From puneeth.nagaraj at nludelhi.ac.in Fri Apr 1 01:47:16 2016 From: puneeth.nagaraj at nludelhi.ac.in (Puneeth Nagaraj) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 11:17:16 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] CCG Working Paper Series: Interdependence and Indivisibility of Human Rights and WSIS Message-ID: *Apologies for Cross Posting* Dear All, We at the Centre for Communication Governance have published the first in our 2016 series of Working Papers. This short paper explores the notion of interdependence and indivisibility of human rights in the context of the WSIS process and examines a framework of digital human rights. A revised version of this paper will be published in the NALSAR Student Law Review (Vol 10). We look forward to hearing your feedback on the paper. You can access the paper here . 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: From raquino at gmail.com Mon Apr 4 17:39:48 2016 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 18:39:48 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] [GenderDC] CIS' Statement on Sexual Harassment at ICANN55 In-Reply-To: <5702C165.1090902@digitaldissidents.org> References: <60C2520E-9AC9-4AA2-B9D0-B4D7F45C3E3D@gmail.com> <56F18459.3080806@apcwomen.org> <56F1B13D.8080909@softwarefreedom.org> <65482.10.254.253.3.1458828540.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org> <09A272A9-E225-4CBF-BFF7-470F8C641A95@researchictafrica.net> <5702BE14.90308@apcwomen.org> <5702C165.1090902@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: Hi At Internet Freedom Festival and Rightscon, a hashtag was used to twitterstorm about harassment and diversity There are some interesting images which can be used, especially in the Rightscon example Unfortunately a few counter-examples can be seen also, especially when as the hashtags gets old and captured But still there`s lot of interesting stuff to see https://twitter.com/search?q=%23whoisrightscon&src=typd https://twitter.com/search?q=%23whoisiff&src=typd On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote: > Hi Jac, > > I think it might also be good to point out some good practices that do > exist so we can move forward on this crucial issue: > > IETF: > RFC http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7776 > Policy https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html > Team page and contact information https://www.ietf.org/ombudsteam > > http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Policy > > Cheers, > > Niels > > PS More on the IETF attached from the IETF chair > > > On 04/04/2016 09:18 PM, Jac sm Kee wrote: >> Thanks for this Nadira. >> >> Also, the MAG meeting is currently taking place. I raised the issue of >> having a sexual harassment policy for IGF, and will continue to bring >> this up the next couple of days. If there is anything else I can help to >> raise to prioritise the integration of gender concerns for this process >> and forum, please let me know. >> >> Thanks and best, >> jac >> >> >> --------------------------------- >> Jac sm Kee >> Manager, Women's Rights Programme >> Association for Progressive Communications >> www.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net | erotics.apc.org >> Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe >> >> On 28/03/2016 12:18, Nadira Alaraj wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> FYI >>> >>> On its Weekly Digest, an ICANN blog, by Akram Atallah, >>> dated March 25, about >>> *Conduct at ICANN Meetings* >>> >>> http:// icann.org >>> /news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings >>> >>> >>> >>> > On Mar 25, 2016, at 16:13, Bishakha Datta >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > Dear all, >>> > >>> > As one of the two coordinators of the Gender Dynamic Coalition, I >>> want to thank you for including us in this critical conversation. >>> > >>> > We had proposed drafting a sexual harassment policy for the IGF at >>> the Gender Dynamic Coalition meeting at IGF 2015, a proposal that >>> was strongly endorsed at that meeting. We had also formed a small >>> volunteer committee for this purpose. >>> > >>> > We will now move quickly on this, using many of the excellent >>> points and resources that have been mentioned on this thread. >>> > >>> > Please let us know if any of you would like to join this committee. >>> > >>> > Many thanks >>> > Bishakha >>> > >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I have been following the thread and commend Ms Baruah for making her >>> experience public and the movement for a sexual harassment policy. I >>> would also like to urge some form of education or communication for new >>> participants who come into IG spaces such as ICANN and IGF. A lack of >>> awareness of what can do when one experiences sexual harassment means >>> some incidences go unreported. >>> >>> I would also like to volunteer join the small committee set up for this >>> purpose. