perhaps in response to the initial negative reaction in the >>> press - the Indian Dept. of Electronics and IT released an addendum document >>> >>> today. It essentially appears to be trying to suggest that the draft rules >>> could exempt "mass use encryption products" along with SSL/TLS products >>> used for Internet banking (though only those specified by the Reserve Bank >>> of India) or for e-Commerce passwords. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> Raman. >>> >>> On 22 September 2015 at 01:12, Mishi Choudhary >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Carol, >>>> >>>> Thanks for highlighting this. Its a draft National Encryption Policy >>>> and public comments are invited by October 16, 2015. Comments are to be >>>> emailed to Mr A,S.A. Krishnan, akrishnan at deity.gov.in >>>> >>>> The key highlights of the policy are : >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. A stipulation that businesses and citizens are to maintain plain text >>>> (unencrypted) copies of encrypted content for a period of 90 days, to be >>>> made available to Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) when so directed under >>>> law. >>>> >>>> 2. Vendors of encryption products are required to register their >>>> products with the Government as a pre-condition to conducting business >>>> in India. They are also expected to re-register their products with >>>> every update. This requirement is not limited to vendors of dedicated >>>> encryption products, and seemingly includes even products that use >>>> encryption in the course of providing a larger service such as messaging >>>> or e-commerce. (Service Providers located within and >>>> outside India, using Encryption technology for providing any type of >>>> services in India must enter into an agreement with the Government >>>> for providing such services in India). >>>> >>>> 3. Encryption algorithms and key sizes shall be prescribed >>>> by the Government through Notifications from time to time. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 09/21/2015 03:33 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>>> Hi folks, I feel this could be a good topic for a coalition response >>>> through the BB platform. Can the folks for India give some context to the >>>> folks in this list? Let us know if such an action would be helpful. >>>>> >>>>> Carol >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 21, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Mishi Choudhary >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Worrisome development from India through this encryption policy >>>> http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/draft%20Encryption%20Policyv1.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Warm Regards >>>>>> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >>>>>> Legal Director >>>>>> Software Freedom Law Center >>>>>> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >>>>>> New York, NY-10023 >>>>>> (tel) 212-461-1912 >>>>>> (fax) 212-580-0898 >>>>>> www.softwarefreedom.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Executive Director >>>>>> SFLC.IN >>>>>> K-9, Second Floor >>>>>> Jangpura Extn. >>>>>> New Delhi-110014 >>>>>> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >>>>>> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >>>>>> www.sflc.in >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as 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 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Warm Regards >>>> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >>>> Legal Director >>>> Software Freedom Law Center >>>> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >>>> New York, NY-10023 >>>> (tel) 212-461-1912 >>>> (fax) 212-580-0898 >>>> www.softwarefreedom.org >>>> >>>> >>>> Executive Director >>>> SFLC.IN >>>> K-9, Second Floor >>>> Jangpura Extn. >>>> New Delhi-110014 >>>> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >>>> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >>>> www.sflc.in >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> -- >> Warm Regards >> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >> Legal Director >> Software Freedom Law Center >> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >> New York, NY-10023 >> (tel) 212-461-1912 >> (fax) 212-580-0898 >> www.softwarefreedom.org >> >> >> Executive Director >> SFLC.IN >> K-9, Second Floor >> Jangpura Extn. >> New Delhi-110014 >> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >> www.sflc.in >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 11:10:18 2015 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:10:18 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Update: Indian Encryption Policy In-Reply-To: <5EFD20CD-BBA1-42C4-8FB4-C709C2C76E29@opentechinstitute.org> References: <56004B58.7050706@softwarefreedom.org> <662B4EBE-DDDB-4E53-AF16-AE74E89749BB@gmail.com> <56005D8D.5050503@softwarefreedom.org> <56016DB9.7050309@softwarefreedom.org> <5EFD20CD-BBA1-42C4-8FB4-C709C2C76E29@opentechinstitute.org> Message-ID: Try http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34322118 On 22 September 2015 at 11:07, Kevin Bankston < bankston at opentechinstitute.org> wrote: > Is there a story or other link confirming that so we can tweet about our > community winning a quick victory? Didn't even need to write comments! > > Sent via mobile > > __________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Director, Open Technology Institute > Co-Director, Cybersecurity Initiative > New America > 1899 L Street NW, Suite 400 > Washington, DC 20036 > bankston at opentechinstitute.org > Phone: 202-596-3415 > Fax: 202-986-3696 > @kevinbankston > > On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Mishi Choudhary > wrote: > > Post a public outcry, DEITY has withdrawn this policy. > > On 09/21/2015 03:46 PM, Raman Jit Singh Chima wrote: > > Happy to add a few brief notes on the background to this if it is helpful: > > > > - The Indian Govt has had encryption policy discussions ongoing for > > about a decade. Pre-existing telecom sector regulation placed a limit of > 40 > > bits on the encryption that could be deployed by ISPs or telcos on their > > networks, though that arguably applied only to them directly and was > > unclear as to how it affected third parties > > - A provision in the Information Technology Act (Section 69) allowed the > > Union Government to issue orders forcing decryption of data in addition > to > > allowing for interception requests. When the Information Technology Act > was > > amended in 2008, another provision was added (Section 84A) which allowed > > the Union Government to specify "modes or methods for encryption" by > > executive rule-making. The text of the provision said that this was > > supposed to be for "secure use of the electronic medium and for promotion > > of e-governance and e-commerce". The internal political context for this > > included strong political pressure from law enforcement and the security > > establishment, who raised concerns about not being able to intercept > > encrypted communications > > - No rules for the above provision was publicly brought up from 2008 > > until now, though there have been regular internal discussions - mostly > > with industry and intergovernmental consultation > > > > Additionally - perhaps in response to the initial negative reaction in the > > press - the Indian Dept. of Electronics and IT released an addendum > document > > < > http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/Addendum%20-%20NEP-1_0.pdf > > > > today. It essentially appears to be trying to suggest that the draft rules > > could exempt "mass use encryption products" along with SSL/TLS products > > used for Internet banking (though only those specified by the Reserve Bank > > of India) or for e-Commerce passwords. > > > Sincerely, > > Raman. > > > On 22 September 2015 at 01:12, Mishi Choudhary > > wrote: > > > Hi Carol, > > > Thanks for highlighting this. Its a draft National Encryption Policy > > and public comments are invited by October 16, 2015. Comments are to be > > emailed to Mr A,S.A. Krishnan, akrishnan at deity.gov.in > > > The key highlights of the policy are : > > > > 1. A stipulation that businesses and citizens are to maintain plain text > > (unencrypted) copies of encrypted content for a period of 90 days, to be > > made available to Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) when so directed under > > law. > > > 2. Vendors of encryption products are required to register their > > products with the Government as a pre-condition to conducting business > > in India. They are also expected to re-register their products with > > every update. This requirement is not limited to vendors of dedicated > > encryption products, and seemingly includes even products that use > > encryption in the course of providing a larger service such as messaging > > or e-commerce. (Service Providers located within and > > outside India, using Encryption technology for providing any type of > > services in India must enter into an agreement with the Government > > for providing such services in India). > > > 3. Encryption algorithms and key sizes shall be prescribed > > by the Government through Notifications from time to time. > > > > On 09/21/2015 03:33 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > Hi folks, I feel this could be a good topic for a coalition response > > through the BB platform. Can the folks for India give some context to the > > folks in this list? Let us know if such an action would be helpful. > > > Carol > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Sep 21, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Mishi Choudhary > > wrote: > > > Worrisome development from India through this encryption policy > > > > > > http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/draft%20Encryption%20Policyv1.pdf > > > -- > > Warm Regards > > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > > Legal Director > > Software Freedom Law Center > > 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > > New York, NY-10023 > > (tel) 212-461-1912 > > (fax) 212-580-0898 > > www.softwarefreedom.org > > > > Executive Director > > SFLC.IN > > K-9, Second Floor > > Jangpura Extn. > > New Delhi-110014 > > (tel) +91-11-43587126 > > (fax) +91-11-24323530 > > www.sflc.in > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as 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 > > > -- > > Warm Regards > > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > > Legal Director > > Software Freedom Law Center > > 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > > New York, NY-10023 > > (tel) 212-461-1912 > > (fax) 212-580-0898 > > www.softwarefreedom.org > > > > Executive Director > > SFLC.IN > > K-9, Second Floor > > Jangpura Extn. > > New Delhi-110014 > > (tel) +91-11-43587126 > > (fax) +91-11-24323530 > > www.sflc.in > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > -- > Warm Regards > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > Legal Director > Software Freedom Law Center > 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > New York, NY-10023 > (tel) 212-461-1912 > (fax) 212-580-0898 > www.softwarefreedom.org > > > Executive Director > SFLC.IN > K-9, Second Floor > Jangpura Extn. > New Delhi-110014 > (tel) +91-11-43587126 > (fax) +91-11-24323530 > www.sflc.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From raman at accessnow.org Tue Sep 22 11:19:28 2015 From: raman at accessnow.org (Raman Jit Singh Chima) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 20:49:28 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Update: Indian Encryption Policy In-Reply-To: References: <56004B58.7050706@softwarefreedom.org> <662B4EBE-DDDB-4E53-AF16-AE74E89749BB@gmail.com> <56005D8D.5050503@softwarefreedom.org> <56016DB9.7050309@softwarefreedom.org> <5EFD20CD-BBA1-42C4-8FB4-C709C2C76E29@opentechinstitute.org> Message-ID: Those links are confirmed, and the Minister did a formal statement at a press conference on this that the news wires have used for their stories. http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/government-withdraws-draft-national-encryption-policy-after-furore/ Do keep in mind though that they plan to try and bring this back - the Minister said they would redraft and then bring it back for public comment. We should celebrate this, but then pivot to focus on why undermining encryption should never be a policy step and what different governments across the world need to focus on - including India itself. Raman. On 22 September 2015 at 20:40, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Try http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34322118 > > On 22 September 2015 at 11:07, Kevin Bankston < > bankston at opentechinstitute.org> wrote: > >> Is there a story or other link confirming that so we can tweet about our >> community winning a quick victory? Didn't even need to write comments! >> >> Sent via mobile >> >> __________________________________ >> Kevin S. Bankston >> Director, Open Technology Institute >> Co-Director, Cybersecurity Initiative >> New America >> 1899 L Street NW, Suite 400 >> Washington, DC 20036 >> bankston at opentechinstitute.org >> Phone: 202-596-3415 >> Fax: 202-986-3696 >> @kevinbankston >> >> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Mishi Choudhary >> wrote: >> >> Post a public outcry, DEITY has withdrawn this policy. >> >> On 09/21/2015 03:46 PM, Raman Jit Singh Chima wrote: >> >> Happy to add a few brief notes on the background to this if it is helpful: >> >> >> >> - The Indian Govt has had encryption policy discussions ongoing for >> >> about a decade. Pre-existing telecom sector regulation placed a limit >> of 40 >> >> bits on the encryption that could be deployed by ISPs or telcos on their >> >> networks, though that arguably applied only to them directly and was >> >> unclear as to how it affected third parties >> >> - A provision in the Information Technology Act (Section 69) allowed the >> >> Union Government to issue orders forcing decryption of data in addition >> to >> >> allowing for interception requests. When the Information Technology Act >> was >> >> amended in 2008, another provision was added (Section 84A) which allowed >> >> the Union Government to specify "modes or methods for encryption" by >> >> executive rule-making. The text of the provision said that this was >> >> supposed to be for "secure use of the electronic medium and for >> promotion >> >> of e-governance and e-commerce". The internal political context for this >> >> included strong political pressure from law enforcement and the security >> >> establishment, who raised concerns about not being able to intercept >> >> encrypted communications >> >> - No rules for the above provision was publicly brought up from 2008 >> >> until now, though there have been regular internal discussions - mostly >> >> with industry and intergovernmental consultation >> >> >> >> Additionally - perhaps in response to the initial negative reaction in the >> >> press - the Indian Dept. of Electronics and IT released an addendum >> document >> >> < >> http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/Addendum%20-%20NEP-1_0.pdf >> > >> >> today. It essentially appears to be trying to suggest that the draft rules >> >> could exempt "mass use encryption products" along with SSL/TLS products >> >> used for Internet banking (though only those specified by the Reserve Bank >> >> of India) or for e-Commerce passwords. >> >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Raman. >> >> >> On 22 September 2015 at 01:12, Mishi Choudhary > > >> >> wrote: >> >> >> Hi Carol, >> >> >> Thanks for highlighting this. Its a draft National Encryption Policy >> >> and public comments are invited by October 16, 2015. Comments are to be >> >> emailed to Mr A,S.A. Krishnan, akrishnan at deity.gov.in >> >> >> The key highlights of the policy are : >> >> >> >> 1. A stipulation that businesses and citizens are to maintain plain text >> >> (unencrypted) copies of encrypted content for a period of 90 days, to be >> >> made available to Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) when so directed under >> >> law. >> >> >> 2. Vendors of encryption products are required to register their >> >> products with the Government as a pre-condition to conducting business >> >> in India. They are also expected to re-register their products with >> >> every update. This requirement is not limited to vendors of dedicated >> >> encryption products, and seemingly includes even products that use >> >> encryption in the course of providing a larger service such as messaging >> >> or e-commerce. (Service Providers located within and >> >> outside India, using Encryption technology for providing any type of >> >> services in India must enter into an agreement with the Government >> >> for providing such services in India). >> >> >> 3. Encryption algorithms and key sizes shall be prescribed >> >> by the Government through Notifications from time to time. >> >> >> >> On 09/21/2015 03:33 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> >> Hi folks, I feel this could be a good topic for a coalition response >> >> through the BB platform. Can the folks for India give some context to the >> >> folks in this list? Let us know if such an action would be helpful. >> >> >> Carol >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> On Sep 21, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Mishi Choudhary >> >> wrote: >> >> >> Worrisome development from India through this encryption policy >> >> >> >> >> >> http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/draft%20Encryption%20Policyv1.pdf >> >> >> -- >> >> Warm Regards >> >> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >> >> Legal Director >> >> Software Freedom Law Center >> >> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >> >> New York, NY-10023 >> >> (tel) 212-461-1912 >> >> (fax) 212-580-0898 >> >> www.softwarefreedom.org >> >> >> >> Executive Director >> >> SFLC.IN >> >> K-9, Second Floor >> >> Jangpura Extn. >> >> New Delhi-110014 >> >> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >> >> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >> >> www.sflc.in >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as 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 >> >> >> -- >> >> Warm Regards >> >> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >> >> Legal Director >> >> Software Freedom Law Center >> >> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >> >> New York, NY-10023 >> >> (tel) 212-461-1912 >> >> (fax) 212-580-0898 >> >> www.softwarefreedom.org >> >> >> >> Executive Director >> >> SFLC.IN >> >> K-9, Second Floor >> >> Jangpura Extn. >> >> New Delhi-110014 >> >> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >> >> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >> >> www.sflc.in >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Warm Regards >> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >> Legal Director >> Software Freedom Law Center >> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >> New York, NY-10023 >> (tel) 212-461-1912 >> (fax) 212-580-0898 >> www.softwarefreedom.org >> >> >> Executive Director >> SFLC.IN >> K-9, Second Floor >> Jangpura Extn. >> New Delhi-110014 >> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >> www.sflc.in >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Raman Jit Singh Chima* Policy Director Access | accessnow.org Email: raman at accessnow.org Skype: raman.chima PGP ID: 0x2A186000 *Join the Access team - *we're hiring ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Tue Sep 22 12:04:10 2015 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 21:34:10 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Update: Indian Encryption Policy In-Reply-To: References: <56004B58.7050706@softwarefreedom.org> <662B4EBE-DDDB-4E53-AF16-AE74E89749BB@gmail.com> <56005D8D.5050503@softwarefreedom.org> <56016DB9.7050309@softwarefreedom.org> <5EFD20CD-BBA1-42C4-8FB4-C709C2C76E29@opentechinstitute.org> Message-ID: Here's what DeityY (the relevant government department) tweeted: https://twitter.com/GoI_DeitY/status/646266722366832641 Best, Anja On 22 September 2015 at 20:49, Raman Jit Singh Chima wrote: > Those links are confirmed, and the Minister did a formal statement at a > press conference on this that the news wires have used for their stories. > > > http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/government-withdraws-draft-national-encryption-policy-after-furore/ > > Do keep in mind though that they plan to try and bring this back - the > Minister said they would redraft and then bring it back for public comment. > We should celebrate this, but then pivot to focus on why undermining > encryption should never be a policy step and what different governments > across the world need to focus on - including India itself. > > Raman. > > On 22 September 2015 at 20:40, Deirdre Williams < > williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Try http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34322118 >> >> On 22 September 2015 at 11:07, Kevin Bankston < >> bankston at opentechinstitute.org> wrote: >> >>> Is there a story or other link confirming that so we can tweet about our >>> community winning a quick victory? Didn't even need to write comments! >>> >>> Sent via mobile >>> >>> __________________________________ >>> Kevin S. Bankston >>> Director, Open Technology Institute >>> Co-Director, Cybersecurity Initiative >>> New America >>> 1899 L Street NW, Suite 400 >>> Washington, DC 20036 >>> bankston at opentechinstitute.org >>> Phone: 202-596-3415 >>> Fax: 202-986-3696 >>> @kevinbankston >>> >>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Mishi Choudhary >>> wrote: >>> >>> Post a public outcry, DEITY has withdrawn this policy. >>> >>> On 09/21/2015 03:46 PM, Raman Jit Singh Chima wrote: >>> >>> Happy to add a few brief notes on the background to this if it is >>> helpful: >>> >>> >>> >>> - The Indian Govt has had encryption policy discussions ongoing for >>> >>> about a decade. Pre-existing telecom sector regulation placed a limit >>> of 40 >>> >>> bits on the encryption that could be deployed by ISPs or telcos on >>> their >>> >>> networks, though that arguably applied only to them directly and was >>> >>> unclear as to how it affected third parties >>> >>> - A provision in the Information Technology Act (Section 69) allowed >>> the >>> >>> Union Government to issue orders forcing decryption of data in >>> addition to >>> >>> allowing for interception requests. When the Information Technology >>> Act was >>> >>> amended in 2008, another provision was added (Section 84A) which >>> allowed >>> >>> the Union Government to specify "modes or methods for encryption" by >>> >>> executive rule-making. The text of the provision said that this was >>> >>> supposed to be for "secure use of the electronic medium and for >>> promotion >>> >>> of e-governance and e-commerce". The internal political context for >>> this >>> >>> included strong political pressure from law enforcement and the >>> security >>> >>> establishment, who raised concerns about not being able to intercept >>> >>> encrypted communications >>> >>> - No rules for the above provision was publicly brought up from 2008 >>> >>> until now, though there have been regular internal discussions - mostly >>> >>> with industry and intergovernmental consultation >>> >>> >>> >>> Additionally - perhaps in response to the initial negative reaction in >>> the >>> >>> press - the Indian Dept. of Electronics and IT released an addendum >>> document >>> >>> < >>> http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/Addendum%20-%20NEP-1_0.pdf >>> > >>> >>> today. It essentially appears to be trying to suggest that the draft >>> rules >>> >>> could exempt "mass use encryption products" along with SSL/TLS products >>> >>> used for Internet banking (though only those specified by the Reserve >>> Bank >>> >>> of India) or for e-Commerce passwords. >>> >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> Raman. >>> >>> >>> On 22 September 2015 at 01:12, Mishi Choudhary < >>> mishi at softwarefreedom.org> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi Carol, >>> >>> >>> Thanks for highlighting this. Its a draft National Encryption Policy >>> >>> and public comments are invited by October 16, 2015. Comments are to be >>> >>> emailed to Mr A,S.A. Krishnan, akrishnan at deity.gov.in >>> >>> >>> The key highlights of the policy are : >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. A stipulation that businesses and citizens are to maintain plain text >>> >>> (unencrypted) copies of encrypted content for a period of 90 days, to be >>> >>> made available to Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) when so directed under >>> >>> law. >>> >>> >>> 2. Vendors of encryption products are required to register their >>> >>> products with the Government as a pre-condition to conducting business >>> >>> in India. They are also expected to re-register their products with >>> >>> every update. This requirement is not limited to vendors of dedicated >>> >>> encryption products, and seemingly includes even products that use >>> >>> encryption in the course of providing a larger service such as messaging >>> >>> or e-commerce. (Service Providers located within and >>> >>> outside India, using Encryption technology for providing any type of >>> >>> services in India must enter into an agreement with the Government >>> >>> for providing such services in India). >>> >>> >>> 3. Encryption algorithms and key sizes shall be prescribed >>> >>> by the Government through Notifications from time to time. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 09/21/2015 03:33 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>> >>> Hi folks, I feel this could be a good topic for a coalition response >>> >>> through the BB platform. Can the folks for India give some context to the >>> >>> folks in this list? Let us know if such an action would be helpful. >>> >>> >>> Carol >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> >>> On Sep 21, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Mishi Choudhary >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Worrisome development from India through this encryption policy >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/draft%20Encryption%20Policyv1.pdf >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Warm Regards >>> >>> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >>> >>> Legal Director >>> >>> Software Freedom Law Center >>> >>> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >>> >>> New York, NY-10023 >>> >>> (tel) 212-461-1912 >>> >>> (fax) 212-580-0898 >>> >>> www.softwarefreedom.org >>> >>> >>> >>> Executive Director >>> >>> SFLC.IN >>> >>> K-9, Second Floor >>> >>> Jangpura Extn. >>> >>> New Delhi-110014 >>> >>> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >>> >>> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >>> >>> www.sflc.in >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>> You received this message as 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 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Warm Regards >>> >>> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >>> >>> Legal Director >>> >>> Software Freedom Law Center >>> >>> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >>> >>> New York, NY-10023 >>> >>> (tel) 212-461-1912 >>> >>> (fax) 212-580-0898 >>> >>> www.softwarefreedom.org >>> >>> >>> >>> Executive Director >>> >>> SFLC.IN >>> >>> K-9, Second Floor >>> >>> Jangpura Extn. >>> >>> New Delhi-110014 >>> >>> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >>> >>> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >>> >>> www.sflc.in >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Warm Regards >>> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >>> Legal Director >>> Software Freedom Law Center >>> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >>> New York, NY-10023 >>> (tel) 212-461-1912 >>> (fax) 212-580-0898 >>> www.softwarefreedom.org >>> >>> >>> Executive Director >>> SFLC.IN >>> K-9, Second Floor >>> Jangpura Extn. >>> New Delhi-110014 >>> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >>> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >>> www.sflc.in >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > *Raman Jit Singh Chima* > Policy Director > Access | accessnow.org > > Email: raman at accessnow.org > Skype: raman.chima > PGP ID: 0x2A186000 > > *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 > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bankston at opentechinstitute.org Tue Sep 22 12:10:31 2015 From: bankston at opentechinstitute.