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Chenai >>> >>> Chenai Chair >>> Researcher >>> Research ICT Africa >>> Unit 409, Old Castle Brewery >>> 6 Beach Road >>> Woodstock, Cape Town, 7925 >>> South Africa >>> T: +27 71 151 5602 >>> f: www.facebook.com/researchICTafrica.ne >>> t >>> t: @RIAnetwork >>> >>> See www.researchICTafrica.net for >>> most recent policy research papers >>> >>>> On Mar 25, 2016, at 16:13, Bishakha Datta >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> As one of the two coordinators of the Gender Dynamic Coalition, I want >>>> to thank you for including us in this critical conversation. >>>> >>>> We had proposed drafting a sexual harassment policy for the IGF at the >>>> Gender Dynamic Coalition meeting at IGF 2015, a proposal that was >>>> strongly endorsed at that meeting. We had also formed a small >>>> volunteer committee for this purpose. >>>> >>>> We will now move quickly on this, using many of the excellent points >>>> and resources that have been mentioned on this thread. >>>> >>>> Please let us know if any of you would like to join this committee. >>>> >>>> Many thanks >>>> Bishakha >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Erika Smith >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> I wrote to RIPE NCC per Lorena's comment to ask if they could >>>> share the >>>> policy or provide us with a contact person, although I've just noticed >>>> that Chris Buckridge is on this CC so perhaps s/he an provide us >>>> with more >>>> insight. >>>> >>>> On the geek feminism wiki there are two sources that may be of use in >>>> drafting - one is for online spaces and community management, and the >>>> other for in-person conferences. >>>> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Community_anti-harassment/Policy >>>> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Policy >>>> >>>> >>>> Geek Feminism also has evaluations of Codes of Conduct that could be >>>> useful for making sure the policy learns from other policies' >>>> weaknesses: >>>> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Code_of_conduct_evaluations >>>> >>>> >>>> Erika >>>> >>>> >>>> > Dear Padmini and Sunil, >>>> > >>>> > Supporting you completely. Please let me know how can we help >>>> other than >>>> > joining your call for positive measures. We all must insist on >>>> > professional, friendly, safe environment for all but especially >>>> towards >>>> > women. >>>> > >>>> > I would suggest looking at a community-maintained list of >>>> conferences >>>> > with policies on the Geek Feminism Wiki. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On 03/22/2016 03:17 PM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: >>>> >> Dear all, >>>> >> I think RIPE NCC drafted last year an anti-harassment policy. They >>>> >> certainly could contribute with best practices. >>>> >> Cheers >>>> >> Lorena >>>> >> >>>> >> 2016-03-22 18:43 GMT+01:00 Jac sm Kee >>> >>>> >> >>: >>>> >> >>>> >> Dear all, >>>> >> >>>> >> Copying the Gender DC mailing list and also the 2 >>>> coordinators into >>>> >> this >>>> >> conversation. Like in Ms Padmini's statement, when this was >>>> raised >>>> >> at >>>> >> the last IGF during the Gender DC workshop, other participants >>>> >> shared >>>> >> their experience of sexual harassment. So discussing and >>>> tackling >>>> >> this >>>> >> issue seriously at esp a space on IG process and policy >>>> >> conversations is >>>> >> critical. Contributes significantly to creating an inclusive, >>>> >> respectful, non-discriminatory and diverse participatory >>>> >> environment. >>>> >> >>>> >> I think the DC is in the process of drafting a proposed >>>> policy to be >>>> >> taken up at the upcoming IGF. Would be great to see initiatives >>>> >> build >>>> >> and inform each other, and to also share best practices. >>>> There has >>>> >> been >>>> >> many initiatives and models in different contexts that can >>>> be drawn >>>> >> from >>>> >> - events, organisational, country specific, space/platform etc. >>>> >> Fully >>>> >> support the idea of a WG in ICANN. >>>> >> >>>> >> Best regards, >>>> >> jac >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> --------------------------------- >>>> >> Jac sm Kee >>>> >> Manager, Women's Rights Programme >>>> >> Association for Progressive Communications >>>> >> www.apc.org >>> > | www.takebackthetech.net >>>> >>>> >> >>> > | erotics.apc.org >>>> >>>> >> > >>>> >> Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe >>>> >> >>>> >> On 22/03/2016 00:15, Nadira Alaraj wrote: >>>> >> > Dear all >>>> >> > I commend Ms. Padmini Baruah courage for bringing this >>>> issue to >>>> >> ICANN >>>> >> > and to the civil society public forums. >>>> >> > The discussion here raises a questions and I would like >>>> to direct >>>> >> this >>>> >> > to those senior with ICANN. >>>> >> > How we can create a working group to discuss this issue under >>>> >> ICANN >>>> >> > umbrella? It is important the recommendations of this >>>> group to be >>>> >> > instituted into ICANN. >>>> >> > Which body of ICANN will grant the official existence of this >>>> >> group and >>>> >> > what constituency it will work? >>>> >> > Hoping these answers will bring the existence of this working >>>> >> group and >>>> >> > follow the pattern of button up approach in decision >>>> making of >>>> >> ICANN and >>>> >> > to follow with the recommendations of Padmini to make >>>> them happen. >>>> >> > Best wishes, >>>> >> > Nadira Alaraj >>>> >> > >>>> >> > On Mar 21, 2016 6:32 PM, >>> >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >>> wrote: >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > First of all, I would like to say I think that Ms >>>> Baruah is an >>>> >> > incredibly brave woman for not only making her story >>>> public, >>>> >> but >>>> >> > also for not giving up despite being discouraged to >>>> report the >>>> >> > incident and CIS for issuing a statement on rather >>>> ignored >>>> >> issue >>>> >> > within our own circles. I personally know many women >>>> who don’t >>>> >> > report harassment because there is a lack of support and >>>> >> significant >>>> >> > discouragement. Unfortunately, this leads to >>>> silencing and >>>> >> harassers >>>> >> > are thus granted impunity. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Ms Baruah’s statement betrays another reality that >>>> women in >>>> >> this >>>> >> > field have to live with if they wish to continue >>>> working: her >>>> >> > harasser was granted access to her space where he was >>>> allowed >>>> >> to >>>> >> > make her uncomfortable by staring. I have lost count >>>> of the >>>> >> number >>>> >> > of women who have spoken about this. Unless a strong >>>> >> accountability >>>> >> > mechanism is enforced, the rate of reporting >>>> harassment will >>>> >> remain >>>> >> > low. Women will not come forward unless they are >>>> guaranteed >>>> >> that >>>> >> > they will not have to face their harasser until they >>>> are ready >>>> >> to. >>>> >> > Furthermore, having to face a harasser is triggering and >>>> >> emotional >>>> >> > exhaustion leads to giving up. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > This incident should lead to reflection regarding >>>> harassment >>>> >> in our >>>> >> > own tech community and development in general. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Strong policies should not only be enforced, but >>>> should be >>>> >> > culturally sensitive. For example, if women from a very >>>> >> patriarchal >>>> >> > country report harassment to someone, they should not >>>> be asked >>>> >> to >>>> >> > first officially report it legally. Some are unable >>>> to do so >>>> >> and >>>> >> > will hesitate to do so due to lack of support. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > More than anything else, as a community, we need to >>>> reflect on >>>> >> how >>>> >> > we got here and why. Perhaps some accountability on >>>> our own >>>> >> roles is >>>> >> > necessary because men would not able to harass women >>>> so easily >>>> >> > unless they knew they had impunity on some level. >>>> While it is >>>> >> > heartening to see conversations taking place, I don’t >>>> believe >>>> >> we can >>>> >> > have meaningful change unless we all collectively >>>> discuss how >>>> >> we got >>>> >> > here in the first place. Why does the tech development >>>> >> industry have >>>> >> > such a bad reputation when it comes to harassment? >>>> Surely it >>>> >> isn’t >>>> >> > the result of a conspiracy against us. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Jac it would be great if we make this discussion >>>> happen at >>>> >> Gender >>>> >> > Dynamic Coalition in next IGF and discuss how to >>>> address the >>>> >> issue >>>> >> > of sexual harassment not only restricted to spaces >>>> like ICANN >>>> >> and >>>> >> > IGF but within our own community. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > My two cents.. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Best, >>>> >> > Nighat Dad >>>> >> > Digital Rights Foundation, Pakistan. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Sent from my iPhone >>>> >> > >>>> >> > On 21-Mar-2016, at 8:00 pm, Sunil Abraham >>>> >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>> >>> >>> >>>> >> wrote: >>>> >> > >>>> >> >> The Centre for Internet and Society >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Statement on Sexual Harassment at ICANN55 >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> The Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”) strongly >>>> condemns >>>> >> the >>>> >> >> acts of sexual harassment that took place against >>>> one of our >>>> >> >> representatives, Ms. Padmini Baruah, during ICANN 55 in >>>> >> Marrakech. >>>> >> >> It is completely unacceptable that an event the >>>> scale of an >>>> >> ICANN >>>> >> >> meeting does not have in place a formal redressal >>>> system, a >>>> >> >> neutral point of contact or even a policy for >>>> complainants >>>> >> who >>>> >> >> have been put through the ordeal of sexual >>>> harassment. ICANN >>>> >> >> cannot claim to be inclusive or diverse if it does not >>>> >> formally >>>> >> >> recognise a specific procedure or recourse under such >>>> >> instances. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Ms. Baruah is by no means the first young woman to >>>> be subject >>>> >> to >>>> >> >> such treatment at an ICANN event, but she isthe first to >>>> >> raise a >>>> >> >> formalcomplaint. Following the incident, she was >>>> given no >>>> >> >> immediate remedy or formal recourse, and that has >>>> left her >>>> >> with no >>>> >> >> option but to make the incident publicly known in the >>>> >> interim. The >>>> >> >> ombudsman’s office has been in touch with her, but this >>>> >> >> administrative process is simply inadequate for >>>> >> rights-violations. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Ms. Baruah has received support from various community, >>>> >> staff, and >>>> >> >> board members. While we are thankful for their >>>> support, we >>>> >> believe >>>> >> >> that this situation can be better dealt with through >>>> some >>>> >> positive >>>> >> >> measures. We ask that ICANN carry out the following >>>> steps in >>>> >> order >>>> >> >> to make its meetings a truly safe and inclusive space: >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> 1. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Institute a formal redressal system and policy with >>>> >> regard to >>>> >> >> sexual harassment within ICANN. The policy must be >>>> >> displayed >>>> >> >> on the ICANN website, at the venue of meetings >>>> and made >>>> >> >> available in delegate kits. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> 2. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Institute an Anti Sexual Harassment Committee >>>> that is >>>> >> neutral >>>> >> >> and approachable. Merely having an ombudsman who >>>> is a >>>> >> white >>>> >> >> male, however well intentioned, is inadequate and >>>> >> completely >>>> >> >> unhelpful to the complainant. The present >>>> situation is >>>> >> one >>>> >> >> where the ombudsman has no effective power and only >>>> >> advises >>>> >> >> the board. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> 3. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Conduct periodic gender and sexual harassment >>>> training of >>>> >> the >>>> >> >> ICANN board to help them better understand these >>>> issues. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> 4. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Conduct periodic gender and sexual harassment >>>> training >>>> >> for the >>>> >> >> ombudsman even if he/she will not be the >>>> exclusive point >>>> >> of >>>> >> >> contact for complainants as the ombudsman forms an >>>> >> important >>>> >> >> part of community and participant engagement. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> 5. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Conduct periodic gender sensitisation for the ICANN >>>> >> community. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >> >> You received this message as 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 >>>> >> > >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >> 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 >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> >>>> >> Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance >>>> >> Arbeitsgruppe >>>> >> >>>> >> Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. >>>> >> >>>> >> www.intgovforum.de >>>> > ∙ >>>> www.collaboratory.de >>>> >> > ∙ >>>> Newsletter >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> ∙ Facebook >>>> >> ∙ Twitter ∙Youtube >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >> You received this message as 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 >>>> > Direct: +1-212-461-1912 | Main: >>>> +1-212-461-1901 | Fax: +1-212-580-0898 >>>> >>>> > www.softwarefreedom.org >>>> > Assistant: Rose Regina Lawrence | roseregina at softwarefreedom.org >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Executive Director >>>> > SFLC.IN >>>> > K-9, Second Floor, Jangpura Extn.| New Delhi-110014 >>>> > Main: +91-11-43587126 | Fax: >>>> +91-11-24323530 >>>> > www.sflc.in >>>> > Assistant: Mamta Varma | mamta at softwarefreedom.in >>>> >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > Genderigf mailing list >>>> > Genderigf at lists.apcwomen.org >>>> > http://lists.apcwomen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/genderigf >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> Erika Smith >>>> Association for Progressive Communications >>>> Women's Rights Programme >>>> >>>> Take Back the Tech! Reclaim ICTs to end violence against women: >>>> https://www.takebackthetech.net >>>> Map tech-related violence https://www.apc.org/ushahidi >>>> Gender and ICT Policy Portal: https://genderit.org >>>> >>>> Connect your Rights! Internet Rights are Human Rights: >>>> http://www.apc.org/en/node/11424 >>>> Gender Evaluation Methodology for ICTS: >>>> https://genderevaluation.net >>>> GreeningIT - ICTS, Climate Change & Environmental Sustainability: >>>> https://www.apc.org/node/8022 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Genderigf mailing list >>>> Genderigf at lists.apcwomen.org >>>> http://lists.apcwomen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/genderigf >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Genderigf mailing list >>>> Genderigf at lists.apcwomen.org >>>> http://lists.apcwomen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/genderigf >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Genderigf mailing list >>> Genderigf at lists.apcwomen.org >>> http://lists.apcwomen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/genderigf >>> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > -- > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: IETF Chair > To: IETF Announcement List , 95all at ietf.org > Cc: IETF > Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 13:52:07 -0300 > Subject: RFC 7776 and the team that can be reached for help regarding harassment concerns > > In 2013, the IESG set the IETF anti-harassment policy. Last year, we concluded the process to write a BCP that defines the anti-harassment procedures. That BCP has now been published as RFC 7776. The RFC specifies that there shall be a specialist team that can be reached for help, advice, and possible actions regarding harassment concerns. > > I’m happy to announce that Allison Mankin, Pete Resnick, and Linda Klieforth have accepted to become the initial members in this team. They are preparing for this role, working on their operating practices as defined by the RFC, and we are setting up additional training for them. I am though happy to have them serving in this role, given that they have a lot of experience. Allison and Pete of course have a long experience about the IETF culture, topics, and leadership roles. In addition, Pete has volunteer experience from violence and discrimination related tasks. Linda Klieforth has been the acting ombudsperson for the IETF since 2013, and is the head of HR at ISOC. And Allison has a lot of experience about the way IETF selects leadership. > > Please welcome Linda, Allison, and Pete to this role. Feel free to contact them if you have any concerns, they are a very easy set of people to talk to, they will be here in Buenos Aires, and obviously everything you tell them will be kept in confidence as requested, as defined in the RFC. > > Links: > > RFC http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7776 > Policy https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html > Team page and contact information https://www.ietf.org/ombudsteam > > Jari Arkko, IETF Chair > > P.S. Also, while this addition isn’t strictly about harassment, this seems like a good moment to remind everyone about behaving nicely. Please pay attention to how you interact with other people in the meeting and elsewhere. Think how you present criticism, for instance, and behave otherwise in a professional manner. I know you will, but sometimes spending a few seconds to think about how you go about a situation can make the experience so much better for everyone. > > P.P.S. As with other announcements, if you reply to mail sent to ietf-announce or 95all lists, please make sure that your reply goes to the appropriate discussion list such as ietf at ietf.org or 95attendees at ietf.org. Posting to the announcement lists is restricted, and we want discussions on other lists. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 10:27:47 2016 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 11:27:47 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Fellowship opportunity in FGV Rio de Janeiro 2016/2017 Message-ID: Dear all, FGV´s Rio de Janeiro Law School is offering an outstanding fellowship opportunity. Academics working in fields related to regulation and technology will have the opportunity to develop joint research and experience immersion in policy discussions in the vibrant atmosphere of the Center for Technology and Society of FGV. Please help to disseminate among your contacts. Best wishes, Marília Fellows in Rio 2016-2017 Fundação Getulio Vargas’ Rio de Janeiro Law School – FGV DIREITO RIO is pleased to announce the third edition of the Fellows in Rio program. The goal of the program is to support a select group of highly qualified doctoral and post-doctoral scholars working in areas related to the School’s research centers. The program seeks to offer economic and intellectual resources to support insightful and promising young legal scholars. The fellows participate in projects at the school’s research centers, along with developing their own research. They receive a six-month scholarship, in the amount of R$ 36,000.00 for doctoral students and R$ 45,000.00 for doctors. They will also have the opportunity to give short courses to students, and participate in workshops with researchers and professors. In the first edition (2014-15), FGV Direito Rio received 162 applications, from 24 countries. In the second edition (2015-16), FGV Direito Rio received 112 applications from 27 countries. Call for applications: http://direitorio.fgv.br/fellowship-program-for-doctoral-candidates-and-post-doc-researchers -- *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/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jac at apcwomen.org Tue Apr 5 14:08:14 2016 From: jac at apcwomen.org (Jac sm Kee) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 02:08:14 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [GenderDC] CIS' Statement on Sexual Harassment at ICANN55 In-Reply-To: References: <60C2520E-9AC9-4AA2-B9D0-B4D7F45C3E3D@gmail.com> <56F18459.3080806@apcwomen.org> <56F1B13D.8080909@softwarefreedom.org> <65482.10.254.253.3.1458828540.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org> <09A272A9-E225-4CBF-BFF7-470F8C641A95@researchictafrica.net> <5702BE14.90308@apcwomen.org> <5702C165.1090902@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: <5703FF0E.2060805@apcwomen.org> Thanks much for all of this. Very helpful. Will definitely incorporate in the planning. j --------------------------------- Jac sm Kee Manager, Women's Rights Programme Association for Progressive Communications www.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net | erotics.apc.org Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe On 05/04/2016 05:39, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote: > Hi > > At Internet Freedom Festival and Rightscon, a hashtag was used to > twitterstorm about harassment and diversity > There are some interesting images which can be used, especially in the > Rightscon example > Unfortunately a few counter-examples can be seen also, especially when > as the hashtags gets old and captured > But still there`s lot of interesting stuff to see > > https://twitter.com/search?q=%23whoisrightscon&src=typd > > https://twitter.com/search?q=%23whoisiff&src=typd > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Niels ten Oever > wrote: >> Hi Jac, >> >> I think it might also be good to point out some good practices that do >> exist so we can move forward on this crucial issue: >> >> IETF: >> RFC http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7776 >> Policy https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html >> Team page and contact information https://www.ietf.org/ombudsteam >> >> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Policy >> >> Cheers, >> >> Niels >> >> PS More on the IETF attached from the IETF chair >> >> >> On 04/04/2016 09:18 PM, Jac sm Kee wrote: >>> Thanks for this Nadira. >>> >>> Also, the MAG meeting is currently taking place. I raised the issue of >>> having a sexual harassment policy for IGF, and will continue to bring >>> this up the next couple of days. If there is anything else I can help to >>> raise to prioritise the integration of gender concerns for this process >>> and forum, please let me know. >>> >>> Thanks and best, >>> jac >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------- >>> Jac sm Kee >>> Manager, Women's Rights Programme >>> Association for Progressive Communications >>> www.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net | erotics.apc.org >>> Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe >>> >>> On 28/03/2016 12:18, Nadira Alaraj wrote: >>>> Dear All, >>>> FYI >>>> >>>> On its Weekly Digest, an ICANN blog, by Akram Atallah, >>>> dated March 25, about >>>> *Conduct at ICANN Meetings* >>>> >>>> http:// icann.org >>>> /news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > On Mar 25, 2016, at 16:13, Bishakha Datta >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Dear all, >>>> > >>>> > As one of the two coordinators of the Gender Dynamic Coalition, I >>>> want to thank you for including us in this critical conversation. >>>> > >>>> > We had proposed drafting a sexual harassment policy for the IGF at >>>> the Gender Dynamic Coalition meeting at IGF 2015, a proposal that >>>> was strongly endorsed at that meeting. We had also formed a small >>>> volunteer committee for this purpose. >>>> > >>>> > We will now move quickly on this, using many of the excellent >>>> points and resources that have been mentioned on this thread. >>>> > >>>> > Please let us know if any of you would like to join this committee. >>>> > >>>> > Many thanks >>>> > Bishakha >>>> > >>>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> I have been following the thread and commend Ms Baruah for making her >>>> experience public and the movement for a sexual harassment policy. I >>>> would also like to urge some form of education or communication for new >>>> participants who come into IG spaces such as ICANN and IGF. A lack of >>>> awareness of what can do when one experiences sexual harassment means >>>> some incidences go unreported. >>>> >>>> I would also like to volunteer join the small committee set up for this >>>> purpose. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Chenai >>>> >>>> Chenai Chair >>>> Researcher >>>> Research ICT Africa >>>> Unit 409, Old Castle Brewery >>>> 6 Beach Road >>>> Woodstock, Cape Town, 7925 >>>> South Africa >>>> T: +27 71 151 5602 >>>> f: www.facebook.com/researchICTafrica.ne >>>> t >>>> t: @RIAnetwork >>>> >>>> See www.researchICTafrica.net for >>>> most recent policy research papers >>>> >>>>> On Mar 25, 2016, at 16:13, Bishakha Datta >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> As one of the two coordinators of the Gender Dynamic Coalition, I want >>>>> to thank you for including us in this critical conversation. >>>>> >>>>> We had proposed drafting a sexual harassment policy for the IGF at the >>>>> Gender Dynamic Coalition meeting at IGF 2015, a proposal that was >>>>> strongly endorsed at that meeting. We had also formed a small >>>>> volunteer committee for this purpose. >>>>> >>>>> We will now move quickly on this, using many of the excellent points >>>>> and resources that have been mentioned on this thread. >>>>> >>>>> Please let us know if any of you would like to join this committee. >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks >>>>> Bishakha >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Erika Smith >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> I wrote to RIPE NCC per Lorena's comment to ask if they could >>>>> share the >>>>> policy or provide us with a contact person, although I've just noticed >>>>> that Chris Buckridge is on this CC so perhaps s/he an provide us >>>>> with more >>>>> insight. >>>>> >>>>> On the geek feminism wiki there are two sources that may be of use in >>>>> drafting - one is for online spaces and