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 12:10:31 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Update: Indian Encryption Policy In-Reply-To: References: <56004B58.7050706@softwarefreedom.org> <662B4EBE-DDDB-4E53-AF16-AE74E89749BB@gmail.com> <56005D8D.5050503@softwarefreedom.org> <56016DB9.7050309@softwarefreedom.org> <5EFD20CD-BBA1-42C4-8FB4-C709C2C76E29@opentechinstitute.org> Message-ID: <7D5543C0-88E9-41AB-86D1-AD48D568A763@opentechinstitute.org> In regard to the continuing/future threat of a revised proposal, I think it’s worth highlighting that the U.S. President’s office is considering several options in regard to encryption policy (based on this leaked memo: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/read-the-nsc-draft-options-paper-on-strategic-approaches-to-encryption/1742/ ), and one of them—option 1—would be to repudiate encryption backdoors, with an eye toward influencing other countries' behavior on this issue. To the extent we can figure out ways to leverage this example to push the White House in the right direction right now, it may pay healthy dividends later in India and around the world. _____________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Director, New America's Open Technology Institute Co-Director, New America’s Cybersecurity Initiative 1899 L Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 bankston at opentechinstitute.org Phone: 202-596-3415 Fax: 202-986-3696 @kevinbankston > On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Raman Jit Singh Chima wrote: > > Those links are confirmed, and the Minister did a formal statement at a press conference on this that the news wires have used for their stories. > > http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/government-withdraws-draft-national-encryption-policy-after-furore/ > > Do keep in mind though that they plan to try and bring this back - the Minister said they would redraft and then bring it back for public comment. We should celebrate this, but then pivot to focus on why undermining encryption should never be a policy step and what different governments across the world need to focus on - including India itself. > > Raman. > > On 22 September 2015 at 20:40, Deirdre Williams > wrote: > Try http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34322118 > > On 22 September 2015 at 11:07, Kevin Bankston > wrote: > Is there a story or other link confirming that so we can tweet about our community winning a quick victory? Didn't even need to write comments! > > Sent via mobile > > __________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Director, Open Technology Institute > Co-Director, Cybersecurity Initiative > New America > 1899 L Street NW, Suite 400 <> > Washington, DC 20036 <> > bankston at opentechinstitute.org > Phone: 202-596-3415 > Fax: 202-986-3696 > @kevinbankston > > On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Mishi Choudhary > wrote: > >> Post a public outcry, DEITY has withdrawn this policy. >> >> On 09/21/2015 03:46 PM, Raman Jit Singh Chima wrote: >>> Happy to add a few brief notes on the background to this if it is helpful: >>> >>> >>> - The Indian Govt has had encryption policy discussions ongoing for >>> about a decade. Pre-existing telecom sector regulation placed a limit of 40 >>> bits on the encryption that could be deployed by ISPs or telcos on their >>> networks, though that arguably applied only to them directly and was >>> unclear as to how it affected third parties >>> - A provision in the Information Technology Act (Section 69) allowed the >>> Union Government to issue orders forcing decryption of data in addition to >>> allowing for interception requests. When the Information Technology Act was >>> amended in 2008, another provision was added (Section 84A) which allowed >>> the Union Government to specify "modes or methods for encryption" by >>> executive rule-making. The text of the provision said that this was >>> supposed to be for "secure use of the electronic medium and for promotion >>> of e-governance and e-commerce". The internal political context for this >>> included strong political pressure from law enforcement and the security >>> establishment, who raised concerns about not being able to intercept >>> encrypted communications >>> - No rules for the above provision was publicly brought up from 2008 >>> until now, though there have been regular internal discussions - mostly >>> with industry and intergovernmental consultation >>> >>> >>> Additionally - perhaps in response to the initial negative reaction in the >>> press - the Indian Dept. of Electronics and IT released an addendum document >>> > >>> today. It essentially appears to be trying to suggest that the draft rules >>> could exempt "mass use encryption products" along with SSL/TLS products >>> used for Internet banking (though only those specified by the Reserve Bank >>> of India) or for e-Commerce passwords. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> Raman. >>> >>> On 22 September 2015 at 01:12, Mishi Choudhary > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Carol, >>>> >>>> Thanks for highlighting this. Its a draft National Encryption Policy >>>> and public comments are invited by October 16, 2015. Comments are to be >>>> emailed to Mr A,S.A. Krishnan, akrishnan at deity.gov.in >>>> >>>> The key highlights of the policy are : >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. A stipulation that businesses and citizens are to maintain plain text >>>> (unencrypted) copies of encrypted content for a period of 90 days, to be >>>> made available to Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) when so directed under >>>> law. >>>> >>>> 2. Vendors of encryption products are required to register their >>>> products with the Government as a pre-condition to conducting business >>>> in India. They are also expected to re-register their products with >>>> every update. This requirement is not limited to vendors of dedicated >>>> encryption products, and seemingly includes even products that use >>>> encryption in the course of providing a larger service such as messaging >>>> or e-commerce. (Service Providers located within and >>>> outside India, using Encryption technology for providing any type of >>>> services in India must enter into an agreement with the Government >>>> for providing such services in India). >>>> >>>> 3. Encryption algorithms and key sizes shall be prescribed >>>> by the Government through Notifications from time to time. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 09/21/2015 03:33 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>>> Hi folks, I feel this could be a good topic for a coalition response >>>> through the BB platform. Can the folks for India give some context to the >>>> folks in this list? Let us know if such an action would be helpful. >>>>> >>>>> Carol >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 21, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Mishi Choudhary > >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Worrisome development from India through this encryption policy >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/draft%20Encryption%20Policyv1.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Warm Regards >>>>>> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >>>>>> Legal Director >>>>>> Software Freedom Law Center >>>>>> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >>>>>> New York, NY-10023 >>>>>> (tel) 212-461-1912 >>>>>> (fax) 212-580-0898 >>>>>> www.softwarefreedom.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Executive Director >>>>>> SFLC.IN >>>>>> K-9, Second Floor >>>>>> Jangpura Extn. >>>>>> New Delhi-110014 >>>>>> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >>>>>> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >>>>>> www.sflc.in >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as 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 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Warm Regards >>>> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >>>> Legal Director >>>> Software Freedom Law Center >>>> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >>>> New York, NY-10023 >>>> (tel) 212-461-1912 >>>> (fax) 212-580-0898 >>>> www.softwarefreedom.org >>>> >>>> >>>> Executive Director >>>> SFLC.IN >>>> K-9, Second Floor >>>> Jangpura Extn. >>>> New Delhi-110014 >>>> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >>>> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >>>> www.sflc.in >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Warm Regards >> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >> Legal Director >> Software Freedom Law Center >> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >> New York, NY-10023 >> (tel) 212-461-1912 >> (fax) 212-580-0898 >> www.softwarefreedom.org >> >> >> Executive Director >> SFLC.IN >> K-9, Second Floor >> Jangpura Extn. >> New Delhi-110014 >> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >> www.sflc.in >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Raman Jit Singh Chima > Policy Director > Access | accessnow.org > > Email: raman at accessnow.org > Skype: raman.chima > PGP ID: 0x2A186000 > > Join the Access team - we're hiring ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From puneeth.nagaraj at nludelhi.ac.in Tue Sep 22 12:15:05 2015 From: puneeth.nagaraj at nludelhi.ac.in (Puneeth Nagaraj) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 21:45:05 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] BRICS Civil Society Comment on the WSIS+10 Review Non-Paper Message-ID: Dear All, A group of civil society representatives together submitted a coordinated comment on the WSIS+10 Review non-paper. We are pleased to share the same with you. A special thanks to all the people who made the comment possible in such a short time span. Please let us know your thoughts on the document. We hope to expand the group in the future. So please do let us know if this is of interest to you. Best, Puneeth -- Puneeth Nagaraj | Senior Fellow Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 956-091-4899 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.nludelhi.ac.in | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UNPAN95331.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 405179 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wongc at hrw.org Tue Sep 22 12:40:55 2015 From: wongc at hrw.org (Cynthia Wong) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:40:55 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Update: Indian Encryption Policy In-Reply-To: <7D5543C0-88E9-41AB-86D1-AD48D568A763@opentechinstitute.org> References: <56004B58.7050706@softwarefreedom.org> <662B4EBE-DDDB-4E53-AF16-AE74E89749BB@gmail.com> <56005D8D.5050503@softwarefreedom.org> <56016DB9.7050309@softwarefreedom.org> <5EFD20CD-BBA1-42C4-8FB4-C709C2C76E29@opentechinstitute.org> <7D5543C0-88E9-41AB-86D1-AD48D568A763@opentechinstitute.org> Message-ID: Question for those in India: Are there proactive advocacy pieces that the groups on this list can put together to make sure the next draft is less awful? Perhaps in coordination with David Kaye? HRW would be keen to participate, if that would be helpful. From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Bankston Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9:11 AM To: Raman Jit Singh Chima Cc: Deirdre Williams; Mishi Choudhary; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update: Indian Encryption Policy In regard to the continuing/future threat of a revised proposal, I think it’s worth highlighting that the U.S. President’s office is considering several options in regard to encryption policy (based on this leaked memo: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/read-the-nsc-draft-options-paper-on-strategic-approaches-to-encryption/1742/), and one of them—option 1—would be to repudiate encryption backdoors, with an eye toward influencing other countries' behavior on this issue. To the extent we can figure out ways to leverage this example to push the White House in the right direction right now, it may pay healthy dividends later in India and around the world. _____________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Director, New America's Open Technology Institute Co-Director, New America’s Cybersecurity Initiative 1899 L Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 bankston at opentechinstitute.org Phone: 202-596-3415 Fax: 202-986-3696 @kevinbankston On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Raman Jit Singh Chima > wrote: Those links are confirmed, and the Minister did a formal statement at a press conference on this that the news wires have used for their stories. http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/government-withdraws-draft-national-encryption-policy-after-furore/ Do keep in mind though that they plan to try and bring this back - the Minister said they would redraft and then bring it back for public comment. We should celebrate this, but then pivot to focus on why undermining encryption should never be a policy step and what different governments across the world need to focus on - including India itself. Raman. On 22 September 2015 at 20:40, Deirdre Williams > wrote: Try http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34322118 On 22 September 2015 at 11:07, Kevin Bankston > wrote: Is there a story or other link confirming that so we can tweet about our community winning a quick victory? Didn't even need to write comments! Sent via mobile __________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Director, Open Technology Institute Co-Director, Cybersecurity Initiative New America 1899 L Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 bankston at opentechinstitute.org Phone: 202-596-3415 Fax: 202-986-3696 @kevinbankston On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Mishi Choudhary > wrote: Post a public outcry, DEITY has withdrawn this policy. On 09/21/2015 03:46 PM, Raman Jit Singh Chima wrote: Happy to add a few brief notes on the background to this if it is helpful: - The Indian Govt has had encryption policy discussions ongoing for about a decade. Pre-existing telecom sector regulation placed a limit of 40 bits on the encryption that could be deployed by ISPs or telcos on their networks, though that arguably applied only to them directly and was unclear as to how it affected third parties - A provision in the Information Technology Act (Section 69) allowed the Union Government to issue orders forcing decryption of data in addition to allowing for interception requests. When the Information Technology Act was amended in 2008, another provision was added (Section 84A) which allowed the Union Government to specify "modes or methods for encryption" by executive rule-making. The text of the provision said that this was supposed to be for "secure use of the electronic medium and for promotion of e-governance and e-commerce". The internal political context for this included strong political pressure from law enforcement and the security establishment, who raised concerns about not being able to intercept encrypted communications - No rules for the above provision was publicly brought up from 2008 until now, though there have been regular internal discussions - mostly with industry and intergovernmental consultation Additionally - perhaps in response to the initial negative reaction in the press - the Indian Dept. of Electronics and IT released an addendum document today. It essentially appears to be trying to suggest that the draft rules could exempt "mass use encryption products" along with SSL/TLS products used for Internet banking (though only those specified by the Reserve Bank of India) or for e-Commerce passwords. Sincerely, Raman. On 22 September 2015 at 01:12, Mishi Choudhary > wrote: Hi Carol, Thanks for highlighting this. Its a draft National Encryption Policy and public comments are invited by October 16, 2015. Comments are to be emailed to Mr A,S.A. Krishnan, akrishnan at deity.gov.in The key highlights of the policy are : 1. A stipulation that businesses and citizens are to maintain plain text (unencrypted) copies of encrypted content for a period of 90 days, to be made available to Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) when so directed under law. 2. Vendors of encryption products are required to register their products with the Government as a pre-condition to conducting business in India. They are also expected to re-register their products with every update. This requirement is not limited to vendors of dedicated encryption products, and seemingly includes even products that use encryption in the course of providing a larger service such as messaging or e-commerce. (Service Providers located within and outside India, using Encryption technology for providing any type of services in India must enter into an agreement with the Government for providing such services in India). 3. Encryption algorithms and key sizes shall be prescribed by the Government through Notifications from time to time. On 09/21/2015 03:33 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: Hi folks, I feel this could be a good topic for a coalition response through the BB platform. Can the folks for India give some context to the folks in this list? Let us know if such an action would be helpful. Carol Sent from my iPhone On Sep 21, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Mishi Choudhary > wrote: Worrisome development from India through this encryption policy http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/draft%20Encryption%20Policyv1.pdf -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as 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 -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Raman Jit Singh Chima Policy Director Access | accessnow.org Email: raman at accessnow.org Skype: raman.chima PGP ID: 0x2A186000 Join the Access team - we're hiring! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Tue Sep 22 12:47:21 2015 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 18:47:21 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] JNC comments on WSIS+10 Review non-paper Message-ID: <20150922184721.3af6ff0d@quill> Dear all Here are JNC's comments on the WSIS+10 Review non-paper. Greetings, Norbert co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) http://JustNetCoalition.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JNC_WSIS+10_Sept_2015.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 336830 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Tue Sep 22 12:48:34 2015 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 12:48:34 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Update: Indian Encryption Policy In-Reply-To: References: <56004B58.7050706@softwarefreedom.org> <662B4EBE-DDDB-4E53-AF16-AE74E89749BB@gmail.com> <56005D8D.5050503@softwarefreedom.org> <56016DB9.7050309@softwarefreedom.org> <5EFD20CD-BBA1-42C4-8FB4-C709C2C76E29@opentechinstitute.org> <7D5543C0-88E9-41AB-86D1-AD48D568A763@opentechinstitute.org> Message-ID: <56018662.7010809@softwarefreedom.org> Cynthia, I don't understand the first part of your question. Can you clarify please? On 09/22/2015 12:40 PM, Cynthia Wong wrote: > Question for those in India: Are there proactive advocacy pieces that the groups on this list can put together to make sure the next draft is less awful? Perhaps in coordination with David Kaye? > > HRW would be keen to participate, if that would be helpful. > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Bankston > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9:11 AM > To: Raman Jit Singh Chima > Cc: Deirdre Williams; Mishi Choudhary; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update: Indian Encryption Policy > > In regard to the continuing/future threat of a revised proposal, I think it’s worth highlighting that the U.S. President’s office is considering several options in regard to encryption policy (based on this leaked memo: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/read-the-nsc-draft-options-paper-on-strategic-approaches-to-encryption/1742/), and one of them—option 1—would be to repudiate encryption backdoors, with an eye toward influencing other countries' behavior on this issue. To the extent we can figure out ways to leverage this example to push the White House in the right direction right now, it may pay healthy dividends later in India and around the world. > _____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Director, New America's Open Technology Institute > Co-Director, New America’s Cybersecurity Initiative > 1899 L Street NW, Suite 400 > Washington, DC 20036 > bankston at opentechinstitute.org > Phone: 202-596-3415 > Fax: 202-986-3696 > @kevinbankston > > On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Raman Jit Singh Chima > wrote: > > Those links are confirmed, and the Minister did a formal statement at a press conference on this that the news wires have used for their stories. > > http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/government-withdraws-draft-national-encryption-policy-after-furore/ > > Do keep in mind though that they plan to try and bring this back - the Minister said they would redraft and then bring it back for public comment. We should celebrate this, but then pivot to focus on why undermining encryption should never be a policy step and what different governments across the world need to focus on - including India itself. > > Raman. > > On 22 September 2015 at 20:40, Deirdre Williams > wrote: > Try http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34322118 > > On 22 September 2015 at 11:07, Kevin Bankston > wrote: > Is there a story or other link confirming that so we can tweet about our community winning a quick victory? Didn't even need to write comments! > > Sent via mobile > > __________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Director, Open Technology Institute > Co-Director, Cybersecurity Initiative > New America > 1899 L Street NW, Suite 400 > Washington, DC 20036 > bankston at opentechinstitute.org > Phone: 202-596-3415 > Fax: 202-986-3696 > @kevinbankston > > On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Mishi Choudhary > wrote: > Post a public outcry, DEITY has withdrawn this policy. > > On 09/21/2015 03:46 PM, Raman Jit Singh Chima wrote: > > Happy to add a few brief notes on the background to this if it is helpful: > > > - The Indian Govt has had encryption policy discussions ongoing for > about a decade. Pre-existing telecom sector regulation placed a limit of 40 > bits on the encryption that could be deployed by ISPs or telcos on their > networks, though that arguably applied only to them directly and was > unclear as to how it affected third parties > - A provision in the Information Technology Act (Section 69) allowed the > Union Government to issue orders forcing decryption of data in addition to > allowing for interception requests. When the Information Technology Act was > amended in 2008, another provision was added (Section 84A) which allowed > the Union Government to specify "modes or methods for encryption" by > executive rule-making. The text of the provision said that this was > supposed to be for "secure use of the electronic medium and for promotion > of e-governance and e-commerce". The internal political context for this > included strong political pressure from law enforcement and the security > establishment, who raised concerns about not being able to intercept > encrypted communications > - No rules for the above provision was publicly brought up from 2008 > until now, though there have been regular internal discussions - mostly > with industry and intergovernmental consultation > > > Additionally - perhaps in response to the initial negative reaction in the > press - the Indian Dept. of Electronics and IT released an addendum document > > today. It essentially appears to be trying to suggest that the draft rules > could exempt "mass use encryption products" along with SSL/TLS products > used for Internet banking (though only those specified by the Reserve Bank > of India) or for e-Commerce passwords. > > Sincerely, > Raman. > > On 22 September 2015 at 01:12, Mishi Choudhary > > wrote: > > Hi Carol, > > Thanks for highlighting this. Its a draft National Encryption Policy > and public comments are invited by October 16, 2015. Comments are to be > emailed to Mr A,S.A. Krishnan, akrishnan at deity.gov.in > > The key highlights of the policy are : > > > 1. A stipulation that businesses and citizens are to maintain plain text > (unencrypted) copies of encrypted content for a period of 90 days, to be > made available to Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) when so directed under > law. > > 2. Vendors of encryption products are required to register their > products with the Government as a pre-condition to conducting business > in India. They are also expected to re-register their products with > every update. This requirement is not limited to vendors of dedicated > encryption products, and seemingly includes even products that use > encryption in the course of providing a larger service such as messaging > or e-commerce. (Service Providers located within and > outside India, using Encryption technology for providing any type of > services in India must enter into an agreement with the Government > for providing such services in India). > > 3. Encryption algorithms and key sizes shall be prescribed > by the Government through Notifications from time to time. > > > On 09/21/2015 03:33 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Hi folks, I feel this could be a good topic for a coalition response > through the BB platform. Can the folks for India give some context to the > folks in this list? Let us know if such an action would be helpful. > > Carol > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 21, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Mishi Choudhary > > wrote: > > Worrisome development from India through this encryption policy > > > > http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/draft%20Encryption%20Policyv1.pdf > > -- > Warm Regards > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > Legal Director > Software Freedom Law Center > 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > New York, NY-10023 > (tel) 212-461-1912 > (fax) 212-580-0898 > www.softwarefreedom.org > > > Executive Director > SFLC.IN > K-9, Second Floor > Jangpura Extn. > New Delhi-110014 > (tel) +91-11-43587126 > (fax) +91-11-24323530 > www.sflc.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 > > -- > Warm Regards > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > Legal Director > Software Freedom Law Center > 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > New York, NY-10023 > (tel) 212-461-1912 > (fax) 212-580-0898 > www.softwarefreedom.org > > > Executive Director > SFLC.IN > K-9, Second Floor > Jangpura Extn. > New Delhi-110014 > (tel) +91-11-43587126 > (fax) +91-11-24323530 > www.sflc.in > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > -- > Warm Regards > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > Legal Director > Software Freedom Law Center > 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > New York, NY-10023 > (tel) 212-461-1912 > (fax) 212-580-0898 > www.softwarefreedom.org > > > Executive Director > SFLC.IN > K-9, Second Floor > Jangpura Extn. > New Delhi-110014 > (tel) +91-11-43587126 > (fax) +91-11-24323530 > www.sflc.in > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Raman Jit Singh Chima > Policy Director > Access | accessnow.org > > Email: raman at accessnow.org > Skype: raman.chima > PGP ID: 0x2A186000 > > 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 > -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in From roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca Wed Sep 2 12:15:55 2015 From: roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 12:15:55 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Ford-Mozilla Open Web Fellows Open Call for 2016 Host Organizations Message-ID: Ford-Mozilla Open Web Fellows Open Call for 2016 Host Organizations Ford Foundation and Mozilla are excited to announce the open call for applications for 2016 host organizations for the Open Web Fellows Program ! This collaborative program is an international leadership initiative that brings together the best emerging technology talent and civil society organizations to advance and protect the open Web. The program provides an ecosystem for the next generation of open Web advocates to make an early impact while growing into the capable leaders we need as threats to digital freedom proliferate. Specifically, the goals of the Open Web Fellows program are: * Produce better technical understanding among civil society and government policy-making bodies. * Increase public awareness and understanding of Internet policy issues. * Provide talented individuals with the opportunities to create a healthier, more trustworthy Web. * Provide civil society organizations with the capacity and capabilities to expand their work into new horizons. * Contribute to building a community of public interest technologists. Each year, fellows spend 10 months embedded at leading advocacy organizations to lend their expertise to the field. For more information on the Open Web Fellows program and host organization responsibilities, read "Host the Heroes of Tomorrow ." Applications are due September 12, 2015. APPLY NOW ---------------------- Becky Lentz, PhD Associate Professor of Communication Studies Department of Art History/Communication Studies McGill University 853 Sherbrooke Street West, Arts Building, W-265 Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 0G5 Phone 514.398.4995 Fax 514.398.8557 Email: becky.lentz at mcgill.ca http://www.mcgill.ca/ahcs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wongc at hrw.org Tue Sep 22 12:53:49 2015 From: wongc at hrw.org (Cynthia Wong) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:53:49 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Update: Indian Encryption Policy In-Reply-To: <56018662.7010809@softwarefreedom.org> References: <56004B58.7050706@softwarefreedom.org> <662B4EBE-DDDB-4E53-AF16-AE74E89749BB@gmail.com> <56005D8D.5050503@softwarefreedom.org> <56016DB9.7050309@softwarefreedom.org> <5EFD20CD-BBA1-42C4-8FB4-C709C2C76E29@opentechinstitute.org> <7D5543C0-88E9-41AB-86D1-AD48D568A763@opentechinstitute.org> <56018662.7010809@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: Hi Mishi -- just asking whether it would be useful for groups on this list to put out a joint/individual statement of some kind. For example, citing to David Kaye's report for international human right standards that apply to encryption policies that we would want all governments, including India, to meet. -----Original Message----- From: Mishi Choudhary [mailto:mishi at softwarefreedom.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9:49 AM To: Cynthia Wong; Kevin Bankston; Raman Jit Singh Chima Cc: Deirdre Williams; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update: Indian Encryption Policy Cynthia, I don't understand the first part of your question. Can you clarify please? On 09/22/2015 12:40 PM, Cynthia Wong wrote: > Question for those in India: Are there proactive advocacy pieces that the groups on this list can put together to make sure the next draft is less awful? Perhaps in coordination with David Kaye? > > HRW would be keen to participate, if that would be helpful. > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Kevin > Bankston > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9:11 AM > To: Raman Jit Singh Chima > Cc: Deirdre Williams; Mishi Choudhary; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update: Indian Encryption Policy > > In regard to the continuing/future threat of a revised proposal, I think it’s worth highlighting that the U.S. President’s office is considering several options in regard to encryption policy (based on this leaked memo: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/read-the-nsc-draft-options-paper-on-strategic-approaches-to-encryption/1742/), and one of them—option 1—would be to repudiate encryption backdoors, with an eye toward influencing other countries' behavior on this issue. To the extent we can figure out ways to leverage this example to push the White House in the right direction right now, it may pay healthy dividends later in India and around the world. > _____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Director, New America's Open Technology Institute Co-Director, New > America’s Cybersecurity Initiative > 1899 L Street NW, Suite 400 > Washington, DC 20036 > bankston at opentechinstitute.org > Phone: 202-596-3415 > Fax: 202-986-3696 > @kevinbankston > > On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Raman Jit Singh Chima > wrote: > > Those links are confirmed, and the Minister did a formal statement at a press conference on this that the news wires have used for their stories. > > http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/government-withdra > ws-draft-national-encryption-policy-after-furore/ > > Do keep in mind though that they plan to try and bring this back - the Minister said they would redraft and then bring it back for public comment. We should celebrate this, but then pivot to focus on why undermining encryption should never be a policy step and what different governments across the world need to focus on - including India itself. > > Raman. > > On 22 September 2015 at 20:40, Deirdre Williams > wrote: > Try http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34322118 > > On 22 September 2015 at 11:07, Kevin Bankston > wrote: > Is there a story or other link confirming that so we can tweet about our community winning a quick victory? Didn't even need to write comments! > > Sent via mobile > > __________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Director, Open Technology Institute > Co-Director, Cybersecurity Initiative > New America > 1899 L Street NW, Suite 400 > Washington, DC 20036 > bankston at opentechinstitute.org > Phone: 202-596-3415 > Fax: 202-986-3696 > @kevinbankston > > On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Mishi Choudhary > wrote: > Post a public outcry, DEITY has withdrawn this policy. > > On 09/21/2015 03:46 PM, Raman Jit Singh Chima wrote: > > Happy to add a few brief notes on the background to this if it is helpful: > > > - The Indian Govt has had encryption policy discussions ongoing for > about a decade. Pre-existing telecom sector regulation placed a limit of 40 > bits on the encryption that could be deployed by ISPs or telcos on their > networks, though that arguably applied only to them directly and was > unclear as to how it affected third parties > - A provision in the Information Technology Act (Section 69) allowed the > Union Government to issue orders forcing decryption of data in addition to > allowing for interception requests. When the Information Technology Act was > amended in 2008, another provision was added (Section 84A) which allowed > the Union Government to specify "modes or methods for encryption" by > executive rule-making. The text of the provision said that this was > supposed to be for "secure use of the electronic medium and for promotion > of e-governance and e-commerce". The internal political context for this > included strong political pressure from law enforcement and the security > establishment, who raised concerns about not being able to intercept > encrypted communications > - No rules for the above provision was publicly brought up from 2008 > until now, though there have been regular internal discussions - mostly > with industry and intergovernmental consultation > > > Additionally - perhaps in response to the initial negative reaction in > the press - the Indian Dept. of Electronics and IT released an > addendum document > _0.pdf> today. It essentially appears to be trying to suggest that the > draft rules could exempt "mass use encryption products" along with > SSL/TLS products used for Internet banking (though only those > specified by the Reserve Bank of India) or for e-Commerce passwords. > > Sincerely, > Raman. > > On 22 September 2015 at 01:12, Mishi Choudhary > > > wrote: > > Hi Carol, > > Thanks for highlighting this. Its a draft National Encryption Policy > and public comments are invited by October 16, 2015. Comments are to > be emailed to Mr A,S.A. Krishnan, > akrishnan at deity.gov.in > > The key highlights of the policy are : > > > 1. A stipulation that businesses and citizens are to maintain plain > text > (unencrypted) copies of encrypted content for a period of 90 days, to > be made available to Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) when so directed > under law. > > 2. Vendors of encryption products are required to register their > products with the Government as a pre-condition to conducting business > in India. They are also expected to re-register their products with > every update. This requirement is not limited to vendors of dedicated > encryption products, and seemingly includes even products that use > encryption in the course of providing a larger service such as > messaging or e-commerce. (Service Providers located within and > outside India, using Encryption technology for providing any type > of services in India must enter into an agreement with the Government > for providing such services in India). > > 3. Encryption algorithms and key sizes shall be prescribed > by the Government through Notifications from time to time. > > > On 09/21/2015 03:33 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Hi folks, I feel this could be a good topic for a coalition response > through the BB platform. Can the folks for India give some context to > the folks in this list? Let us know if such an action would be helpful. > > Carol > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 21, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Mishi Choudhary > > > wrote: > > Worrisome development from India through this encryption policy > > > > http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/draft%20Encryption%20 > Policyv1.pdf > > -- > Warm Regards > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > Legal Director > Software Freedom Law Center > 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > New York, NY-10023 > (tel) 212-461-1912 > (fax) 212-580-0898 > www.softwarefreedom.org > > > Executive Director > SFLC.IN > K-9, Second Floor > Jangpura Extn. > New Delhi-110014 > (tel) +91-11-43587126 > (fax) +91-11-24323530 > www.sflc.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 > > -- > Warm Regards > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > Legal Director > Software Freedom Law Center > 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > New York, NY-10023 > (tel) 212-461-1912 > (fax) 212-580-0898 > www.softwarefreedom.org > > > Executive Director > SFLC.IN > K-9, Second Floor > Jangpura Extn. > New Delhi-110014 > (tel) +91-11-43587126 > (fax) +91-11-24323530 > www.sflc.in > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > -- > Warm Regards > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > Legal Director > Software Freedom Law Center > 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > New York, NY-10023 > (tel) 212-461-1912 > (fax) 212-580-0898 > www.softwarefreedom.org > > > Executive Director > SFLC.IN > K-9, Second Floor > Jangpura Extn. > New Delhi-110014 > (tel) +91-11-43587126 > (fax) +91-11-24323530 > www.sflc.in > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Raman Jit Singh Chima > Policy Director > Access | accessnow.org > > Email: raman at accessnow.org > Skype: raman.chima > PGP ID: 0x2A186000 > > 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 > -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in From katitza at eff.org Tue Sep 22 12:55:15 2015 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 18:55:15 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Update: Indian Encryption Policy In-Reply-To: <56018662.7010809@softwarefreedom.org> References: <56004B58.7050706@softwarefreedom.org> <662B4EBE-DDDB-4E53-AF16-AE74E89749BB@gmail.com> <56005D8D.5050503@softwarefreedom.org> <56016DB9.7050309@softwarefreedom.org> <5EFD20CD-BBA1-42C4-8FB4-C709C2C76E29@opentechinstitute.org> <7D5543C0-88E9-41AB-86D1-AD48D568A763@opentechinstitute.org> <56018662.7010809@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: <0A1D6791-575F-4374-854C-823127337E5B@eff.org> I believe Cynthia is referring to any piece of advocacy action that local groups are planning to do like a joint coalition letter. EFF would be interested to support too that if that’s the case. and I think its a great idea to coordinate with Dave Kaye on that front. Thanks > On Sep 22, 2015, at 6:48 PM, Mishi Choudhary wrote: > > Cynthia, > > I don't understand the first part of your question. Can you clarify please? > > > > On 09/22/2015 12:40 PM, Cynthia Wong wrote: >> Question for those in India: Are there proactive advocacy pieces that the groups on this list can put together to make sure the next draft is less awful? Perhaps in coordination with David Kaye? >> >> HRW would be keen to participate, if that would be helpful. >> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Bankston >> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9:11 AM >> To: Raman Jit Singh Chima >> Cc: Deirdre Williams; Mishi Choudhary; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update: Indian Encryption Policy >> >> In regard to the continuing/future threat of a revised proposal, I think it’s worth highlighting that the U.S. President’s office is considering several options in regard to encryption policy (based on this leaked memo: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/read-the-nsc-draft-options-paper-on-strategic-approaches-to-encryption/1742/), and one of them—option 1—would be to repudiate encryption backdoors, with an eye toward influencing other countries' behavior on this issue. To the extent we can figure out ways to leverage this example to push the White House in the right direction right now, it may pay healthy dividends later in India and around the world. >> _____________________________________ >> Kevin S. Bankston >> Director, New America's Open Technology Institute >> Co-Director, New America’s Cybersecurity Initiative >> 1899 L Street NW, Suite 400 >> Washington, DC 20036 >> bankston at opentechinstitute.org > >> Phone: 202-596-3415 >> Fax: 202-986-3696 >> @kevinbankston >> >> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Raman Jit Singh Chima >> wrote: >> >> Those links are confirmed, and the Minister did a formal statement at a press conference on this that the news wires have used for their stories. >> >> http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/government-withdraws-draft-national-encryption-policy-after-furore/ >> >> Do keep in mind though that they plan to try and bring this back - the Minister said they would redraft and then bring it back for public comment. We should celebrate this, but then pivot to focus on why undermining encryption should never be a policy step and what different governments across the world need to focus on - including India itself. >> >> Raman. >> >> On 22 September 2015 at 20:40, Deirdre Williams >> wrote: >> Try http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34322118 >> >> On 22 September 2015 at 11:07, Kevin Bankston >> wrote: >> Is there a story or other link confirming that so we can tweet about our community winning a quick victory? Didn't even need to write comments! >> >> Sent via mobile >> >> __________________________________ >> Kevin S. Bankston >> Director, Open Technology Institute >> Co-Director, Cybersecurity Initiative >> New America >> 1899 L Street NW, Suite 400 >> Washington, DC 20036 >> bankston at opentechinstitute.org > >> Phone: 202-596-3415 >> Fax: 202-986-3696 >> @kevinbankston >> >> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Mishi Choudhary >> wrote: >> Post a public outcry, DEITY has withdrawn this policy. >> >> On 09/21/2015 03:46 PM, Raman Jit Singh Chima wrote: >> >> Happy to add a few brief notes on the background to this if it is helpful: >> >> >> - The Indian Govt has had encryption policy discussions ongoing for >> about a decade. Pre-existing telecom sector regulation placed a limit of 40 >> bits on the encryption that could be deployed by ISPs or telcos on their >> networks, though that arguably applied only to them directly and was >> unclear as to how it affected third parties >> - A provision in the Information Technology Act (Section 69) allowed the >> Union Government to issue orders forcing decryption of data in addition to >> allowing for interception requests. When the Information Technology Act was >> amended in 2008, another provision was added (Section 84A) which allowed >> the Union Government to specify "modes or methods for encryption" by >> executive rule-making. The text of the provision said that this was >> supposed to be for "secure use of the electronic medium and for promotion >> of e-governance and e-commerce". The internal political context for this >> included strong political pressure from law enforcement and the security >> establishment, who raised concerns about not being able to intercept >> encrypted communications >> - No rules for the above provision was publicly brought up from 2008 >> until now, though there have been regular internal discussions - mostly >> with industry and intergovernmental consultation >> >> >> Additionally - perhaps in response to the initial negative reaction in the >> press - the Indian Dept. of Electronics and IT released an addendum document >> > >> today. It essentially appears to be trying to suggest that the draft rules >> could exempt "mass use encryption products" along with SSL/TLS products >> used for Internet banking (though only those specified by the Reserve Bank >> of India) or for e-Commerce passwords. >> >> Sincerely, >> Raman. >> >> On 22 September 2015 at 01:12, Mishi Choudhary >> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Carol, >> >> Thanks for highlighting this. Its a draft National Encryption Policy >> and public comments are invited by October 16, 2015. Comments are to be >> emailed to Mr A,S.A. Krishnan, akrishnan at deity.gov.in > >> >> The key highlights of the policy are : >> >> >> 1. A stipulation that businesses and citizens are to maintain plain text >> (unencrypted) copies of encrypted content for a period of 90 days, to be >> made available to Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) when so directed under >> law. >> >> 2. Vendors of encryption products are required to register their >> products with the Government as a pre-condition to conducting business >> in India. They are also expected to re-register their products with >> every update. This requirement is not limited to vendors of dedicated >> encryption products, and seemingly includes even products that use >> encryption in the course of providing a larger service such as messaging >> or e-commerce. (Service Providers located within and >> outside India, using Encryption technology for providing any type of >> services in India must enter into an agreement with the Government >> for providing such services in India). >> >> 3. Encryption algorithms and key sizes shall be prescribed >> by the Government through Notifications from time to time. >> >> >> On 09/21/2015 03:33 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> Hi folks, I feel this could be a good topic for a coalition response >> through the BB platform. Can the folks for India give some context to the >> folks in this list? Let us know if such an action would be helpful. >> >> Carol >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Sep 21, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Mishi Choudhary >> >> wrote: >> >> Worrisome development from India through this encryption policy >> >> >> >> http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/draft%20Encryption%20Policyv1.pdf >> >> -- >> Warm Regards >> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >> Legal Director >> Software Freedom Law Center >> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >> New York, NY-10023 >> (tel) 212-461-1912 >> (fax) 212-580-0898 >> www.softwarefreedom.org > >> >> >> Executive Director >> SFLC.IN> >> K-9, Second Floor >> Jangpura Extn. >> New Delhi-110014 >> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >> www.sflc.in > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 >> >> -- >> Warm Regards >> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >> Legal Director >> Software Freedom Law Center >> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >> New York, NY-10023 >> (tel) 212-461-1912 >> (fax) 212-580-0898 >> www.softwarefreedom.org > >> >> >> Executive Director >> SFLC.IN> >> K-9, Second Floor >> Jangpura Extn. >> New Delhi-110014 >> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >> www.sflc.in > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Warm Regards >> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >> Legal Director >> Software Freedom Law Center >> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >> New York, NY-10023 >> (tel) 212-461-1912 >> (fax) 212-580-0898 >> www.softwarefreedom.org > >> >> >> Executive Director >> SFLC.IN> >> K-9, Second Floor >> Jangpura Extn. >> New Delhi-110014 >> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >> www.sflc.in > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> Raman Jit Singh Chima >> Policy Director >> Access | accessnow.org > >> >> Email: raman at accessnow.org > >> Skype: raman.chima >> PGP ID: 0x2A186000 >> >> 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 >> > > -- > Warm Regards > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > Legal Director > Software Freedom Law Center > 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > New York, NY-10023 > (tel) 212-461-1912 > (fax) 212-580-0898 > www.softwarefreedom.org > > > Executive Director > SFLC.IN > K-9, Second Floor > Jangpura Extn. > New Delhi-110014 > (tel) +91-11-43587126 > (fax) +91-11-24323530 > www.sflc.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 mshears at cdt.org Tue Sep 22 13:01:16 2015 From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 18:01:16 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Update: Indian Encryption Policy In-Reply-To: <0A1D6791-575F-4374-854C-823127337E5B@eff.org> References: <56004B58.7050706@softwarefreedom.org> <662B4EBE-DDDB-4E53-AF16-AE74E89749BB@gmail.com> <56005D8D.5050503@softwarefreedom.org> <56016DB9.7050309@softwarefreedom.org> <5EFD20CD-BBA1-42C4-8FB4-C709C2C76E29@opentechinstitute.org> <7D5543C0-88E9-41AB-86D1-AD48D568A763@opentechinstitute.org> <56018662.7010809@softwarefreedom.org> <0A1D6791-575F-4374-854C-823127337E5B@eff.org> Message-ID: <5601895C.8060507@cdt.org> I believe that we would be interested in contributing to such an effort as well. Matthew On 22/09/2015 17:55, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > I believe Cynthia is referring to any piece of advocacy action that > local groups are planning to do like a joint coalition letter. EFF > would be interested to support too that if that’s the case. and I > think its a great idea to coordinate with Dave Kaye on that front. > > Thanks > >> On Sep 22, 2015, at 6:48 PM, Mishi Choudhary >> > wrote: >> >> Cynthia, >> >> I don't understand the first part of your question. Can you clarify >> please? >> >> >> >> On 09/22/2015 12:40 PM, Cynthia Wong wrote: >>> Question for those in India: Are there proactive advocacy pieces >>> that the groups on this list can put together to make sure the next >>> draft is less awful? Perhaps in coordination with David Kaye? >>> >>> HRW would be keen to participate, if that would be helpful. >>> >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> >>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Bankston >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9:11 AM >>> To: Raman Jit Singh Chima >>> Cc: Deirdre Williams; Mishi Choudhary; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> >bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> > >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update: Indian Encryption Policy >>> >>> In regard to the continuing/future threat of a revised proposal, I >>> think it’s worth highlighting that the U.S. President’s office is >>> considering several options in regard to encryption policy (based on >>> this leaked memo: >>> http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/read-the-nsc-draft-options-paper-on-strategic-approaches-to-encryption/1742/), >>> and one of them—option 1—would be to repudiate encryption backdoors, >>> with an eye toward influencing other countries' behavior on this >>> issue. To the extent we can figure out ways to leverage this >>> example to push the White House in the right direction right now, it >>> may pay healthy dividends later in India and around the world. >>> _____________________________________ >>> Kevin S. Bankston >>> Director, New America's Open Technology Institute >>> Co-Director, New America’s Cybersecurity Initiative >>> 1899 L Street NW, Suite 400 >>> Washington, DC 20036 >>> bankston at opentechinstitute.org >>> >>> Phone: 202-596-3415 >>> Fax: 202-986-3696 >>> @kevinbankston >>> >>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Raman Jit Singh Chima >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> Those links are confirmed, and the Minister did a formal statement >>> at a press conference on this that the news wires have used for >>> their stories. >>> >>> http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/government-withdraws-draft-national-encryption-policy-after-furore/ >>> >>> Do keep in mind though that they plan to try and bring this back - >>> the Minister said they would redraft and then bring it back for >>> public comment. We should celebrate this, but then pivot to focus on >>> why undermining encryption should never be a policy step and what >>> different governments across the world need to focus on - including >>> India itself. >>> >>> Raman. >>> >>> On 22 September 2015 at 20:40, Deirdre Williams >>> >> > >>> wrote: >>> Tryhttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34322118 >>> >>> On 22 September 2015 at 11:07, Kevin Bankston >>> >> > >>> wrote: >>> Is there a story or other link confirming that so we can tweet about >>> our community winning a quick victory? Didn't even need to write >>> comments! >>> >>> Sent via mobile >>> >>> __________________________________ >>> Kevin S. Bankston >>> Director, Open Technology Institute >>> Co-Director, Cybersecurity Initiative >>> New America >>> 1899 L Street NW, Suite 400 >>> Washington, DC 20036 >>> bankston at opentechinstitute.org >>> >>> Phone: 202-596-3415 >>> Fax: 202-986-3696 >>> @kevinbankston >>> >>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Mishi Choudhary >>> >> > wrote: >>> Post a public outcry, DEITY has withdrawn this policy. >>> >>> On 09/21/2015 03:46 PM, Raman Jit Singh Chima wrote: >>> >>> Happy to add a few brief notes on the background to this if it is >>> helpful: >>> >>> >>> - The Indian Govt has had encryption policy discussions ongoing for >>> about a decade. Pre-existing telecom sector regulation placed a >>> limit of 40 >>> bits on the encryption that could be deployed by ISPs or telcos on >>> their >>> networks, though that arguably applied only to them directly and was >>> unclear as to how it affected third parties >>> - A provision in the Information Technology Act (Section 69) >>> allowed the >>> Union Government to issue orders forcing decryption of data in >>> addition to >>> allowing for interception requests. When the Information Technology >>> Act was >>> amended in 2008, another provision was added (Section 84A) which >>> allowed >>> the Union Government to specify "modes or methods for encryption" by >>> executive rule-making. The text of the provision said that this was >>> supposed to be for "secure use of the electronic medium and for >>> promotion >>> of e-governance and e-commerce". The internal political context for >>> this >>> included strong political pressure from law enforcement and the >>> security >>> establishment, who raised concerns about not being able to intercept >>> encrypted communications >>> - No rules for the above provision was publicly brought up from 2008 >>> until now, though there have been regular internal discussions - mostly >>> with industry and intergovernmental consultation >>> >>> >>> Additionally - perhaps in response to the initial negative reaction >>> in the >>> press - the Indian Dept. of Electronics and IT released an addendum >>> document >>> >>> today. It essentially appears to be trying to suggest that the draft >>> rules >>> could exempt "mass use encryption products" along with SSL/TLS products >>> used for Internet banking (though only those specified by the >>> Reserve Bank >>> of India) or for e-Commerce passwords. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> Raman. >>> >>> On 22 September 2015 at 01:12, Mishi Choudhary >>> >> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Carol, >>> >>> Thanks for highlighting this. Its a draft National Encryption Policy >>> and public comments are invited by October 16, 2015. Comments are to be >>> emailed to Mr A,S.A. Krishnan, akrishnan at deity.gov.in >>> >>> >>> The key highlights of the policy are : >>> >>> >>> 1. A stipulation that businesses and citizens are to maintain plain text >>> (unencrypted) copies of encrypted content for a period of 90 days, to be >>> made available to Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) when so directed under >>> law. >>> >>> 2. Vendors of encryption products are required to register their >>> products with the Government as a pre-condition to conducting business >>> in India. They are also expected to re-register their products with >>> every update. This requirement is not limited to vendors of dedicated >>> encryption products, and seemingly includes even products that use >>> encryption in the course of providing a larger service such as messaging >>> or e-commerce. (Service Providers located within and >>> outside India, using Encryption technology for providing any type of >>> services in India must enter into an agreement with the Government >>> for providing such services in India). >>> >>> 3. Encryption algorithms and key sizes shall be prescribed >>> by the Government through Notifications from time to time. >>> >>> >>> On 09/21/2015 03:33 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>> Hi folks, I feel this could be a good topic for a coalition response >>> through the BB platform. Can the folks for India give some context >>> to the >>> folks in this list? Let us know if such an action would be helpful. >>> >>> Carol >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Sep 21, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Mishi Choudhary >>> >> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> Worrisome development from India through this encryption policy >>> >>> >>> >>> http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/draft%20Encryption%20Policyv1.pdf >>> >>> -- >>> Warm Regards >>> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >>> Legal Director >>> Software Freedom Law Center >>> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >>> New York, NY-10023 >>> (tel) 212-461-1912 >>> (fax) 212-580-0898 >>> www.softwarefreedom.org >>> >>> >>> >>> Executive Director >>> SFLC.IN >>> K-9, Second Floor >>> Jangpura Extn. >>> New Delhi-110014 >>> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >>> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >>> www.sflc.in >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as 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 >>> >>> -- >>> Warm Regards >>> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >>> Legal Director >>> Software Freedom Law Center >>> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >>> New York, NY-10023 >>> (tel) 212-461-1912 >>> (fax) 212-580-0898 >>> www.softwarefreedom.org >>> >>> >>> >>> Executive Director >>> SFLC.IN >>> K-9, Second Floor >>> Jangpura Extn. >>> New Delhi-110014 >>> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >>> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >>> www.sflc.in >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Warm Regards >>> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >>> Legal Director >>> Software Freedom Law Center >>> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >>> New York, NY-10023 >>> (tel) 212-461-1912 >>> (fax) 212-580-0898 >>> www.softwarefreedom.org >>> >>> >>> >>> Executive Director >>> SFLC.IN >>> K-9, Second Floor >>> Jangpura Extn. >>> New Delhi-110014 >>> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >>> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >>> www.sflc.in >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Raman Jit Singh Chima >>> Policy Director >>> Access |accessnow.org >>> >>> Email:raman at accessnow.org >>> >>> Skype: raman.chima >>> PGP ID: 0x2A186000 >>> >>> 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 >>> >> >> -- >> Warm Regards >> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >> Legal Director >> Software Freedom Law Center >> 1995 Broadway Floor 17 >> New York, NY-10023 >> (tel) 212-461-1912 >> (fax) 212-580-0898 >> www.softwarefreedom.org >> >> >> Executive Director >> SFLC.IN >> K-9, Second Floor >> Jangpura Extn. >> New Delhi-110014 >> (tel) +91-11-43587126 >> (fax) +91-11-24323530 >> www.sflc.in >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears at cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Tue Sep 22 13:50:11 2015 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 13:50:11 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Update: Indian Encryption Policy In-Reply-To: <0A1D6791-575F-4374-854C-823127337E5B@eff.org> References: <56004B58.7050706@softwarefreedom.org> <662B4EBE-DDDB-4E53-AF16-AE74E89749BB@gmail.com> <56005D8D.5050503@softwarefreedom.org> <56016DB9.7050309@softwarefreedom.org> <5EFD20CD-BBA1-42C4-8FB4-C709C2C76E29@opentechinstitute.org> <7D5543C0-88E9-41AB-86D1-AD48D568A763@opentechinstitute.org> <56018662.7010809@softwarefreedom.org> <0A1D6791-575F-4374-854C-823127337E5B@eff.org> Message-ID: Amy Hess of the FBI appeared at a CSM event last week arguing forcefully for not back doors per se, but "solutions". https://livestream.com/internetsociety/encryptiondebate/videos/99393023 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From raman at accessnow.org Tue Sep 22 15:01:02 2015 From: raman at accessnow.org (Raman Jit Singh Chima) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:31:02 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Update: Indian Encryption Policy In-Reply-To: References: <56004B58.7050706@softwarefreedom.org> <662B4EBE-DDDB-4E53-AF16-AE74E89749BB@gmail.com> <56005D8D.5050503@softwarefreedom.org> <56016DB9.7050309@softwarefreedom.org> <5EFD20CD-BBA1-42C4-8FB4-C709C2C76E29@opentechinstitute.org> <7D5543C0-88E9-41AB-86D1-AD48D568A763@opentechinstitute.org> <56018662.7010809@softwarefreedom.org> <0A1D6791-575F-4374-854C-823127337E5B@eff.org> Message-ID: I think its a good idea to see what we can do to further more coordination and advocacy on this front globally amongst the groups that are interested. From jmalcolm at eff.org Tue Sep 22 15:51:22 2015 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 12:51:22 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Advance notice! Save the date for IGF Best Bits meeting, November 8 Message-ID: <5601B13A.5010307@eff.org> Dear Best Bits participants, Once again we are intending on holding a Best Bits meeting on Day -1 of the IGF which is November 8 (and perhaps a dinner on Day -2 of the IGF which is November 7). The organisation and the funding of the meeting will be a collaborative civil society effort. If you are interested in helping, please contact myself or the steering committee (steering at lists.bestbits.net). More details of the agenda and logistics will be coming soon, but for now if you are booking travel to Brazil, please consider booking it to arrive on the 7th if you can. Thanks for your patience, and we look forward to hearing from you if you would like to be involved. -- 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: 230 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Wed Sep 23 01:15:36 2015 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:45:36 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Update: Indian Encryption Policy In-Reply-To: References: <56004B58.7050706@softwarefreedom.org> <662B4EBE-DDDB-4E53-AF16-AE74E89749BB@gmail.com> <56005D8D.5050503@softwarefreedom.org> <56016DB9.7050309@softwarefreedom.org> <5EFD20CD-BBA1-42C4-8FB4-C709C2C76E29@opentechinstitute.org> <7D5543C0-88E9-41AB-86D1-AD48D568A763@opentechinstitute.org> <56018662.7010809@softwarefreedom.org> <0A1D6791-575F-4374-854C-823127337E5B@eff.org> Message-ID: I'd be interested in joining such a call of it happens. Please keep me updated. Thanks, Anja On 23 September 2015 at 00:31, Raman Jit Singh Chima wrote: > I think its a good idea to see what we can do to further more coordination > and advocacy on this front globally amongst the groups that are interested. > From Access, we have been trying to work on a global effort to push on > positive crypto policy - and the India developments over the last few days > saw lots of public and press interest on this which we should support. > > I would like to suggest that people interested in this join together in a > call early next week - to share information and see what needs to be kept > in mind for India as well as a larger global effort on advancing a secure > Internet and pushing back against weakening encryption. > > Raman. > > Amy Hess of the FBI appeared at a CSM event last week arguing forcefully > for not back doors per se, but "solutions". > > https://livestream.com/internetsociety/encryptiondebate/videos/99393023 > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 08:44:06 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 08:44:06 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Apply by Sept. 30 to the Knight News Challenge In-Reply-To: <44a06e103b99cf80e07a2eaad61e5d1f18c.20150923122936@mail84.atl71.mcdlv.net> References: <44a06e103b99cf80e07a2eaad61e5d1f18c.20150923122936@mail84.atl71.mcdlv.net> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *John Bracken, Knight Foundation* Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 Subject: Apply by Sept. 30 to the Knight News Challenge To: Carolina View this email in your browser Dear Carolina, Apply now to the Knight News Challenge on Data , *which closes for applications Wednesday Sept. 30 at 5 p.m. ET*. The challenge seeks ideas that address the question: *'How might we make data work for individuals and communities?’* A collaboration between Knight, Data & Society and Open Society Foundations, the challenge is offering a share of $3 million for innovative ideas. If you have questions about the application, you can join us for virtual office hours *today, Sept. 23 at 1 p.m. ET* or on Tuesday Sept. 29. Details can be accessed here . To enter the News Challenge on Data and for more information, go to newschallenge.org and answer a few brief questions *by Sept. 30*. Follow #newschallenge on Twitter for updates and please spread the word through your networks. Best, John Bracken Knight Foundation Vice President for Media Innovation *Copyright © 2015 John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, All rights reserved.* You registered for this email list by applying for a Knight Foundation grant, or by joining at www.knightfoundation.org/signup, or by registering to attend an event sponsored by Knight Foundation. *Our mailing address is:* John S. and James L. Knight Foundation 200 South Biscayne Blvd. Suite 3300 Miami, FL 33131-2349 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list -- *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 Wed Sep 23 08:45:38 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 08:45:38 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Statement from FCC on New U.S. Diplomatic Effort In-Reply-To: <5D97DE87C3630C40ACDF889373A7A97B01072CFF66@SESSEEVEXMB02U.ses.state.sbu> References: <5D97DE87C3630C40ACDF889373A7A97B01072CFF66@SESSEEVEXMB02U.ses.state.sbu> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- *'Global Connect' * *US Initiative Will Examine How To Speed Deployment of Broadband Worldwide, FCC Official Says * A new State Department diplomatic initiative will be unveiled at the U.N. General Assembly in New York in two weeks, said Phil Verveer, senior counsel to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. Verveer said the ini­tiative is “an effort to try to coordinate as much development activity as possible” to get another 1.5 billion people online over the next five years. He spoke Thursday at a Silicon Flatirons Center symposium webcast from Boulder, Colorado. “That’s a very ambitious goal,” Verveer said. “It’s one that is shared by other countries.” The U.S. contribution will be in trying to coordinate the Internet push, he said. The World Bank also will be in­volved, he said. Estonian President Toomas Hendrik, World Bank Chief Economist Kaushik Basu and senior State Department officials are expected to be on hand for the announcement, Verveer said. “It’s a serious effort to try to promote the idea that telecommunications investment … ought to enjoy a place and a priority of development that heretofore roads and electricity and water, things of that nature, have enjoyed,” said Verveer, who was a State Department official before working for Wheeler. One basic assumption is “we are better off as more and more people connect to the Internet,” Verveer said. “There are quite significant geopolitical benefits as well,” he said. “We benefit if there is order, if there is prosperity, if there is economic activity.” To have development, a nation has to have the rule of law and has to address corruption, “which is endemic in much of the world,” Verveer said. “You’ve got to have licensing regimes that are sensible, you’ve got to have legal and regulatory arrangements that are favorable for investment,” he said. “Some of the elites in some countries show a remarkable resistance to that set of principles.” U.S. carriers, with the exception of AT&T’s investment in Mexico, have rarely been engaged in international markets, he said. “It would have been useful to have U.S. service providers operating around the world extensively over the last 20 years.” Verveer also said comparing broadband in the U.S. with deployment in other nations is complicated. “One can be inspired by the experience of South Korea” with its very high rates of speed, he said. “But you also have to stop and consider both the ability of the government in South Korea to assist with that kind of *10—COMMUNICATIONS DAILY * Manu K. Bhardwaj Senior Advisor and Staff Coordinator for IT and Internet Diplomacy Matters Office of the Under Secretary (202) 647-9038 Friends and colleagues: We are pleased to invite you to a high-level panel discussion on *Development in the Digital Age* co-hosted by Estonia, the USA and the World Bank Group on September 27th at 11 AM in UNHQ. At this special event, we will be joined by the Presidents of Estonia, Tanzania and the World Bank, among other foreign ministers and dignitaries. The format will be a panel discussion. During the question-and-answer session, we would welcome any interested representatives to deliver a statement on the benefits of broadband as fundamental infrastructure and vital for the international development agenda. This event will be open to the press. Attached is the Save-the-Date for the event and full concept note. Next week, we look forward to unveiling more details about our new diplomatic initiative first previewed by the Secretary of State in Korea earlier this summer. Space is limited, please RSVP to tmadsen at mfa.ee as soon as possible. Pleased with the building momentum to help catalyze action in closing the digital divide and extend the economic and social benefits of connectivity to everyone. Thanks, Manu (Snr. Political Advisor, Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment, State) and Ann Mei (Executive Director, Global Development Lab, USAID) *“So looking to the future, we have to respond to this demand for openness and opportunity by making steady progress toward closing the digital divide. And with that goal in mind, the United States State Department will soon launch a new diplomatic initiative – in combination with partner countries, development banks, engineers, and industry leaders – and we’re going to do just that: try to make it more available.”* -- Secretary Kerry in Korea on May 18,2015 *From:* We are excited about the Secretary Kerry's remarks in Korea today that highlight the State Department's and USAID's commitment to global connectivity. As the Secretary said, looking to the future, we have to make steady progress towards Internet freedom and closing the digital divide. With that goal in mind, the United States will soon be launching a new diplomatic initiative - in combination with friends, regional development banks, and industry leaders - to do just that. In the coming weeks, the State Department and USAID will be reaching out to all of you to explore areas for partnership as we develop this new connectivity initiative. We are actively exploring opportunities to improve connectivity health information systems in West Africa (in the recovery from Ebola), digital financial systems in India, and internet access and usage across the world. Please don't hesitate to contact my team at the Global Development Lab or Manu Bhardwaj, the State Department's Senior Advisor and Staff Coordinator for IT and Internet Diplomacy Matters, copied here. Best, Ann Mei (USAID/Lab) and Manu (State/Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment) -- Ann Mei Chang | Executive Director U.S. Global Development Lab l USAID *www.usaid.gov/GlobalDevLab * Twitter: @annmei -- *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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UNGA side event.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 31958 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 10:18:18 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:18:18 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] IGF schedule out Message-ID: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-2015-schedule#day-0-9th-nov-2015 -- *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 Wed Sep 2 14:48:55 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 14:48:55 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] WIKIMEDIA new policy site Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Yana Welinder Date: Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 2:44 PM Subject: new policy site To: crossini at publicknowledge.org Hey Carolina, Hope all is well! We’re launching a policy site today that may be of interest: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/02/new-wikimedia-public-policy-site/. It provides the Wikimedia Foundation positions on access, censorship, copyright, intermediary liability, and privacy and is meant to make it easier for advocacy groups to work with the Wikimedia movement. We’re not doing a regular press announcement, so please share this with other advocacy groups as you see fit. Here’s a link to the site: policy.wikimedia.org Thanks, Yana -- Yana Welinder Legal Director Wikimedia Foundation @yanatweets NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. In other words, IANYL . For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer . -- -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy and Strategy * *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini *Save the Date! The IP3 Awards are September 24th!* *RSVP at https://www.eventbrite.com/e/12th-annual-ip3-awards-tickets-16522289613 * -- *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 mishi at softwarefreedom.org Wed Sep 23 13:07:43 2015 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 13:07:43 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Software and Volkswagen In-Reply-To: References: <5D97DE87C3630C40ACDF889373A7A97B01072CFF66@SESSEEVEXMB02U.ses.state.sbu> Message-ID: <5602DC5F.2080307@softwarefreedom.org> Software is in everything,” he said, citing airplanes, medical devices and cars, much of it proprietary and thus invisible. “We shouldn’t use it for purposes that could conceivably cause harm, like running personal computers, let alone should we use it for things like anti-lock brakes or throttle control in automobiles. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/nyregion/volkswagens-diesel-fraud-makes-critic-of-secret-code-a-prophet.html On 09/23/2015 08:45 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > *'Global Connect' * > > *US Initiative Will Examine How To Speed Deployment of Broadband Worldwide, > FCC Official Says * > > A new State Department diplomatic initiative will be unveiled at the > U.N. General > Assembly in New York in two weeks, said Phil Verveer, senior counsel to FCC > Chairman Tom Wheeler. Verveer said the ini­tiative is “an effort to try to > coordinate as much development activity as possible” to get another 1.5 > billion people online over the next five years. He spoke Thursday at a > Silicon Flatirons Center symposium webcast from Boulder, Colorado. > > “That’s a very ambitious goal,” Verveer said. “It’s one that is shared by > other countries.” The U.S. contribution will be in trying to coordinate the > Internet push, he said. The World Bank also will be in­volved, he said. > Estonian President Toomas Hendrik, World Bank Chief Economist Kaushik Basu > and senior State Department officials are expected to be on hand for the > announcement, Verveer said. > > “It’s a serious effort to try to promote the idea that telecommunications > investment … ought to enjoy a place and a priority of development that > heretofore roads and electricity and water, things of that nature, have > enjoyed,” said Verveer, who was a State Department official before working > for Wheeler. One basic assumption is “we are better off as more and more > people connect to the Internet,” Verveer said. “There are quite significant > geopolitical benefits as well,” he said. “We benefit if there is order, if > there is prosperity, if there is economic activity.” > > To have development, a nation has to have the rule of law and has to > address corruption, “which is endemic in much of the world,” Verveer said. > “You’ve got to have licensing regimes that are sensible, you’ve got to have > legal and regulatory arrangements that are favorable for investment,” he > said. “Some of the elites in some countries show a remarkable resistance to > that set of principles.” U.S. carriers, with the exception of AT&T’s > investment in Mexico, have rarely been engaged in international markets, he > said. “It would have been useful to have U.S. service providers operating > around the world extensively over the last 20 years.” > > Verveer also said comparing broadband in the U.S. with deployment in other > nations is complicated. “One can be inspired by the experience of South > Korea” with its very high rates of speed, he said. “But you also have to > stop and consider both the ability of the government in South Korea to > assist with that kind of *10—COMMUNICATIONS DAILY * > > Manu K. Bhardwaj > > Senior Advisor and Staff Coordinator for IT and Internet Diplomacy Matters > > Office of the Under Secretary > > (202) 647-9038 > > > > > > > > > Friends and colleagues: > > > > We are pleased to invite you to a high-level panel discussion on *Development > in the Digital Age* co-hosted by Estonia, the USA and the World Bank Group > on September 27th at 11 AM in UNHQ. At this special event, we will be > joined by the Presidents of Estonia, Tanzania and the World Bank, among > other foreign ministers and dignitaries. > > > > The format will be a panel discussion. During the question-and-answer > session, we would welcome any interested representatives to deliver a > statement on the benefits of broadband as fundamental infrastructure and > vital for the international development agenda. This event will be open to > the press. Attached is the Save-the-Date for the event and full concept > note. > > > > Next week, we look forward to unveiling more details about our new > diplomatic initiative first previewed by the Secretary of State in Korea > earlier this summer. Space is limited, please RSVP to tmadsen at mfa.ee > as soon as possible. > > > > Pleased with the building momentum to help catalyze action in closing the > digital divide and extend the economic and social benefits of connectivity > to everyone. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Manu (Snr. Political Advisor, Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment, > State) and Ann Mei (Executive Director, Global Development Lab, USAID) > > > > *“So looking to the future, we have to respond to this demand for openness > and opportunity by making steady progress toward closing the digital > divide. And with that goal in mind, the United States State Department will > soon launch a new diplomatic initiative – in combination with partner > countries, development banks, engineers, and industry leaders – and we’re > going to do just that: try to make it more available.”* -- Secretary > Kerry in Korea on May 18,2015 > > > > *From:* > > > > > > We are excited about the Secretary Kerry's remarks in Korea > today that > highlight the State Department's and USAID's commitment to global > connectivity. As the Secretary said, looking to the future, we have to > make steady progress towards Internet freedom and closing the digital > divide. With that goal in mind, the United States will soon be launching a > new diplomatic initiative - in combination with friends, regional > development banks, and industry leaders - to do just that. > > > > In the coming weeks, the State Department and USAID will be reaching out to > all of you to explore areas for partnership as we develop this new > connectivity initiative. We are actively exploring opportunities to improve > connectivity health information systems in West Africa (in the recovery > from Ebola), digital financial systems in India, and internet access and > usage across the world. Please don't hesitate to contact my team at the > Global Development Lab or Manu Bhardwaj, the State Department's Senior > Advisor and Staff Coordinator for IT and Internet Diplomacy Matters, copied > here. > > > > Best, > > Ann Mei (USAID/Lab) and Manu (State/Economic Growth, Energy, and the > Environment) > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Wed Sep 23 13:16:19 2015 From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 14:16:19 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Internet Ungovernance Forum Brasil In-Reply-To: <5602D7C7.9020309@riseup.net> References: <5602D7C7.9020309@riseup.net> Message-ID: <5602DE63.3080505@riseup.net> for information. -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: Foro de Desgobierno de la Internet Brasil Datum: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 13:48:07 -0300 Von: willi uebelherr An: SwLibre Cuba , Grettel Barrio Marshall CSL , Informatica Habana , Interciencia Cuba , Susana Sanchez Ortiz , Yoandy Perez Villazon Kopie (CC): iuf partido pirata , Iuri Guilherme , Julia Reda , Brigitta Jonsdottir , Amelia Andersdotter , Fabiane Bogdanovicz , Alexandre Oliva , ASL , Uzoma Madukanya , Quiliro Ordóñez Baca , Fernando de Sá Moreira , Piratas Norio Salvador , IUF Alternatif Bilisim , Diego Saravia , Galleguindio Ramirez , IUF Ali Rıza Keleş , IUF Etkinlik Kayıt , IUF Ahmet Sabancı , Wolf Gauer , Umit Sahin , Ramiro Castillo , Daniel Yucra , alejandro drabenche , IUF brasil Internet Ungovernance Forum Brazil http://iuf.partidopirata.org/en/ 6th FOSS International Workshop http://www.informaticahabana.cu/en/eventos/show/98 Dear friends of free technology in Cuba, your visons are also our visions. We need the free technology as a global network of all people on our planet. Free to use. Free to participate. For all people, if they want. Based on this principles we come to our basics: "global thinking, local doing" and "knowledge is always world heritage". For that we need our real and free Internet, the interconnection of local networks. And this is a task of the people in her local environment. Not of private and/or state organisations and insitutions. In November there is the second Internet Ungovernance Forum (IUF) in Joao Pessoa in Brasil. Parallel to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). We have to discuss the principles of the real InterNet without the needs for Governance. I hope, that our friends in Brasil find a way for participate for all people in every region on our planet with audio or video streaming. And it would be fantastic, if our friends from Cuba can participate on this most important forum to the Internet in this year. many greetings, willi Macapa, Brasil Foro de Desgobierno de la Internet Brasil http://iuf.partidopirata.org/es/ VI Taller Internacional de Tecnologías de Software Libre y Código Abierto http://www.informaticahabana.cu/es/eventos/show/98 QueridAs amigAs de la tecnología libre en Cuba, sus visiones son también nuestras visiones. Necesitamos la tecnología libre como una red global de todas las personas en nuestro planeta. Libre para uso. Libre para participar. Para todas las personas, si quieren. Sobre la base de estos principios llegamos a nuestros fundamentos: "Pensamiento global, activar local" y "el conocimiento es siempre patrimonio del mundo". Para eso necesitamos nuestro Internet real y libre, la interconexión de las redes locales. Y esta es una tarea de las personas en su entorno local. No es una tarea de las organizaciones e instituciones privadas y/o estatales. En noviembre se encuentra el segundo Foro de Desgobierno de la Internet (Internet Ungovernance Forum IUF) en Joao Pessoa en Brasil. Paralelo al Foro de Gobernanza de Internet (Internet Governance Forum IGF). Tenemos que discutir los principios de la verdadera Internet sin la necesidad de gobernanza. Espero que nuestros amigos de Brasil encontrar un camino para participar de todas las personas en todas las regiones de nuestro planeta con el streaming de audio o vídeo. Y sería fantástico, si nuestros amigos de Cuba pueden participar en este mas importante foro de Internet en este año. muchos saludos, willi Macapa, Brasil From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 16:22:49 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 16:22:49 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [LyonDCL] United Nations to hold Summit for the adoption of the 2030 Agenda In-Reply-To: <4C7056044022974EBF0132E21CCA448206507897@MFP02.IFLA.lan> References: <4C7056044022974EBF0132E21CCA448206507897@MFP02.IFLA.lan> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Julia Brungs Date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:07 AM Subject: [LyonDCL] United Nations to hold Summit for the adoption of the 2030 Agenda To: Dear all, Over the last three years, the United Nations (UN) held extensive negotiations in which governments, civil society and the public contributed to the creation of the 2030 Agenda. This revolutionary agenda sets out a way forward for the world to create a better and more equal place to live in. The UN Summit for the adoption of 2030 Agenda , which includes the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), will take place from 25-27 September at the UN in New York. Thanks to the work of IFLA and its partners, library-related issues have a place on the agenda. *IFLA’s focus in the 2030 Agenda* Since 2012, IFLA has been actively engaged with the creation of the 2030 Agenda and advocated for the inclusion of access to information , safeguarding of cultural and natural heritage , universal literacy , and access to Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). IFLA welcomes that all of these aspects are now represented within the new Agenda. In 2014 IFLA launched the Lyon Declaration on access to information and developmen t, which has been signed by over 580 library and development organisation stressing the importance of access to information for the wider community. *Connecting the next four billion* During the UN Summit, IFLA, together with IREX and the New York Public Library, will host an event focusing on the challenges ahead and how access to information and libraries can help tackle them. Connecting the next four billion will take place in the New York Public Library, where speakers will discuss why inclusive access to information and technology is imperative to meet the new development agenda, and how community spaces like libraries are already implementing this vision. *The IFLA, FAO and COAR e-forum – a valuable background information resource* Earlier this month , IFLA, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) hosted an e-forum where users were able to discuss the importance of access to information for development. During this e-forum, several webcasts were delivered, including: · A presentation by Ms. Amina Mohammed for the e-forum on SDGs and Access to Information · Sustainable Development and Open Access by Jean-Claude Guédon · Libraries, The Lyon Declaration, and the Road to 2030 by Stuart Hamilton · Linking Open Access and Open Science with the SDGs by Leslie Chan · The Lyon Declaration and the Critical Role of Libraries in National Development Programs by Ellen Namhila These webcasts give a good overview of the importance of access to information and open access for the 2030 Agenda. *Remote participation during the UN Summit* You can follow the Summit on the adoption of the 2030 Agenda live and watch 150+ Member State representatives as well as civil society contribute to the adoption of the new agenda which will transform our world. You can also follow the conversation as it happens on Twitter at: #action2015 and #globalgoals Julia Brungs Policy and Projects Officer International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) P.O. Box 95312 2509 CH The Hague Netherlands Phone: 0031703140884 Email: Julia.brungs at ifla.org -- *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 wisdom.dk at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 17:04:50 2015 From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:04:50 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [LyonDCL] United Nations to hold Summit for the adoption of the 2030 Agenda In-Reply-To: References: <4C7056044022974EBF0132E21CCA448206507897@MFP02.IFLA.lan> Message-ID: Thanks for the information On Wednesday, September 23, 2015, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Julia Brungs > Date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:07 AM > Subject: [LyonDCL] United Nations to hold Summit for the adoption of the 2030 Agenda > To: > > > Dear all, > > > > Over the last three years, the United Nations (UN) held extensive negotiations in which governments, civil society and the public contributed to the creation of the 2030 Agenda. This revolutionary agenda sets out a way forward for the world to create a better and more equal place to live in. The UN Summit for the adoption of 2030 Agenda, which includes the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), will take place from 25-27 September at the UN in New York. > > > > Thanks to the work of IFLA and its partners, library-related issues have a place on the agenda. > > > > IFLA’s focus in the 2030 Agenda > > Since 2012, IFLA has been actively engaged with the creation of the 2030 Agenda and advocated for the inclusion of access to information, safeguarding of cultural and natural heritage, universal literacy, and access to Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). IFLA welcomes that all of these aspects are now represented within the new Agenda. > > In 2014 IFLA launched the Lyon Declaration on access to information and development, which has been signed by over 580 library and development organisation stressing the importance of access to information for the wider community. > > > > Connecting the next four billion > > During the UN Summit, IFLA, together with IREX and the New York Public Library, will host an event focusing on the challenges ahead and how access to information and libraries can help tackle them. Connecting the next four billion will take place in the New York Public Library, where speakers will discuss why inclusive access to information and technology is imperative to meet the new development agenda, and how community spaces like libraries are already implementing this vision. > > > > The IFLA, FAO and COAR e-forum – a valuable background information resource > > Earlier this month, IFLA, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) hosted an e-forum where users were able to discuss the importance of access to information for development. During this e-forum, several webcasts were delivered, including: > > · A presentation by Ms. Amina Mohammed for the e-forum on SDGs and Access to Information > > · Sustainable Development and Open Access by Jean-Claude Guédon > > · Libraries, The Lyon Declaration, and the Road to 2030 by Stuart Hamilton > > · Linking Open Access and Open Science with the SDGs by Leslie Chan > > · The Lyon Declaration and the Critical Role of Libraries in National Development Programs by Ellen Namhila > > These webcasts give a good overview of the importance of access to information and open access for the 2030 Agenda. > > > > Remote participation during the UN Summit > > You can follow the Summit on the adoption of the 2030 Agenda live and watch 150+ Member State representatives as well as civil society contribute to the adoption of the new agenda which will transform our world. > > You can also follow the conversation as it happens on Twitter at: #action2015 and #globalgoals > > > > > > Julia Brungs > > Policy and Projects Officer > > International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) > > P.O. Box 95312 > 2509 CH The Hague > Netherlands > > Phone: 0031703140884 > > Email: Julia.brungs at ifla.org > > > > > -- > > Carolina Rossini > Vice President, International Policy > Public Knowledge > http://www.publicknowledge.org/ > + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini > -- WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.) ICANN Fellow / ISOC Member Web/OGPL Portal Specialist National Information Technology Agency (NITA) Ghana Open Data Initiative (GODI) Post Office Box CT. 2439, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana Tel; +233 20 812881 Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh wisdom.dk at gmail.com Skype: wisdom_dk facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Sep 24 05:51:41 2015 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:51:41 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] Fwd: Internet Ungovernance Forum Brasil In-Reply-To: <5602DE63.3080505@riseup.net> References: <5602D7C7.9020309@riseup.net> <5602DE63.3080505@riseup.net> Message-ID: Dear Willi, It seems there is a convergence on simple concepts : "global thinking, local doing" "knowledge is always world heritage". I will add : - the internet is us, the catenet is our machines, the intersem our our relations. - Hubert Zimmermann (+) : "the network is the computer" - Louis Pouzin : "the network is the networks" - Aristote : architectonics is the disciplines of basics and the science of politics, the art of which is to lead free people (we now have interconnected through the bots' cantonade). NB. However "cantonade" (both sides of the stage) is the best existing word to describe the ubiquist digital facilitation - aside of the ancient Greek plays' "choir", I have not found an English equivalent term. jfc At 19:16 23/09/2015, willi uebelherr wrote: >Internet Ungovernance Forum Brazil >http://iuf.partidopirata.org/en/ > >6th FOSS International Workshop >http://www.informaticahabana.cu/en/eventos/show/98 > >Dear friends of free technology in Cuba, > >your visons are also our visions. We need the free technology as a >global network of all people on our planet. Free to use. Free to >participate. For all people, if they want. > >Based on this principles we come to our basics: "global thinking, local >doing" and "knowledge is always world heritage". > >For that we need our real and free Internet, the interconnection of >local networks. And this is a task of the people in her local >environment. Not of private and/or state organisations and insitutions. > >In November there is the second Internet Ungovernance Forum (IUF) in >Joao Pessoa in Brasil. Parallel to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). >We have to discuss the principles of the real >InterNet without the needs for Governance. > >I hope, that our friends in Brasil find a way for participate for all >people in every region on our planet with audio or video streaming. And >it would be fantastic, if our friends from Cuba can participate on this >most important forum to the Internet in this year. > >many greetings, willi >Macapa, Brasil > > >Foro de Desgobierno de la Internet Brasil >http://iuf.partidopirata.org/es/ > >VI Taller Internacional de Tecnologías de Software Libre y Código Abierto >http://www.informaticahabana.cu/es/eventos/show/98 > >QueridAs amigAs de la tecnología libre en Cuba, > >sus visiones son también nuestras visiones. Necesitamos la tecnología >libre como una red global de todas las personas en nuestro planeta. >Libre para uso. Libre para participar. Para todas las personas, si quieren. > >Sobre la base de estos principios llegamos a nuestros fundamentos: >"Pensamiento global, activar local" y "el conocimiento es siempre >patrimonio del mundo". > >Para eso necesitamos nuestro Internet real y libre, la interconexión de >las redes locales. Y esta es una tarea de las personas en su entorno >local. No es una tarea de las organizaciones e instituciones privadas >y/o estatales. > >En noviembre se encuentra el segundo Foro de Desgobierno de la Internet >(Internet Ungovernance Forum IUF) en Joao Pessoa en Brasil. Paralelo al >Foro de Gobernanza de Internet (Internet Governance Forum IGF). Tenemos >que discutir los principios de la verdadera >Internet sin la necesidad de gobernanza. > >Espero que nuestros amigos de Brasil encontrar >un camino para participar de todas las personas >en todas las regiones de nuestro planeta con el >streaming de audio o vídeo. Y sería >fantástico, si nuestros amigos de Cuba pueden >participar en este mas importante foro de Internet en este año. > >muchos saludos, willi >Macapa, Brasil > > > > >_______________________________________________ >discuss mailing list >discuss at 0net.org >http://0net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_0net.org From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Sep 24 10:53:46 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:53:46 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] TIME TO SING ON - NOTE - NEW INITIATIVE - GLOBAL CONNECT Message-ID: Hi everybody, (sorry for cross-posting, but time is short) The US, with support from a series of other countries, are launching a new initiative to spur access to internet called Global Connect. With the help of some from here we have written a statement that will soon be put up for signatures at the Best Bits platform. You can read it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q4QTeD0Ejl-yRK0GUke4vNBqx42n6E82yyyvdnTa1vE/edit?usp=sharing And if you are willing, you are welcome to sign on there. I can later move your signature to the BB platform. I kindly ask you to take a look at it and decide if your organization can support it. I will send to the Department of State tomorrow and a couple of folks who will be present in the launch this Sunday will present it during the audience participation time of the event. Here a short press-release PK published yesterday: https://www.publicknowledge.org/press-release/public-knowledge-welcomes-state-department-initiative-to-expand-broadband-deployment-to-the-world If you are based in NY and want to go to the event, see details for RSVP below. More details below. Best, Carolina -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bhardwaj, Manu Date: Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 9:26 AM Subject: RE: Secretary Kerry's remarks today on global internet connectivity To: Ann Mei Chang Friends and colleagues: We are pleased to invite you to a high-level panel discussion on *Development in the Digital Age* co-hosted by Estonia, the USA and the World Bank Group on September 27th at 11 AM in UNHQ. At this special event, we will be joined by the Presidents of Estonia, Tanzania and the World Bank, among other foreign ministers and dignitaries. The format will be a panel discussion. During the question-and-answer session, we would welcome any interested representatives to deliver a statement on the benefits of broadband as fundamental infrastructure and vital for the international development agenda. This event will be open to the press. Attached is the Save-the-Date for the event and full concept note. Next week, we look forward to unveiling more details about our new diplomatic initiative first previewed by the Secretary of State in Korea earlier this summer. Space is limited, please RSVP to tmadsen at mfa.ee as soon as possible. Pleased with the building momentum to help catalyze action in closing the digital divide and extend the economic and social benefits of connectivity to everyone. Thanks, Manu (Snr. Political Advisor, Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment, State) and Ann Mei (Executive Director, Global Development Lab, USAID) *“So looking to the future, we have to respond to this demand for openness and opportunity by making steady progress toward closing the digital divide. And with that goal in mind, the United States State Department will soon launch a new diplomatic initiative – in combination with partner countries, development banks, engineers, and industry leaders – and we’re going to do just that: try to make it more available.”* -- Secretary Kerry in Korea on May 18,2015 *From:* Ann Mei Chang [mailto:annmei at usaid.gov] *Sent:* Monday, May 18, 2015 4:33 PM *Cc:* Bhardwaj, Manu *Subject:* Secretary Kerry's remarks today on global internet connectivity We are excited about the Secretary Kerry's remarks in Korea today that highlight the State Department's and USAID's commitment to global connectivity. As the Secretary said, looking to the future, we have to make steady progress towards Internet freedom and closing the digital divide. With that goal in mind, the United States will soon be launching a new diplomatic initiative - in combination with friends, regional development banks, and industry leaders - to do just that. In the coming weeks, the State Department and USAID will be reaching out to all of you to explore areas for partnership as we develop this new connectivity initiative. We are actively exploring opportunities to improve connectivity health information systems in West Africa (in the recovery from Ebola), digital financial systems in India, and internet access and usage across the world. Please don't hesitate to contact my team at the Global Development Lab or Manu Bhardwaj, the State Department's Senior Advisor and Staff Coordinator for IT and Internet Diplomacy Matters, copied here. Best, Ann Mei (USAID/Lab) and Manu (State/Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment) -- Ann Mei Chang | Executive Director U.S. Global Development Lab l USAID *www.usaid.gov/GlobalDevLab * Twitter: @annmei -- *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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Save the Date_EE_WB_USA_27.09.2015 (1).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 487204 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UNGA side event.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 31958 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Sep 24 13:37:43 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:37:43 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] TIME TO SING ON - NOTE - NEW INITIATIVE - GLOBAL CONNECT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A bunch of you have asked if there is more information. No, there is not much besides the documents I sent in my initial email. Probably because it will be launched on the 27th. and talking to folks at the State Department, I have learned that: there are 3 main goals here: - make sure countries understand internet connectivity as a core infrastructure need as things like "electricity", "water" etc, are - build more and better public-private partnerships to address digital divide, including partnering with develop country based companies to deliver internet in the developing country; - find and show case policies that have contributed to digital inclusion (here they have been in contact with the A4AI and also NSRC at University of Oregon) Ars Technica also published a short piece: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/09/broadband-is-a-core-utility-like-electricity-white-house-report-says/ and from PK: https://www.publicknowledge.org/press-release/public-knowledge-welcomes-state-department-initiative-to-expand-broadband-deployment-to-the-world It will be a multi-year effort, so this is also a way of getting involved and deciding how (and actually if) later On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everybody, > > (sorry for cross-posting, but time is short) > > The US, with support from a series of other countries, are launching a new > initiative to spur access to internet called Global Connect. With the help > of some from here we have written a statement that will soon be put up for > signatures at the Best Bits platform. > > You can read it here: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q4QTeD0Ejl-yRK0GUke4vNBqx42n6E82yyyvdnTa1vE/edit?usp=sharing > > And if you are willing, you are welcome to sign on there. I can later move > your signature to the BB platform. > > I kindly ask you to take a look at it and decide if your organization can > support it. I will send to the Department of State tomorrow and a couple of > folks who will be present in the launch this Sunday will present it during > the audience participation time of the event. > > Here a short press-release PK published yesterday: > > https://www.publicknowledge.org/press-release/public-knowledge-welcomes-state-department-initiative-to-expand-broadband-deployment-to-the-world > > If you are based in NY and want to go to the event, see details for RSVP > below. > > More details below. > > Best, Carolina > > -- > *Carolina Rossini * > *Vice President, International Policy* > *Public Knowledge* > *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * > + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Bhardwaj, Manu > Date: Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 9:26 AM > Subject: RE: Secretary Kerry's remarks today on global internet > connectivity > To: Ann Mei Chang > > > Friends and colleagues: > > > > We are pleased to invite you to a high-level panel discussion on *Development > in the Digital Age* co-hosted by Estonia, the USA and the World Bank > Group on September 27th at 11 AM in UNHQ. At this special event, we will > be joined by the Presidents of Estonia, Tanzania and the World Bank, among > other foreign ministers and dignitaries. > > > > The format will be a panel discussion. During the question-and-answer > session, we would welcome any interested representatives to deliver a > statement on the benefits of broadband as fundamental infrastructure and > vital for the international development agenda. This event will be open to > the press. Attached is the Save-the-Date for the event and full concept > note. > > > > Next week, we look forward to unveiling more details about our new > diplomatic initiative first previewed by the Secretary of State in Korea > earlier this summer. Space is limited, please RSVP to tmadsen at mfa.ee as > soon as possible. > > > > Pleased with the building momentum to help catalyze action in closing the > digital divide and extend the economic and social benefits of connectivity > to everyone. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Manu (Snr. Political Advisor, Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment, > State) and Ann Mei (Executive Director, Global Development Lab, USAID) > > > > *“So looking to the future, we have to respond to this demand for openness > and opportunity by making steady progress toward closing the digital > divide. And with that goal in mind, the United States State Department will > soon launch a new diplomatic initiative – in combination with partner > countries, development banks, engineers, and industry leaders – and we’re > going to do just that: try to make it more available.”* -- Secretary > Kerry in Korea on May 18,2015 > > > > *From:* Ann Mei Chang [mailto:annmei at usaid.gov] > *Sent:* Monday, May 18, 2015 4:33 PM > *Cc:* Bhardwaj, Manu > *Subject:* Secretary Kerry's remarks today on global internet connectivity > > > > > > We are excited about the Secretary Kerry's remarks in Korea > today that > highlight the State Department's and USAID's commitment to global > connectivity. As the Secretary said, looking to the future, we have to > make steady progress towards Internet freedom and closing the digital > divide. With that goal in mind, the United States will soon be launching a > new diplomatic initiative - in combination with friends, regional > development banks, and industry leaders - to do just that. > > > > In the coming weeks, the State Department and USAID will be reaching out > to all of you to explore areas for partnership as we develop this new > connectivity initiative. We are actively exploring opportunities to improve > connectivity health information systems in West Africa (in the recovery > from Ebola), digital financial systems in India, and internet access and > usage across the world. Please don't hesitate to contact my team at the > Global Development Lab or Manu Bhardwaj, the State Department's Senior > Advisor and Staff Coordinator for IT and Internet Diplomacy Matters, copied > here. > > > > Best, > > Ann Mei (USAID/Lab) and Manu (State/Economic Growth, Energy, and the > Environment) > > > > -- > > Ann Mei Chang | Executive Director > > U.S. Global Development Lab l USAID > > *www.usaid.gov/GlobalDevLab * > > > > Twitter: @annmei > > > > -- > > *Carolina Rossini * > *Vice President, International Policy* > *Public Knowledge* > *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * > + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini > > -- *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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Save the Date_EE_WB_USA_27.09.2015 (1).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 487204 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UNGA side event.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 31958 bytes Desc: not available URL: From steve at schultze.com Thu Sep 24 18:25:20 2015 From: steve at schultze.com (Steve Schultze) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 18:25:20 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Internet Freedom this Sat in NYC w/ Samantha Power Message-ID: Hey bestbits, Some people on this list may be interested in the following event. There will be some interesting demos and announcements about what the State Department is doing on Internet Freedom. RSVP here: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/internet-freedom-technology-showcase-the-future-of-human-rights-online-tickets-18554115860 *Tom Malinowski* United States Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor *requests the pleasure of your attendance at the* *Internet Freedom Technology Showcase: The Future of Human Rights Online* *with special guest:* *Ambassador Samantha Power* U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Co-Hosted by the Ralph Bunche Institute For International Studies On Saturday, September 26, 2015 AT 11:00 A.M. Elebash Hall City University of New York Graduate Center 365 5th Ave., New York, NY 10016 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jyoti at cis-india.org Fri Sep 25 04:14:09 2015 From: jyoti at cis-india.org (jyoti at cis-india.org) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:14:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [bestbits] Letter from 50 MEPs stresses EU will decide own laws on digital agenda Message-ID: <1900555533.112721.1443168849754.JavaMail.zimbra@cis-india.org> ​​​​​Dear All, Over 50 members of the European Parliament have hit back at claims of "digital protectionism" emanating from the United States. Notably, the letter states: "We have different ideas on privacy and platforms, net neutrality and encryption, Bitcoin, zero-days, or copyright. We will seek to improve and change any proposal from the European Commission, in the interest of our citizens and of all people." The letter sent to the US Congress is available here: http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2015-09-22-MEPs-Statement-on-Digital-Protectionism.pdf Kieren McCarthy has reported on this at the Register, article available here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/ Jyoti Panday -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Sep 25 20:54:50 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 20:54:50 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Global Connect Message-ID: Dear friends, I am glad to share with you the final statement on the occasion of the launch of the US initiative *Global Connect*. http://bestbits.net/global-connect-initiative/ We will have a series of civil society members present during the launch and I do hope they are granted some time to deliver a shorter version on this comments. A printed version will be hand delivered. This week, PK has also published a short press-release on the issue: https://www.publicknowledge.org/press-release/public-knowledge-welcomes-state-department-initiative-to-expand-broadband-deployment-to-the-world Kindest regards, Carolina -- *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 anja at internetdemocracy.in Wed Sep 2 22:37:39 2015 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 08:07:39 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Update on remote participation Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Please note that due to a technical problem, the remote participation details for the morning session of the Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review have changed. Please find the updated details on this page: http://wsis10.asia/index.php/online-participation. Do please check back at the beginning of the afternoon session, as the connection details might change again then. Also, we would like to invite remote participants to join the meeting email list. If you would like to do so, please write to info at wsis10.asia to be added. Thanks and best regards, Anja On 2 September 2015 at 19:46, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > As I had mentioned earlier, we would like to ensure that remote > participants of the Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review are > really able to substantively contribute to the outcome of the meeting. > Below is an update on the process that we hope will facilitate this. The > remote moderator will be happy to provide additional details when you join > the session: > > 1. You can follow any of the sessions via Webex. When you join the > teleconference in Webex, you will find a moderator who will also be in the > meeting room in Pattaya. The moderator will be able to guide you through > the process and also help you to convey your views to the other > participants. Please be in constant contact with the moderator during the > sessions. > > 2. You are also more than welcome to take part in the development of the > outcome document. The remote moderator will create a chatroom and a > mailing list with those remote participants that want to take part in this > process. Please flag your availability to the moderator as soon as you > join a session. > > 3. Discussions about the outcome document will take part in the Strategic > sessions at the end of each day, Thursday 3 and Friday 4 of September at > 16:00 (UTC+7)/9:00am UTC. During these sessions, remote participants will > have a dedicated teleconference on Webex to share their views and > collectively provide inputs which will be channeled via the moderator into > the rest of the meeting. > > 4. Please also make sure you participate in the Strategic Session on > Saturday 5 September at 9:15am (UTC+7)/02:00am UTC. This session will > review and approve the final document. > > Hope this is useful. > > Best regards, > Anja > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Sat Sep 26 09:34:05 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 09:34:05 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Connect the World Message-ID: a new effort of Facebook with other companies and philanthropy http://connecttheworld.one.org -- *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 Sun Sep 27 09:53:56 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:53:56 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] new initiative from Facebook to coonect the world Message-ID: ====forward message ==== — I also wanted to make sure that you saw the news about the Connectivity Declaration, which Mark Zuckerberg announced at the UN today. You can learn more here: http://connecttheworld.one.org/. There will also be a Zuckerberg-Bono op-ed in the Times tomorrow on connectivity (pasted below). -Best, Andy Mark Zuckerberg 5 hrs · Today I’m speaking at the United Nations in New York where I’m going to call for universal internet access to be made a global priority. I’m also kicking off a global call to action in partnership with the ONE campaign supported by Action/2015 , theBill & Melinda Gates Foundation , the Mo Ibrahim Foundation , Save the Children , TED , the United Nations Foundation , Ushahidi , Bono, Richard Branson ,Arianna Huffington , Shakira , George Takei , Charlize Theron , Jimmy Wales and many others. We have a simple message. Internet access is essential for achieving humanity’s Global Goals. By giving people access to the tools, knowledge and opportunities of the internet, we can give a voice to the voiceless and power to the powerless. We also know that the internet is a vital enabler of jobs, growth and opportunity. And research tells us that for every 10 people connected to the internet, about 1 is lifted out of poverty. If we connect the more than 4 billion people not yet online, we have a historic opportunity to lift the entire world in the coming decades. Those without internet access cannot share their voices online. But you can. Share your support at www.one.org/connecttheworld #connecttheworld #globalgoals To Unite the Earth, Connect It By BONO and MARK ZUCKERBERGSEPT. 