community management, and the >>>>> other for in-person conferences. >>>>> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Community_anti-harassment/Policy >>>>> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Policy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Geek Feminism also has evaluations of Codes of Conduct that could be >>>>> useful for making sure the policy learns from other policies' >>>>> weaknesses: >>>>> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Code_of_conduct_evaluations >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Erika >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > Dear Padmini and Sunil, >>>>> > >>>>> > Supporting you completely. Please let me know how can we help >>>>> other than >>>>> > joining your call for positive measures. We all must insist on >>>>> > professional, friendly, safe environment for all but especially >>>>> towards >>>>> > women. >>>>> > >>>>> > I would suggest looking at a community-maintained list of >>>>> conferences >>>>> > with policies on the Geek Feminism Wiki. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On 03/22/2016 03:17 PM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: >>>>> >> Dear all, >>>>> >> I think RIPE NCC drafted last year an anti-harassment policy. They >>>>> >> certainly could contribute with best practices. >>>>> >> Cheers >>>>> >> Lorena >>>>> >> >>>>> >> 2016-03-22 18:43 GMT+01:00 Jac sm Kee >>>> >>>>> >> >>: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Dear all, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Copying the Gender DC mailing list and also the 2 >>>>> coordinators into >>>>> >> this >>>>> >> conversation. Like in Ms Padmini's statement, when this was >>>>> raised >>>>> >> at >>>>> >> the last IGF during the Gender DC workshop, other participants >>>>> >> shared >>>>> >> their experience of sexual harassment. So discussing and >>>>> tackling >>>>> >> this >>>>> >> issue seriously at esp a space on IG process and policy >>>>> >> conversations is >>>>> >> critical. Contributes significantly to creating an inclusive, >>>>> >> respectful, non-discriminatory and diverse participatory >>>>> >> environment. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I think the DC is in the process of drafting a proposed >>>>> policy to be >>>>> >> taken up at the upcoming IGF. Would be great to see initiatives >>>>> >> build >>>>> >> and inform each other, and to also share best practices. >>>>> There has >>>>> >> been >>>>> >> many initiatives and models in different contexts that can >>>>> be drawn >>>>> >> from >>>>> >> - events, organisational, country specific, space/platform etc. >>>>> >> Fully >>>>> >> support the idea of a WG in ICANN. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Best regards, >>>>> >> jac >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> --------------------------------- >>>>> >> Jac sm Kee >>>>> >> Manager, Women's Rights Programme >>>>> >> Association for Progressive Communications >>>>> >> www.apc.org >>>> > | www.takebackthetech.net >>>>> >>>>> >> >>>> > | erotics.apc.org >>>>> >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On 22/03/2016 00:15, Nadira Alaraj wrote: >>>>> >> > Dear all >>>>> >> > I commend Ms. Padmini Baruah courage for bringing this >>>>> issue to >>>>> >> ICANN >>>>> >> > and to the civil society public forums. >>>>> >> > The discussion here raises a questions and I would like >>>>> to direct >>>>> >> this >>>>> >> > to those senior with ICANN. >>>>> >> > How we can create a working group to discuss this issue under >>>>> >> ICANN >>>>> >> > umbrella? It is important the recommendations of this >>>>> group to be >>>>> >> > instituted into ICANN. >>>>> >> > Which body of ICANN will grant the official existence of this >>>>> >> group and >>>>> >> > what constituency it will work? >>>>> >> > Hoping these answers will bring the existence of this working >>>>> >> group and >>>>> >> > follow the pattern of button up approach in decision >>>>> making of >>>>> >> ICANN and >>>>> >> > to follow with the recommendations of Padmini to make >>>>> them happen. >>>>> >> > Best wishes, >>>>> >> > Nadira Alaraj >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > On Mar 21, 2016 6:32 PM, >>>> >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >>> wrote: >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > First of all, I would like to say I think that Ms >>>>> Baruah is an >>>>> >> > incredibly brave woman for not only making her story >>>>> public, >>>>> >> but >>>>> >> > also for