26, 2015 Photo Bono, left, and Mark Zuckerberg.CreditKay Nietfeld/European Pressphoto Agency, left; Peter DaSilva for The New York Times Continue reading the main story Share This Page SEVENTY years ago, the United Nations was formed as the expression of a simple choice: cooperation instead of war. Humanity would stand as one against conflict, poverty and disease. All the world’s voices would be heard. At least, that was the plan. We’ve come a long way. We’ve halted and reversed the spread of killer diseases, extended life expectancy and raised incomes. We’ve even walked ourselves back from the edge of some global conflicts and catastrophes. But progress has not been evenly distributed. Too many people have been left outside of a mostly urban, mostly Northern success story. Seeing that, world leaders put forth a new set of global goals in New York last week. If we want to build a world where not just some but all get to live in security and prosperity, there’s a lot still to do, as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development signed off on by United Nations member states shows. It lists 17 goals and 169 targets, and one of these, 9(c), is a target that we believe is crucial to accelerate realization of all the others: a commitment to provide Internet connectivity for all by 2020. Today over half the people on this planet don’t have access. That is not good for anyone — not for the disempowered and disconnected, and not for the other half, whose commerce and security depend on having stable societies. An unprecedented array of technologists and activists — from Mo Ibrahim to Bill and Melinda Gates, action/2015, Ushahidi and Sahara Reporters have come together to support a global Connectivity Declaration, pledging their support for the new global goals and connecting the world to opportunity. This needs to become a global movement. In this century, global development and global connectivity are closely linked. If you want to help people feed, heal, educate and employ themselves around the world, we need to connect the world as well. The Internet should not belong to only three billion people, as it does today. It should be seen as a necessity for development, and a tool that makes larger things possible. In Ethiopia and Tanzania, for example, farmers connect to get better prices, track inventory and make mobile insurance payments in case of bad weather. In Nigeria, citizens use BudgIT , a mobile app, to assess whether governments keep their spending promises. The opportunity is especially great for women. Men have significantly more access to the web, but when women get connected, they use technology as a pathway to better education, health, economic status and security. In Guatemala, cellphones inform mothers how to have healthy pregnancies. In Kenya, women receive financial services via their cellphones thanks to the brilliant M-Pesa microfinance scheme. In the last few weeks, we’ve watched desperate refugees seek shelter on the frontiers of Europe. Smartphones have made it possible for those left behind to communicate with loved ones across checkpoints and razor wire. The Internet connected our world in shared grief as a Syrian child’s death on a beach in Turkey came to symbolize every refugee. Social media carried the message and changed not just popular opinion but public policy. It’s one thing to say we should connect the world. The real trick is how. There’s no simple solution or silicon bullet. In many places, increasing connectivity will have to start with extending access to energy. Nine out of 10 rural Africans don’t have electricity. Governments can make the difference. This is why we support initiatives like President Obama’s Power Africa plan and the bipartisan Electrify Africa Act in Congress, as well as the African Development Bank’s investments in renewable energy. Where governments lay the foundation, the private sector can build. Promising efforts are underway to bridge the digital divide. But we know the global community can, and must, do more — and urgently. The Intel Foundation ’s work in STEM education, Microsoft’s use of technology to advance the Millennium Development Goals and Google’s Project Loon to connect remote locations illustrate how technology leaders are prioritizing this effort, as is Internet.org, Facebook’s contribution to meeting the challenge. More technology companies and entrepreneurs must take more responsibility. Silicon Valley should look beyond itself and act more on issues like education, health care and the refugee crisis. We challenge the tech industry to do far more for those most marginalized, those trapped in poverty, and those beyond or on the edge of the network. All the global goals must be scored — but the goal of connectivity for everyone everywhere will surely hurry this game-that’s-not-a-game to its successful conclusion. *Hurry* being the operative word here. Bono is the lead singer of the band U2 and a founder of the advocacy group ONE and its division (RED). Mark Zuckerberg is the founder and chief executive of Facebook. ——— Andy O’Connell Global Policy Development Facebook Washington, DC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Sep 27 10:15:17 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 19:45:17 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] new initiative from Facebook to coonect the world In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5607F9F5.3020202@itforchange.net> He and his friends are wrong-- it is not access that is essential for people, it is such access that is (1) unmediated by economic and political interests, and (2)which is not employed to siphon off micro information which would the key economic resources and level of various kinds of control in the coming times, and instead puts people and communities in charge of their own lives, which is essential.... The Facebook model fully militates against such empowering access. This model is no more essential to people's connectivity than Monsanto is essential for people's agri- livelihood, and Shell is for people's energy needs. Someone should have pointed this out when he spoke. ... parminder On Sunday 27 September 2015 07:23 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > ====forward message ==== > > > — I also wanted to make sure that you saw the news about the > Connectivity Declaration, which Mark Zuckerberg announced at the UN > today. You can learn more here: http://connecttheworld.one.org/. > There will also be a Zuckerberg-Bono op-ed in the Times tomorrow on > connectivity (pasted below). -Best, Andy > > > > > Mark Zuckerberg > 5 hrs > · > > > > Today I’m speaking at the United Nations > in New York where I’m going > to call for universal internet access to be made a global priority. > > I’m also kicking off a global call to action in partnership with > the ONE campaign supported > by Action/2015 , theBill & > Melinda Gates Foundation , > the Mo Ibrahim Foundation > , Save the Children > , TED > , the United Nations Foundation > , Ushahidi > , > Bono, Richard Branson > ,Arianna Huffington > , Shakira > , George Takei > , Charlize Theron > , Jimmy Wales and many others. > > We have a simple message. Internet access is essential for achieving > humanity’s Global Goals. > > By giving people access to the tools, knowledge and opportunities of > the internet, we can give a voice to the voiceless and power to the > powerless. We also know that the internet is a vital enabler of jobs, > growth and opportunity. And research tells us that for every 10 people > connected to the internet, about 1 is lifted out of poverty. > > If we connect the more than 4 billion people not yet online, we have a > historic opportunity to lift the entire world in the coming decades. > Those without internet access cannot share their voices online. But > you can. Share your support at www.one.org/connecttheworld > > > #connecttheworld > #globalgoals > > > > > > > > To Unite the Earth, Connect It > > By BONO and MARK ZUCKERBERGSEPT. 26, 2015 > > Photo > Bono, left, and Mark Zuckerberg.CreditKay Nietfeld/European Pressphoto > Agency, left; Peter DaSilva for The New York Times > Continue reading the main story > Share > This Page > > SEVENTY years ago, the United Nations was formed as the expression of > a simple choice: cooperation instead of war. Humanity would stand as > one against conflict, poverty and disease. All the world’s voices > would be heard. > > At least, that was the plan. > > We’ve come a long way. We’ve halted and reversed the spread of killer > diseases, extended life expectancy and raised incomes. We’ve even > walked ourselves back from the edge of some global conflicts and > catastrophes. But progress has not been evenly distributed. Too many > people have been left outside of a mostly urban, mostly Northern > success story. > > Seeing that, world leaders put forth a new set of global goals in New > York last week. If we want to build a world where not just some but > all get to live in security and prosperity, there’s a lot still to do, > as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development signed off on by United > Nations member states shows. > > It lists 17 goals and 169 targets, and one of these, 9(c), is a target > that we believe is crucial to accelerate realization of all the > others: a commitment to provide Internet connectivity for all by 2020. > > Today over half the people on this planet don’t have access. That is > not good for anyone — not for the disempowered and disconnected, and > not for the other half, whose commerce and security depend on having > stable societies. > > An unprecedented array of technologists and activists — from Mo > Ibrahim to Bill and Melinda Gates, action/2015, Ushahidi and Sahara > Reporters have come together to support a global Connectivity > Declaration, pledging their support for the new global goals and > connecting the world to opportunity. This needs to become a global > movement. > > In this century, global development and global connectivity are > closely linked. If you want to help people feed, heal, educate and > employ themselves around the world, we need to connect the world as > well. The Internet should not belong to only three billion people, as > it does today. It should be seen as a necessity for development, and a > tool that makes larger things possible. > > In Ethiopia and Tanzania, for example, farmers connect to get better > prices, track inventory and make mobile insurance payments in case of > bad weather. In Nigeria, citizens use BudgIT > , a mobile app, to assess whether > governments keep their spending promises. The opportunity is > especially great for women. Men have significantly more access to the > web, but when women get connected, they use technology as a pathway to > better education, health, economic status and security. In Guatemala, > cellphones inform mothers how to have healthy pregnancies. In Kenya, > women receive financial services via their cellphones thanks to the > brilliant M-Pesa microfinance scheme. > > In the last few weeks, we’ve watched desperate refugees seek shelter > on the frontiers of Europe. Smartphones have made it possible for > those left behind to communicate with loved ones across checkpoints > and razor wire. The Internet connected our world in shared grief as a > Syrian child’s death on a beach in Turkey came to symbolize every > refugee. Social media carried the message and changed not just popular > opinion but public policy. > > It’s one thing to say we should connect the world. The real trick is how. > > There’s no simple solution or silicon bullet. > > In many places, increasing connectivity will have to start with > extending access to energy. Nine out of 10 rural Africans don’t have > electricity. Governments can make the difference. This is why we > support initiatives like President Obama’s Power Africa plan and the > bipartisan Electrify Africa Act in Congress, as well as the African > Development Bank’s investments in renewable energy. > > Where governments lay the foundation, the private sector can build. > Promising efforts are underway to bridge the digital divide. But we > know the global community can, and must, do more — and urgently. > The Intel Foundation > ’s > work in STEM education, Microsoft’s use of technology to advance the > Millennium Development Goals and Google’s Project Loon to connect > remote locations illustrate how technology leaders are prioritizing > this effort, as is Internet.org, Facebook’s contribution to meeting > the challenge. > > More technology companies and entrepreneurs must take more > responsibility. Silicon Valley should look beyond itself and act more > on issues like education, health care and the refugee crisis. We > challenge the tech industry to do far more for those most > marginalized, those trapped in poverty, and those beyond or on the > edge of the network. > > All the global goals must be scored — but the goal of connectivity for > everyone everywhere will surely hurry this game-that’s-not-a-game to > its successful conclusion. /Hurry/ being the operative word here. > > Bono is the lead singer of the band U2 and a founder of the advocacy > group ONE and its division (RED). Mark Zuckerberg is the founder and > chief executive of Facebook. > > ——— > Andy O’Connell > Global Policy Development > Facebook > Washington, DC > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 josh at accessnow.org Sun Sep 27 10:45:03 2015 From: josh at accessnow.org (Josh Levy) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:45:03 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] new initiative from Facebook to coonect the world In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <560800EF.7020004@accessnow.org> We have developers, it's cool. On 09/27/2015 09:53 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > ====forward message ==== > > > — I also wanted to make sure that you saw the news about the > Connectivity Declaration, which Mark Zuckerberg announced at the UN > today. You can learn more here: http://connecttheworld.one.org/. > There will also be a Zuckerberg-Bono op-ed in the Times tomorrow on > connectivity (pasted below). -Best, Andy > > > > > Mark Zuckerberg > 5 hrs > · > > > > Today I’m speaking at the United Nations > in New York where I’m going > to call for universal internet access to be made a global priority. > > I’m also kicking off a global call to action in partnership with > the ONE campaign supported > by Action/2015 , theBill & > Melinda Gates Foundation , > the Mo Ibrahim Foundation > , Save the Children > , TED > , the United Nations Foundation > , Ushahidi > , > Bono, Richard Branson > ,Arianna Huffington > , Shakira > , George Takei > , Charlize Theron > , Jimmy Wales and many others. > > We have a simple message. Internet access is essential for achieving > humanity’s Global Goals. > > By giving people access to the tools, knowledge and opportunities of > the internet, we can give a voice to the voiceless and power to the > powerless. We also know that the internet is a vital enabler of jobs, > growth and opportunity. And research tells us that for every 10 people > connected to the internet, about 1 is lifted out of poverty. > > If we connect the more than 4 billion people not yet online, we have a > historic opportunity to lift the entire world in the coming decades. > Those without internet access cannot share their voices online. But > you can. Share your support at www.one.org/connecttheworld > > > #connecttheworld > #globalgoals > > > > > > > > To Unite the Earth, Connect It > > By BONO and MARK ZUCKERBERGSEPT. 26, 2015 > > Photo > Bono, left, and Mark Zuckerberg.CreditKay Nietfeld/European Pressphoto > Agency, left; Peter DaSilva for The New York Times > Continue reading the main story > Share > This Page > > SEVENTY years ago, the United Nations was formed as the expression of > a simple choice: cooperation instead of war. Humanity would stand as > one against conflict, poverty and disease. All the world’s voices > would be heard. > > At least, that was the plan. > > We’ve come a long way. We’ve halted and reversed the spread of killer > diseases, extended life expectancy and raised incomes. We’ve even > walked ourselves back from the edge of some global conflicts and > catastrophes. But progress has not been evenly distributed. Too many > people have been left outside of a mostly urban, mostly Northern > success story. > > Seeing that, world leaders put forth a new set of global goals in New > York last week. If we want to build a world where not just some but > all get to live in security and prosperity, there’s a lot still to do, > as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development signed off on by United > Nations member states shows. > > It lists 17 goals and 169 targets, and one of these, 9(c), is a target > that we believe is crucial to accelerate realization of all the > others: a commitment to provide Internet connectivity for all by 2020. > > Today over half the people on this planet don’t have access. That is > not good for anyone — not for the disempowered and disconnected, and > not for the other half, whose commerce and security depend on having > stable societies. > > An unprecedented array of technologists and activists — from Mo > Ibrahim to Bill and Melinda Gates, action/2015, Ushahidi and Sahara > Reporters have come together to support a global Connectivity > Declaration, pledging their support for the new global goals and > connecting the world to opportunity. This needs to become a global > movement. > > In this century, global development and global connectivity are > closely linked. If you want to help people feed, heal, educate and > employ themselves around the world, we need to connect the world as > well. The Internet should not belong to only three billion people, as > it does today. It should be seen as a necessity for development, and a > tool that makes larger things possible. > > In Ethiopia and Tanzania, for example, farmers connect to get better > prices, track inventory and make mobile insurance payments in case of > bad weather. In Nigeria, citizens use BudgIT > , a mobile app, to assess whether > governments keep their spending promises. The opportunity is > especially great for women. Men have significantly more access to the > web, but when women get connected, they use technology as a pathway to > better education, health, economic status and security. In Guatemala, > cellphones inform mothers how to have healthy pregnancies. In Kenya, > women receive financial services via their cellphones thanks to the > brilliant M-Pesa microfinance scheme. > > In the last few weeks, we’ve watched desperate refugees seek shelter > on the frontiers of Europe. Smartphones have made it possible for > those left behind to communicate with loved ones across checkpoints > and razor wire. The Internet connected our world in shared grief as a > Syrian child’s death on a beach in Turkey came to symbolize every > refugee. Social media carried the message and changed not just popular > opinion but public policy. > > It’s one thing to say we should connect the world. The real trick is how. > > There’s no simple solution or silicon bullet. > > In many places, increasing connectivity will have to start with > extending access to energy. Nine out of 10 rural Africans don’t have > electricity. Governments can make the difference. This is why we > support initiatives like President Obama’s Power Africa plan and the > bipartisan Electrify Africa Act in Congress, as well as the African > Development Bank’s investments in renewable energy. > > Where governments lay the foundation, the private sector can build. > Promising efforts are underway to bridge the digital divide. But we > know the global community can, and must, do more — and urgently. > The Intel Foundation > ’s > work in STEM education, Microsoft’s use of technology to advance the > Millennium Development Goals and Google’s Project Loon to connect > remote locations illustrate how technology leaders are prioritizing > this effort, as is Internet.org, Facebook’s contribution to meeting > the challenge. > > More technology companies and entrepreneurs must take more > responsibility. Silicon Valley should look beyond itself and act more > on issues like education, health care and the refugee crisis. We > challenge the tech industry to do far more for those most > marginalized, those trapped in poverty, and those beyond or on the > edge of the network. > > All the global goals must be scored — but the goal of connectivity for > everyone everywhere will surely hurry this game-that’s-not-a-game to > its successful conclusion. /Hurry/ being the operative word here. > > Bono is the lead singer of the band U2 and a founder of the advocacy > group ONE and its division (RED). Mark Zuckerberg is the founder and > chief executive of Facebook. > > ——— > Andy O’Connell > Global Policy Development > Facebook > Washington, DC > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From josh at accessnow.org Sun Sep 27 13:26:28 2015 From: josh at accessnow.org (Josh Levy) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 13:26:28 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] new initiative from Facebook to coonect the world In-Reply-To: <560800EF.7020004@accessnow.org> References: <560800EF.7020004@accessnow.org> Message-ID: All - Please disregard my message! Somehow it went to the wrong list. On Sep 27, 2015 10:45 AM, "Josh Levy" wrote: > We have developers, it's cool. > > On 09/27/2015 09:53 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > ====forward message ==== > > > — I also wanted to make sure that you saw the news about the Connectivity > Declaration, which Mark Zuckerberg announced at the UN today. You can > learn more here: http://connecttheworld.one.org/. There will also be a > Zuckerberg-Bono op-ed in the Times tomorrow on connectivity (pasted below). > -Best, Andy > > > > > Mark Zuckerberg > 5 hrs > · > > > > Today I’m speaking at the United Nations > in New York where I’m going to > call for universal internet access to be made a global priority. > > I’m also kicking off a global call to action in partnership with the ONE > campaign supported by Action/2015 > , theBill & Melinda Gates Foundation > , the Mo Ibrahim Foundation > , Save the Children > , TED > , the United Nations Foundation > , Ushahidi > , Bono, Richard > Branson ,Arianna Huffington > , Shakira > , George Takei > , Charlize Theron > , Jimmy Wales and many others. > > We have a simple message. Internet access is essential for achieving > humanity’s Global Goals. > > By giving people access to the tools, knowledge and opportunities of the > internet, we can give a voice to the voiceless and power to the powerless. > We also know that the internet is a vital enabler of jobs, growth and > opportunity. And research tells us that for every 10 people connected to > the internet, about 1 is lifted out of poverty. > > If we connect the more than 4 billion people not yet online, we have a > historic opportunity to lift the entire world in the coming decades. Those > without internet access cannot share their voices online. But you can. > Share your support at www.one.org/connecttheworld > > > > #connecttheworld > #globalgoals > > > > > > > To Unite the Earth, Connect It > > By BONO and MARK ZUCKERBERGSEPT. 26, 2015 > Photo > Bono, left, and Mark Zuckerberg.CreditKay Nietfeld/European Pressphoto > Agency, left; Peter DaSilva for The New York Times > Continue reading the main story > Share > This Page > > SEVENTY years ago, the United Nations was formed as the expression of a > simple choice: cooperation instead of war. Humanity would stand as one > against conflict, poverty and disease. All the world’s voices would be > heard. > > At least, that was the plan. > > We’ve come a long way. We’ve halted and reversed the spread of killer > diseases, extended life expectancy and raised incomes. We’ve even walked > ourselves back from the edge of some global conflicts and catastrophes. But > progress has not been evenly distributed. Too many people have been left > outside of a mostly urban, mostly Northern success story. > > Seeing that, world leaders put forth a new set of global goals in New York > last week. If we want to build a world where not just some but all get to > live in security and prosperity, there’s a lot still to do, as the 2030 > Agenda for Sustainable Development signed off on by United Nations member > states shows. > > It lists 17 goals and 169 targets, and one of these, 9(c), is a target > that we believe is crucial to accelerate realization of all the others: a > commitment to provide Internet connectivity for all by 2020. > > Today over half the people on this planet don’t have access. That is not > good for anyone — not for the disempowered and disconnected, and not for > the other half, whose commerce and security depend on having stable > societies. > > An unprecedented array of technologists and activists — from Mo Ibrahim to > Bill and Melinda Gates, action/2015, Ushahidi and Sahara Reporters have > come together to support a global Connectivity Declaration, pledging their > support for the new global goals and connecting the world to opportunity. > This needs to become a global movement. > > In this century, global development and global connectivity are closely > linked. If you want to help people feed, heal, educate and employ > themselves around the world, we need to connect the world as well. The > Internet should not belong to only three billion people, as it does today. > It should be seen as a necessity for development, and a tool that makes > larger things possible. > > In Ethiopia and Tanzania, for example, farmers connect to get better > prices, track inventory and make mobile insurance payments in case of bad > weather. In Nigeria, citizens use BudgIT > , a mobile app, to assess whether > governments keep their spending promises. The opportunity is especially > great for women. Men have significantly more access to the web, but when > women get connected, they use technology as a pathway to better education, > health, economic status and security. In Guatemala, cellphones inform > mothers how to have healthy pregnancies. In Kenya, women receive financial > services via their cellphones thanks to the brilliant M-Pesa microfinance > scheme. > > In the last few weeks, we’ve watched desperate refugees seek shelter on > the frontiers of Europe. Smartphones have made it possible for those left > behind to communicate with loved ones across checkpoints and razor wire. > The Internet connected our world in shared grief as a Syrian child’s death > on a beach in Turkey came to symbolize every refugee. Social media carried > the message and changed not just popular opinion but public policy. > > It’s one thing to say we should connect the world. The real trick is how. > > There’s no simple solution or silicon bullet. > > In many places, increasing connectivity will have to start with extending > access to energy. Nine out of 10 rural Africans don’t have electricity. > Governments can make the difference. This is why we support initiatives > like President Obama’s Power Africa plan and the bipartisan Electrify > Africa Act in Congress, as well as the African Development Bank’s > investments in renewable energy. > > Where governments lay the foundation, the private sector can build. > Promising efforts are underway to bridge the digital divide. But we know > the global community can, and must, do more — and urgently. The Intel > Foundation > ’s > work in STEM education, Microsoft’s use of technology to advance the > Millennium Development Goals and Google’s Project Loon to connect remote > locations illustrate how technology leaders are prioritizing this effort, > as is Internet.org, Facebook’s contribution to meeting the challenge. > > More technology companies and entrepreneurs must take more responsibility. > Silicon Valley should look beyond itself and act more on issues like > education, health care and the refugee crisis. We challenge the tech > industry to do far more for those most marginalized, those trapped in > poverty, and those beyond or on the edge of the network. > > All the global goals must be scored — but the goal of connectivity for > everyone everywhere will surely hurry this game-that’s-not-a-game to its > successful conclusion. *Hurry* being the operative word here. > > Bono is the lead singer of the band U2 and a founder of the advocacy group > ONE and its division (RED). Mark Zuckerberg is the founder and chief > executive of Facebook. > ——— > Andy O’Connell > Global Policy Development > Facebook > Washington, DC > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Sep 27 13:28:10 2015 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:28:10 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] new initiative from Facebook to coonect the world In-Reply-To: <5607F9F5.3020202@itforchange.net> References: <5607F9F5.3020202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <003c01d0f949$e1ee6410$a5cb2c30$@gmail.com> And as was argued extensively in WSIS I and (finally) acknowledged in the WSIS +10 non-paper, “access” is not sufficient without the means to effectively use that access. Without the supports, training, facilities, designs, technologies etc. to actually make use of “access” to accomplish personal and collective goals, arguing for “access” as is being done here is (surprise, surprise) simply a free promo for carriers, ISP’s and those gaining their income from passive data content provision. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: September 27, 2015 7:15 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] new initiative from Facebook to coonect the world He and his friends are wrong-- it is not access that is essential for people, it is such access that is (1) unmediated by economic and political interests, and (2)which is not employed to siphon off micro information which would the key economic resources and level of various kinds of control in the coming times, and instead puts people and communities in charge of their own lives, which is essential.... The Facebook model fully militates against such empowering access. This model is no more essential to people's connectivity than Monsanto is essential for people's agri- livelihood, and Shell is for people's energy needs. Someone should have pointed this out when he spoke. ... parminder On Sunday 27 September 2015 07:23 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: ====forward message ==== — I also wanted to make sure that you saw the news about the Connectivity Declaration, which Mark Zuckerberg announced at the UN today. You can learn more here: http://connecttheworld.one.org/. There will also be a Zuckerberg-Bono op-ed in the Times tomorrow on connectivity (pasted below). -Best, Andy Mark Zuckerberg 5 hrs · Today I’m speaking at the United Nations in New York where I’m going to call for universal internet access to be made a global priority. I’m also kicking off a global call to action in partnership with the ONE campaign supported by Action/2015, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Mo Ibrahim Foundation, Save the Children, TED, the United Nations Foundation, Ushahidi, Bono, Richard Branson, Arianna Huffington, Shakira, George Takei, Charlize Theron, Jimmy Wales and many others. We have a simple message. Internet access is essential for achieving humanity’s Global Goals. By giving people access to the tools, knowledge and opportunities of the internet, we can give a voice to the voiceless and power to the powerless. We also know that the internet is a vital enabler of jobs, growth and opportunity. And research tells us that for every 10 people connected to the internet, about 1 is lifted out of poverty. If we connect the more than 4 billion people not yet online, we have a historic opportunity to lift the entire world in the coming decades. Those without internet access cannot share their voices online. But you can. Share your support at www.one.org/connecttheworld #connecttheworld #globalgoals To Unite the Earth, Connect It By BONO and MARK ZUCKERBERGSEPT. 26, 2015 Photo Bono, left, and Mark Zuckerberg.CreditKay Nietfeld/European Pressphoto Agency, left; Peter DaSilva for The New York Times Continue reading the main storyShare This Page SEVENTY years ago, the United Nations was formed as the expression of a simple choice: cooperation instead of war. Humanity would stand as one against conflict, poverty and disease. All the world’s voices would be heard. At least, that was the plan. We’ve come a long way. We’ve halted and reversed the spread of killer diseases, extended life expectancy and raised incomes. We’ve even walked ourselves back from the edge of some global conflicts and catastrophes. But progress has not been evenly distributed. Too many people have been left outside of a mostly urban, mostly Northern success story. Seeing that, world leaders put forth a new set of global goals in New York last week. If we want to build a world where not just some but all get to live in security and prosperity, there’s a lot still to do, as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development signed off on by United Nations member states shows. It lists 17 goals and 169 targets, and one of these, 9(c), is a target that we believe is crucial to accelerate realization of all the others: a commitment to provide Internet connectivity for all by 2020. Today over half the people on this planet don’t have access. That is not good for anyone — not for the disempowered and disconnected, and not for the other half, whose commerce and security depend on having stable societies. An unprecedented array of technologists and activists — from Mo Ibrahim to Bill and Melinda Gates, action/2015, Ushahidi and Sahara Reporters have come together to support a global Connectivity Declaration, pledging their support for the new global goals and connecting the world to opportunity. This needs to become a global movement. In this century, global development and global connectivity are closely linked. If you want to help people feed, heal, educate and employ themselves around the world, we need to connect the world as well. The Internet should not belong to only three billion people, as it does today. It should be seen as a necessity for development, and a tool that makes larger things possible. In Ethiopia and Tanzania, for example, farmers connect to get better prices, track inventory and make mobile insurance payments in case of bad weather. In Nigeria, citizens use BudgIT, a mobile app, to assess whether governments keep their spending promises. The opportunity is especially great for women. Men have significantly more access to the web, but when women get connected, they use technology as a pathway to better education, health, economic status and security. In Guatemala, cellphones inform mothers how to have healthy pregnancies. In Kenya, women receive financial services via their cellphones thanks to the brilliant M-Pesa microfinance scheme. In the last few weeks, we’ve watched desperate refugees seek shelter on the frontiers of Europe. Smartphones have made it possible for those left behind to communicate with loved ones across checkpoints and razor wire. The Internet connected our world in shared grief as a Syrian child’s death on a beach in Turkey came to symbolize every refugee. Social media carried the message and changed not just popular opinion but public policy. It’s one thing to say we should connect the world. The real trick is how. There’s no simple solution or silicon bullet. In many places, increasing connectivity will have to start with extending access to energy. Nine out of 10 rural Africans don’t have electricity. Governments can make the difference. This is why we support initiatives like President Obama’s Power Africa plan and the bipartisan Electrify Africa Act in Congress, as well as the African Development Bank’s investments in renewable energy. Where governments lay the foundation, the private sector can build. Promising efforts are underway to bridge the digital divide. But we know the global community can, and must, do more — and urgently. The Intel Foundation’s work in STEM education, Microsoft’s use of technology to advance the Millennium Development Goals and Google’s Project Loon to connect remote locations illustrate how technology leaders are prioritizing this effort, as is Internet.org, Facebook’s contribution to meeting the challenge. More technology companies and entrepreneurs must take more responsibility. Silicon Valley should look beyond itself and act more on issues like education, health care and the refugee crisis. We challenge the tech industry to do far more for those most marginalized, those trapped in poverty, and those beyond or on the edge of the network. All the global goals must be scored — but the goal of connectivity for everyone everywhere will surely hurry this game-that’s-not-a-game to its successful conclusion. Hurry being the operative word here. Bono is the lead singer of the band U2 and a founder of the advocacy group ONE and its division (RED). Mark Zuckerberg is the founder and chief executive of Facebook. ——— Andy O’Connell Global Policy Development Facebook Washington, DC ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as 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: ~WRD000.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 11132 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rysiek at hackerspace.pl Mon Sep 28 06:17:17 2015 From: rysiek at hackerspace.pl (rysiek) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 12:17:17 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [SHORT-NOTICE] Questions to ICANN Message-ID: <7805955.7Xu1FKqGCe@lapuntu> Hi, so, this Wednesday I will have a chance to ask some questions to a panel about ICANN/IANA transition and WSIS. Here's the composition of the panel: Mr Frédéric Donck, ISOC Mr Krzysztof Król, PIIT [1] Mr Roman Malinowski, NASK [2] Mr Jean-Jacques Sahel, ICANN [1] http://piit.org.pl/web/english/ [2] http://www.nask.pl/nask_en/ The topic is IANA Stewardship Transition, ICANN Accountability and the WSIS. I'm moderating it, so while I must maintain objectivity, I can still touch improtant/problematic issues, and I'd be happy to do so. So, if you have any questions that you believe should be asked in such a panel, I would love to hear them. Apologies for the short-notice, originally I was supposed to handle a different panel on that conference. -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 931 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From pouzin at well.com Mon Sep 28 07:31:44 2015 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:31:44 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] UN manipulated by Transnational corporations In-Reply-To: <242680023.25117.1443046362466.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e26> References: <242680023.25117.1443046362466.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e26> Message-ID: Just another effect of the US mundial colonization. Perhaps some central authority within the UN system could rule that all earmarked contributions should only be acceptable if they come with an equal or higher non earmarked contribution. Cheers. Louis. - - - On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Dear Parminder, Michael and all > > > > Revealing Report from Global Policy Forum. > > > > Link : > http://www.ipsnews.net/2015/09/u-n-manipulated-by-transnational-corporations-new-study-charges/ > > > > The report reminds us the biased WSIS debates and the dominant neoliberal > ideology imposed by the ITU and its allies among which we happened to find > UNESCO. We also were and still are told by the WSIS leading UN agencies, > ITU at first, that Public-Private Partnerships is the Holy Grail of > financing development. And so is Broadband (BB) for development itself ! > What's more BB is declared a Basic Human right, as is Water, by the former > ITU Chief Hamadoun Toure. > > > > Best regards > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From raman at accessnow.org Mon Sep 28 13:57:49 2015 From: raman at accessnow.org (Raman Jit Singh Chima) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 23:27:49 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Update: Indian Encryption Policy In-Reply-To: References: <56004B58.7050706@softwarefreedom.org> <662B4EBE-DDDB-4E53-AF16-AE74E89749BB@gmail.com> <56005D8D.5050503@softwarefreedom.org> <56016DB9.7050309@softwarefreedom.org> <5EFD20CD-BBA1-42C4-8FB4-C709C2C76E29@opentechinstitute.org> <7D5543C0-88E9-41AB-86D1-AD48D568A763@opentechinstitute.org> <56018662.7010809@softwarefreedom.org> <0A1D6791-575F-4374-854C-823127337E5B@eff.org> Message-ID: All, To follow up on this, we were zeroing in on Friday for organising a call on global encryption policy engagement and how groups can collaborate. For people interested, it would be great if you could fill in this Doodle so that we can lock up a time and work out the logistics for this. As discussed, the idea for this call would be to share updates on what might be coming next down the line on this in India, the US, the UK, and elsewhere, and discuss how developing a letter targeting world leaders on the subject that can be signed by experts, civil society, and firms across the world could feed into country specific efforts. In case you are interested but can't make it, do feel free to let me know and we will try to ensure you get notes and top-level take-aways from the discussion. Sincerely, Raman. On 23 September 2015 at 10:45, Anja Kovacs wrote: > I'd be interested in joining such a call of it happens. Please keep me > updated. > > Thanks, > Anja > > On 23 September 2015 at 00:31, Raman Jit Singh Chima > wrote: > >> I think its a good idea to see what we can do to further more >> coordination and advocacy on this front globally amongst the groups that >> are interested. From Access, we have been trying to work on a global effort >> to push on positive crypto policy - and the India developments over the >> last few days saw lots of public and press interest on this which we should >> support. >> >> I would like to suggest that people interested in this join together in a >> call early next week - to share information and see what needs to be kept >> in mind for India as well as a larger global effort on advancing a secure >> Internet and pushing back against weakening encryption. >> >> Raman. >> >> Amy Hess of the FBI appeared at a CSM event last week arguing forcefully >> for not back doors per se, but "solutions". >> >> https://livestream.com/internetsociety/encryptiondebate/videos/99393023 >> >> >> -- >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> - >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > -- *Raman Jit Singh Chima* Policy Director Access | accessnow.org Email: raman at accessnow.org Skype: raman.chima PGP ID: 0x2A186000 *Join the Access team - *we're hiring ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Mon Sep 28 14:16:01 2015 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:16:01 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Facebook In-Reply-To: <003c01d0f949$e1ee6410$a5cb2c30$@gmail.com> References: <5607F9F5.3020202@itforchange.net> <003c01d0f949$e1ee6410$a5cb2c30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <560983E1.4000307@softwarefreedom.org> This a piece we wrote on this issue: http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/fictional-internet-policy-is-bad-for-india-good-only-for-facebook-282664.html On 09/27/2015 01:28 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > And as was argued extensively in WSIS I and (finally) acknowledged in the WSIS +10 non-paper, “access” is not sufficient without the means to effectively use that access. Without the supports, training, facilities, designs, technologies etc. to actually make use of “access” to accomplish personal and collective goals, arguing for “access” as is being done here is (surprise, surprise) simply a free promo for carriers, ISP’s and those gaining their income from passive data content provision. > > > > M > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder > Sent: September 27, 2015 7:15 AM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] new initiative from Facebook to coonect the world > > > > He and his friends are wrong-- it is not access that is essential for people, it is such access that is > > (1) unmediated by economic and political interests, and > (2)which is not employed to siphon off micro information which would the key economic resources and level of various kinds of control in the coming times, > > and instead puts people and communities in charge of their own lives, which is essential.... The Facebook model fully militates against such empowering access. This model is no more essential to people's connectivity than Monsanto is essential for people's agri- livelihood, and Shell is for people's energy needs. > > Someone should have pointed this out when he spoke. > > ... parminder > > On Sunday 27 September 2015 07:23 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > ====forward message ==== > > > > > — I also wanted to make sure that you saw the news about the Connectivity Declaration, which Mark Zuckerberg announced at the UN today. You can learn more here: http://connecttheworld.one.org/. There will also be a Zuckerberg-Bono op-ed in the Times tomorrow on connectivity (pasted below). -Best, Andy > > > > > > > > > > Mark Zuckerberg > > 5 hrs · > > > > > > Today I’m speaking at the United Nations in New York where I’m going to call for universal internet access to be made a global priority. > > I’m also kicking off a global call to action in partnership with the ONE campaign supported by Action/2015, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Mo Ibrahim Foundation, Save the Children, TED, the United Nations Foundation, Ushahidi, Bono, Richard Branson, Arianna Huffington, Shakira, George Takei, Charlize Theron, Jimmy Wales and many others. > > We have a simple message. Internet access is essential for achieving humanity’s Global Goals. > > By giving people access to the tools, knowledge and opportunities of the internet, we can give a voice to the voiceless and power to the powerless. We also know that the internet is a vital enabler of jobs, growth and opportunity. And research tells us that for every 10 people connected to the internet, about 1 is lifted out of poverty. > > If we connect the more than 4 billion people not yet online, we have a historic opportunity to lift the entire world in the coming decades. Those without internet access cannot share their voices online. But you can. Share your support at www.one.org/connecttheworld > > #connecttheworld #globalgoals > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To Unite the Earth, Connect It > > > By BONO and MARK ZUCKERBERGSEPT. 26, 2015 > > Photo > > > > Bono, left, and Mark Zuckerberg.CreditKay Nietfeld/European Pressphoto Agency, left; Peter DaSilva for The New York Times > > Continue reading the main storyShare This Page > > SEVENTY years ago, the United Nations was formed as the expression of a simple choice: cooperation instead of war. Humanity would stand as one against conflict, poverty and disease. All the world’s voices would be heard. > > At least, that was the plan. > > We’ve come a long way. We’ve halted and reversed the spread of killer diseases, extended life expectancy and raised incomes. We’ve even walked ourselves back from the edge of some global conflicts and catastrophes. But progress has not been evenly distributed. Too many people have been left outside of a mostly urban, mostly Northern success story. > > Seeing that, world leaders put forth a new set of global goals in New York last week. If we want to build a world where not just some but all get to live in security and prosperity, there’s a lot still to do, as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development signed off on by United Nations member states shows. > > It lists 17 goals and 169 targets, and one of these, 9(c), is a target that we believe is crucial to accelerate realization of all the others: a commitment to provide Internet connectivity for all by 2020. > > Today over half the people on this planet don’t have access. That is not good for anyone — not for the disempowered and disconnected, and not for the other half, whose commerce and security depend on having stable societies. > > An unprecedented array of technologists and activists — from Mo Ibrahim to Bill and Melinda Gates, action/2015, Ushahidi and Sahara Reporters have come together to support a global Connectivity Declaration, pledging their support for the new global goals and connecting the world to opportunity. This needs to become a global movement. > > In this century, global development and global connectivity are closely linked. If you want to help people feed, heal, educate and employ themselves around the world, we need to connect the world as well. The Internet should not belong to only three billion people, as it does today. It should be seen as a necessity for development, and a tool that makes larger things possible. > > In Ethiopia and Tanzania, for example, farmers connect to get better prices, track inventory and make mobile insurance payments in case of bad weather. In Nigeria, citizens use BudgIT, a mobile app, to assess whether governments keep their spending promises. The opportunity is especially great for women. Men have significantly more access to the web, but when women get connected, they use technology as a pathway to better education, health, economic status and security. In Guatemala, cellphones inform mothers how to have healthy pregnancies. In Kenya, women receive financial services via their cellphones thanks to the brilliant M-Pesa microfinance scheme. > > In the last few weeks, we’ve watched desperate refugees seek shelter on the frontiers of Europe. Smartphones have made it possible for those left behind to communicate with loved ones across checkpoints and razor wire. The Internet connected our world in shared grief as a Syrian child’s death on a beach in Turkey came to symbolize every refugee. Social media carried the message and changed not just popular opinion but public policy. > > It’s one thing to say we should connect the world. The real trick is how. > > There’s no simple solution or silicon bullet. > > In many places, increasing connectivity will have to start with extending access to energy. Nine out of 10 rural Africans don’t have electricity. Governments can make the difference. This is why we support initiatives like President Obama’s Power Africa plan and the bipartisan Electrify Africa Act in Congress, as well as the African Development Bank’s investments in renewable energy. > > Where governments lay the foundation, the private sector can build. Promising efforts are underway to bridge the digital divide. But we know the global community can, and must, do more — and urgently. The Intel Foundation’s work in STEM education, Microsoft’s use of technology to advance the Millennium Development Goals and Google’s Project Loon to connect remote locations illustrate how technology leaders are prioritizing this effort, as is Internet.org, Facebook’s contribution to meeting the challenge. > > More technology companies and entrepreneurs must take more responsibility. Silicon Valley should look beyond itself and act more on issues like education, health care and the refugee crisis. We challenge the tech industry to do far more for those most marginalized, those trapped in poverty, and those beyond or on the edge of the network. > > All the global goals must be scored — but the goal of connectivity for everyone everywhere will surely hurry this game-that’s-not-a-game to its successful conclusion. Hurry being the operative word here. > > Bono is the lead singer of the band U2 and a founder of the advocacy group ONE and its division (RED). Mark Zuckerberg is the founder and chief executive of Facebook. > > ——— > > Andy O’Connell > > Global Policy Development > > Facebook > > Washington, DC > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 > -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in From roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca Mon Sep 7 11:24:09 2015 From: roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 11:24:09 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] SAVE THE DATE: Internet as a Commons at the EU Parliament, 1st of October 15:00-18:30 Message-ID: > > > > > > > > > > > The Green Group, The Commons Network and the Heinrich Böll Foundation bring > you the most relevant conference of the year: Internet as a Commons: Public > Space in the Digital Age. > > Here we will explore the need for a comprehensive new narrative for the > Internet. A narrative that frames Internet as a common good, accessible by > all, and managed by a plurality of actors in a way benefiting society at > large. In other words: as a Commons. > > BACKGROUND > The Internet has become an important part of our global public sphere. > Internet provides access to a wealth of information and knowledge, and the > possibility to participate, create and communicate. This public space made up > of internet infrastructures is increasingly threatened from two sides; by the > centralization and commercialization through the dominant positions held by > giant telecom and Internet companies, as well as by an increasing trend in > state regulation and censorship of the net. This poses important questions > about how we choose to organize and regulate our digital societies, and how > Internet governance models can be developed and implemented to ensure fair and > democratic participation. > > When it comes to the future of the Internet, a key discussion is one of > infrastructures; who owns, runs and controls them. The question of regulation, > and who oversees the regulators, is made complicated by the transnational > nature of the net. The debates around net neutrality, infrastructure > neutrality and Internet monopolies reflect the important choices that are to > be made. It is essential the EU formulates a comprehensive vision on the > internet that addresses the protection of civil liberties such as free speech > and privacy, but also the growing commercialization of our digital public > spaces and the commodification of personal data with the effect of the market > encroaching on all aspects of our daily lives. Only then can it make relevant > interventions regarding the Internet and its governance. > > Let´s discuss how to re-decentralize and reclaim the Internet for all. > > > This conference will be live streamed at: http://greenmediabox.eu/en/live/ > > > Background & Programme: > http://www.greens-efa.eu/internet-as-a-commons-13850.html > > > Joint the event community on Facebook: > https://www.facebook.com/events/939398269451418/ > > > Registration: > http://www.greens-efa.eu/events/registrations/658-internet-as-a-commons.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Preview.app Document.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 132940 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Mon Sep 28 14:16:13 2015 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:16:13 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Facebook In-Reply-To: <003c01d0f949$e1ee6410$a5cb2c30$@gmail.com> References: <5607F9F5.3020202@itforchange.net> <003c01d0f949$e1ee6410$a5cb2c30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <560983ED.7010008@softwarefreedom.org> This a piece we wrote on this issue: http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/fictional-internet-policy-is-bad-for-india-good-only-for-facebook-282664.html On 09/27/2015 01:28 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > And as was argued extensively in WSIS I and (finally) acknowledged in the WSIS +10 non-paper, “access” is not sufficient without the means to effectively use that access. Without the supports, training, facilities, designs, technologies etc. to actually make use of “access” to accomplish personal and collective goals, arguing for “access” as is being done here is (surprise, surprise) simply a free promo for carriers, ISP’s and those gaining their income from passive data content provision. > > > > M > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder > Sent: September 27, 2015 7:15 AM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] new initiative from Facebook to coonect the world > > > > He and his friends are wrong-- it is not access that is essential for people, it is such access that is > > (1) unmediated by economic and political interests, and > (2)which is not employed to siphon off micro information which would the key economic resources and level of various kinds of control in the coming times, > > and instead puts people and communities in charge of their own lives, which is essential.... The Facebook model fully militates against such empowering access. This model is no more essential to people's connectivity than Monsanto is essential for people's agri- livelihood, and Shell is for people's energy needs. > > Someone should have pointed this out when he spoke. > > ... parminder > > On Sunday 27 September 2015 07:23 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > ====forward message ==== > > > > > — I also wanted to make sure that you saw the news about the Connectivity Declaration, which Mark Zuckerberg announced at the UN today. You can learn more here: http://connecttheworld.one.org/. There will also be a Zuckerberg-Bono op-ed in the Times tomorrow on connectivity (pasted below). -Best, Andy > > > > > > > > > > Mark Zuckerberg > > 5 hrs · > > > > > > Today I’m speaking at the United Nations in New York where I’m going to call for universal internet access to be made a global priority. > > I’m also kicking off a global call to action in partnership with the ONE campaign supported by Action/2015, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Mo Ibrahim Foundation, Save the Children, TED, the United Nations Foundation, Ushahidi, Bono, Richard Branson, Arianna Huffington, Shakira, George Takei, Charlize Theron, Jimmy Wales and many others. > > We have a simple message. Internet access is essential for achieving humanity’s Global Goals. > > By giving people access to the tools, knowledge and opportunities of the internet, we can give a voice to the voiceless and power to the powerless. We also know that the internet is a vital enabler of jobs, growth and opportunity. And research tells us that for every 10 people connected to the internet, about 1 is lifted out of poverty. > > If we connect the more than 4 billion people not yet online, we have a historic opportunity to lift the entire world in the coming decades. Those without internet access cannot share their voices online. But you can. Share your support at www.one.org/connecttheworld > > #connecttheworld #globalgoals > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To Unite the Earth, Connect It > > > By BONO and MARK ZUCKERBERGSEPT. 26, 2015 > > Photo > > > > Bono, left, and Mark Zuckerberg.CreditKay Nietfeld/European Pressphoto Agency, left; Peter DaSilva for The New York Times > > Continue reading the main storyShare This Page > > SEVENTY years ago, the United Nations was formed as the expression of a simple choice: cooperation instead of war. Humanity would stand as one against conflict, poverty and disease. All the world’s voices would be heard. > > At least, that was the plan. > > We’ve come a long way. We’ve halted and reversed the spread of killer diseases, extended life expectancy and raised incomes. We’ve even walked ourselves back from the edge of some global conflicts and catastrophes. But progress has not been evenly distributed. Too many people have been left outside of a mostly urban, mostly Northern success story. > > Seeing that, world leaders put forth a new set of global goals in New York last week. If we want to build a world where not just some but all get to live in security and prosperity, there’s a lot still to do, as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development signed off on by United Nations member states shows. > > It lists 17 goals and 169 targets, and one of these, 9(c), is a target that we believe is crucial to accelerate realization of all the others: a commitment to provide Internet connectivity for all by 2020. > > Today over half the people on this planet don’t have access. That is not good for anyone — not for the disempowered and disconnected, and not for the other half, whose commerce and security depend on having stable societies. > > An unprecedented array of technologists and activists — from Mo Ibrahim to Bill and Melinda Gates, action/2015, Ushahidi and Sahara Reporters have come together to support a global Connectivity Declaration, pledging their support for the new global goals and connecting the world to opportunity. This needs to become a global movement. > > In this century, global development and global connectivity are closely linked. If you want to help people feed, heal, educate and employ themselves around the world, we need to connect the world as well. The Internet should not belong to only three billion people, as it does today. It should be seen as a necessity for development, and a tool that makes larger things possible. > > In Ethiopia and Tanzania, for example, farmers connect to get better prices, track inventory and make mobile insurance payments in case of bad weather. In Nigeria, citizens use BudgIT, a mobile app, to assess whether governments keep their spending promises. The opportunity is especially great for women. Men have significantly more access to the web, but when women get connected, they use technology as a pathway to better education, health, economic status and security. In Guatemala, cellphones inform mothers how to have healthy pregnancies. In Kenya, women receive financial services via their cellphones thanks to the brilliant M-Pesa microfinance scheme. > > In the last few weeks, we’ve watched desperate refugees seek shelter on the frontiers of Europe. Smartphones have made it possible for those left behind to communicate with loved ones across checkpoints and razor wire. The Internet connected our world in shared grief as a Syrian child’s death on a beach in Turkey came to symbolize every refugee. Social media carried the message and changed not just popular opinion but public policy. > > It’s one thing to say we should connect the world. The real trick is how. > > There’s no simple solution or silicon bullet. > > In many places, increasing connectivity will have to start with extending access to energy. Nine out of 10 rural Africans don’t have electricity. Governments can make the difference. This is why we support initiatives like President Obama’s Power Africa plan and the bipartisan Electrify Africa Act in Congress, as well as the African Development Bank’s investments in renewable energy. > > Where governments lay the foundation, the private sector can build. Promising efforts are underway to bridge the digital divide. But we know the global community can, and must, do more — and urgently. The Intel Foundation’s work in STEM education, Microsoft’s use of technology to advance the Millennium Development Goals and Google’s Project Loon to connect remote locations illustrate how technology leaders are prioritizing this effort, as is Internet.org, Facebook’s contribution to meeting the challenge. > > More technology companies and entrepreneurs must take more responsibility. Silicon Valley should look beyond itself and act more on issues like education, health care and the refugee crisis. We challenge the tech industry to do far more for those most marginalized, those trapped in poverty, and those beyond or on the edge of the network. > > All the global goals must be scored — but the goal of connectivity for everyone everywhere will surely hurry this game-that’s-not-a-game to its successful conclusion. Hurry being the operative word here. > > Bono is the lead singer of the band U2 and a founder of the advocacy group ONE and its division (RED). Mark Zuckerberg is the founder and chief executive of Facebook. > > ——— > > Andy O’Connell > > Global Policy Development > > Facebook > > Washington, DC > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 > -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Sep 29 10:03:54 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:03:54 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Launch of "Global Connect" In-Reply-To: <5D97DE87C3630C40ACDF889373A7A97B01072E4B9B@SESSEEVEXMB02U.ses.state.sbu> References: <5D97DE87C3630C40ACDF889373A7A97B01072E4B9B@SESSEEVEXMB02U.ses.state.sbu> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Bhardwaj, Manu* Date: Monday, September 28, 2015 Subject: Launch of "Global Connect" To: "Bhardwaj, Manu" Dear Colleagues, On Sunday, we launched our new diplomatic initiative called “Global Connect” at UNHQ to bring 1.5 additional people online by 2020. For this special event, we were joined by Dr. Jim Kim of the World Bank, the Presidents of Estonia and Tanzania, senior technology executives and global NGOs. A few key highlights --- · “Global Connect” was affirmatively supported in the formal statements of Jim Kim of the World Bank, the Presidents of Estonia and Tanzania, as well as the international tech companies and NGO leaders present. For example, ITI released this multi-company press statement supporting “Global Connect” --- news release and blog . In addition, global NGOs released this statement -- http://bestbits.net/global-connect-initiative/. · Under Secretary Novelli delivered a statement on behalf of Secretary Kerry, available here – http://www.state.gov/e/rls/rmk/247375.htm · Megan Smith, Chief Technology Officer at the White House, attended our “Global Connect” event and delivered a formal intervention at the session. On Sunday, “Global Connect” was also formally supported by statements from MCC CEO Dana Hyde, USAID’s Acting Administrator, and the FCC, among others -- · CEO Hyde stated: “Information and communication technologies have become a platform for economic growth as fundamental as highways, power grids and universities. MCC proudly supports Global Connect as part of our commitment to work with our U.S. and international partners to help ensure that people everywhere have access to the world-wide information grid.” · Ambassador Alonso E. Lenhardt, Acting Administrator of USAID stated: "All across the globe, ordinary citizens rely on the Internet for accessing and sharing information, growing businesses, and holding governments accountable. But today, 4 billion people still cannot access this transformative tool. Building on USAID-supported programs like the Alliance for Affordable Internet and the Global Broadband and Innovations program, we are proud to join our colleagues across the U.S. Government in supporting Global Connect. In addition to establishing a unified vision for accessible digital infrastructure, a coordinated U.S. Government approach will pave the way for wide-ranging partnerships with the private sector, civil society, and other stakeholders to bring the Internet to all." · The FCC issued the following statement – “We have observed how a free and open Internet can transform economies, nations, communities and individual existence. Access to the Internet is critical to empowering a modern and connected life, but this vision depends on the real world infrastructure and technology that supports a globally connected world. The FCC joins our counterparts and stakeholders around the world in this important initiative to make Global Connect a success. We look forward to contributing to the goals of Global Connect through our ongoing capacity building and development initiatives.” Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you’d like more information about our initiative or next steps. Thanks for everyone’s support these past few weeks (and months). Full webcast available here -- http://webtv.un.org/watch/development-in-the-digital-age-high-level-panel-discussion/4513663507001. Manu Manu K. Bhardwaj Senior Advisor and Staff Coordinator for IT and Internet Diplomacy Matters Office of the Under Secretary U.S. Department of State (202) 647-7327 *A High-Level panel discussion in the margins of the UN Summit on Post-2015 Development Agenda: * *Development in the Digital Age* Sunday 27 September 2015 UNHQ, CR3 Co-hosted by Estonia, the United States, the World Bank Group and the World Economic Forum, the panel discussion focused on the greater use of digital technologies as a more effective force for development through government initiatives as well as various private sector actions. The U.S. State Department also announced a new initiative, called “Global Connect,” that aims to bring an additional 1.5 billion people online by 2020 and further extend the economic and social benefits of connectivity to those who remain without access. President Ilves of Estonia, President Kim of the World Bank, President Kikwete, NSRC’s Steve Song, and Ericsson CEO Vestberg all expressed support for the Department’s new initiative, first previewed by Secretary Kerry in Korea earlier this summer. *H.E. Mr. Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Estonia *spoke about the rapid digital development of Estonia and the necessity of implementing national legislative policies which create an enabling environment for growth for businesses and consumers. *President Jim Yong Kim, of the World Bank *highlighted the importance of ensuring that technological benefits are widely shared due to the impact connectivity has on global economy. *Mr. Kaushik Sabu, Senior Vice-President and Chief Economist of the World Bank *focused on the potential of digital technologies to have a real, humanitarian impact on individual lives. *H.E. Mr. J.M. Kikwete, President of the United Republic of Tanzania *spoke on technological advancements the Tanzanian government has made and how crucial investment in digital technologies is for developing world, highlighting the potential for such technologies to contribute to the “widening and deepening” of good governance and democracy through open data access. *Ms. Catherine Novelli, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment *spoke on the behalf of the U.S Secretary of State and announced the US initiative “Global Connect,” the aim of which is to bring 1.5 billion people online by 2020 by establishing multifaceted partnerships with all development stakeholders, including national governments, development agencies, NGOs and the private sector. The initiative has three goals, that 1) all countries integrate Internet connectivity as a key part of their own national development strategies, 2) international development institutions prioritize digital access – as the World Bank is now doing in their upcoming World Development Report focused on the impact of the Internet and digital technologies; and 3) ensuring that innovative industry-driven solutions to extend connectivity are catalyzed and supported.” In addition, U/S Novelli stressed how we will bring together governments, development agencies, industry, NGOs and other stakeholders to focus our efforts to bridge the digital divide. In doing this, we recognize that building internet infrastructure is only one step in digital inclusion. Creating a policy environment that sustains a healthy internet is critical for long-term success. Going forward, she stressed that we intend to partner with interested countries to develop tailor-made strategies to create the right enabling environments and how these policies will not only spur connectivity, but also entrepreneurship, cross-border information flows and open and competitive marketplaces. *Mr. Steve Song, of the Network Startup Resource Center * is also the founder of Village Telco, a social enterprise that builds low-cost WiFi mesh VoIP technologies to deliver affordable voice and Internet service in underserviced areas, and highlighted the impact fiber network technology has had on the developing world. *Mr. Hans Vestberg, CEO of Ericsson, *discussed the role of ICT as the “most important enabler” of the 17 SDGs and the policies, priorities and relationships that will be required in order for digital technologies to have a full impact on the current state of development. CEO Vestberg voiced his support for the State Department’s new diplomatic effort. -- *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 furhan at bytesforall.pk Tue Sep 29 16:37:26 2015 From: furhan at bytesforall.pk (Furhan Hussain) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 01:37:26 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] New research | Security v Access: The Impact of Mobile Network Shutdowns Message-ID: <560AF686.4060404@bytesforall.pk> Hi everyone, Some of you may know about this already. The Institute for Human Rights and Business (IHRB), UK; Bytes for All, Pakistan; and the Centre for Internet and Human Rights (CIHR), Germany have collaboratively unveiled a new research report titled, /'*Security v Access: The Impact of Mobile Network Shutdowns*,'/ with support from Center for Global Communication Studies (CGCS) at Annenberg School for Communication (University of Pennsylvania), Global Partners Digital (GPD) and APC IMPACT. This research reveals the socio-economic costs of mobile network shutdowns and argues that in some cases such disruptions can actually threaten the very right these practices seek to preserve: the right to life. The report is based on the analysis of mobile network shutdowns in Pakistan since 2012, with specific focus on the shutdown in the twin cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi during March 2015. It proposes a total of 14 recommendations for the Government of Pakistan and telecommunication providers operating within the country, however these can very well be be applied globally, as this issue is not limited to Pakistan only. The report also mentions examples of other countries such as Egypt, Ireland, India, China, and United States. *You can download the report from: https://content.bytesforall.pk/sites/default/files/2015-09-Telenor-Pakistan-Case-Study.pdf* Read more: https://content.bytesforall.pk/node/176 http://www.ihrb.org/publications/reports/digital-dangers-case-study-pakistan.html https://cihr.eu/internet-shutdowns-in-pakistan-harm-economy-and-society-report-shows/ We would be happy to receive your feedback on this. Best regards, Furhan Hussain /Senior Program Manager,// //Bytes for All, Pakistan/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0xF1943F3F.asc Type: application/pgp-keys Size: 8611 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 834 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jmalcolm at eff.org Tue Sep 29 18:57:48 2015 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:57:48 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Update on IGF Best Bits meeting and registration now open Message-ID: <560B176C.1020607@eff.org> Confirming the previous "save the date", we are happy to confirm that there will be a Best Bits meeting in João Pessoa on the day prior to day 0 of the IGF (November 8th). For those arriving early enough, we will also have a no host dinner on the 7th (dinner venue TBC). If you plan to attend the meeting, please register now, and we will be in touch with further details as plans progress. All self-identified members of civil society are welcome. The venue is the Xênius Hotel , which is mid-way along the João Pessoa beach strip, and therefore probably about equally in/convenient to most of those who will be attending the IGF. If you do not already have a hotel and if you do not expect luxury, a limited group booking of rooms at USD$36 per night at this hotel is available. Please email me privately to indicate if you require this after registering (note that no travel or accommodation support is currently available). A tentative agenda, which remains open for change, has been suggested and can be found at the event website . For those sessions that have already been proposed, volunteers are welcome to help contribute in various capacities including moderation, speaking, notetaking and logistical help. You can volunteer, propose edits to session descriptions, or propose new sessions, at this etherpad . We look forward to your input in the preparation of the meeting, and to seeing many of you in João Pessoa. -- 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: 230 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From lea at gp-digital.org Wed Sep 30 13:36:07 2015 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 18:36:07 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Funding available for UK stakeholders In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, In case of interest, please see below a call from the UK government offering to fund UK-based charitable groups interested in attending the upcoming WSIS consultations in NY. If you are planning to apply and need a MAGIG-sponsor, let me know (seeing as I'm on the MAGIG). Also, seems like it's OK to forward, so please do so if you know UK groups that might be interested. Warm wishes, Lea ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sarah Taylor Date: Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:48 PM Subject: Funding available for UK stakeholders Dear all, A small amount of money has become available to fund UK stakeholders, who would not otherwise be able to go, to attend the WSIS meetings in New York on 19-22 October. There is a light-touch application process for this. The criteria are as follows: *Eligibility** criteria:* - *Charitable/not for profit organisations * - *Would not otherwise be attending * - *UK-based * *Assessment criteria:* - *Level of engagement and effectiveness to date in contributing to international debates on WSIS issues * - *Support from member(s) of UK MAGIG * If you are interested, please send an application based on these five criteria, demonstrating how you meet them. We will then consider all applications which meet the eligibility criteria, making a judgment against the assessment criteria. We would ask you to submit applications to Ffion Thomas ( Ffion.Thomas at Culture.gov.uk) by 12pm on Wednesday the 7th October and we will respond by Friday 9th. Please could you also say how much funding you are applying for. We would encourage you to pass this information on to any other organisations who might be interested. If you would like to discuss this further, please don't hesitate to contact me. Looking forward to seeing you all on the 12th of October for our next MAGIG meeting at 100 Parliament Street. Sarah Taylor *Sarah Taylor* Deputy Director, Internet and International Department for Culture, Media and Sport Tel: +44 (0)20 7211 6492 Mob: +44 (0)7939 131 851 PA Caroline Wildman (email: caroline.wildman at culture.gov.uk tel: 020 7211 6035) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From raman at accessnow.org Wed Sep 30 17:46:36 2015 From: raman at accessnow.org (Raman Jit Singh Chima) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 03:16:36 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Update: Indian Encryption Policy In-Reply-To: References: <56004B58.7050706@softwarefreedom.org> <662B4EBE-DDDB-4E53-AF16-AE74E89749BB@gmail.com> <56005D8D.5050503@softwarefreedom.org> <56016DB9.7050309@softwarefreedom.org> <5EFD20CD-BBA1-42C4-8FB4-C709C2C76E29@opentechinstitute.org> <7D5543C0-88E9-41AB-86D1-AD48D568A763@opentechinstitute.org> <56018662.7010809@softwarefreedom.org> <0A1D6791-575F-4374-854C-823127337E5B@eff.org> Message-ID: {with apologies for anyone receiving this more than once due to being on different lists} Thanks to several people for confirming for Friday's call; based on the inputs on the doodle it is scheduled for 3:30PM on Friday. Further details below. Look forward to speaking to many of you then! Raman. -- Access requests your participation in a conference call on Friday, October 2, 2015 at 3:30 PM GMT (UTC) to discuss a collective endeavor to defend strong encryption. Our safety and privacy depend on secure communications tools and technologies, like encryption. Encryption protects our conversations and our transactions. In some cases, it even saves lives. However, in the UK, France, India, and China, we are seeing government proposals that would undermine the safety and security we rely on in our increasingly digital lives. This is an international threat that requires an international response. Access will propose an open coalition letter that identifies our shared principles and asks world leaders to support strong encryption and oppose bad policies. We request your presence and your valuable input. Call-in information: International Dial-in Number: +1 209-255-1000 Access Code: 319333 If you're unable to participate and want to be included in future discussion, please send me an email and let me know (if you haven't done so already). Speak to you all on Friday. On 28 September 2015 at 23:27, Raman Jit Singh Chima wrote: > All, > > To follow up on this, we were zeroing in on Friday for organising a call > on global encryption policy engagement and how groups can collaborate. > > For people interested, it would be great if you could fill in this Doodle > so that we can lock up a time > and work out the logistics for this. As discussed, the idea for this call > would be to share updates on what might be coming next down the line on > this in India, the US, the UK, and elsewhere, and discuss how developing a > letter targeting world leaders on the subject that can be signed by > experts, civil society, and firms across the world could feed into country > specific efforts. In case you are interested but can't make it, do feel > free to let me know and we will try to ensure you get notes and top-level > take-aways from the discussion. > > Sincerely, > Raman. > > On 23 September 2015 at 10:45, Anja Kovacs > wrote: > >> I'd be interested in joining such a call of it happens. Please keep me >> updated. >> >> Thanks, >> Anja >> >> On 23 September 2015 at 00:31, Raman Jit Singh Chima > > wrote: >> >>> I think its a good idea to see what we can do to further more >>> coordination and advocacy on this front globally amongst the groups that >>> are interested. From Access, we have been trying to work on a global effort >>> to push on positive crypto policy - and the India developments over the >>> last few days saw lots of public and press interest on this which we should >>> support. >>> >>> I would like to suggest that people interested in this join together in >>> a call early next week - to share information and see what needs to be kept >>> in mind for India as well as a larger global effort on advancing a secure >>> Internet and pushing back against weakening encryption. >>> >>> Raman. >>> >>> Amy Hess of the FBI appeared at a CSM event last week arguing forcefully >>> for not back doors per se, but "solutions". >>> >>> https://livestream.com/internetsociety/encryptiondebate/videos/99393023 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast >>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>> - >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> > > > > -- > *Raman Jit Singh Chima* > Policy Director > Access | accessnow.org > > Email: raman at accessnow.org > Skype: raman.chima > PGP ID: 0x2A186000 > > *Join the Access team - *we're hiring > ! > -- *Raman Jit Singh Chima* Policy Director Access | accessnow.org Email: raman at accessnow.org Skype: raman.chima PGP ID: 0x2A186000 *Join the Access team - *we're hiring ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: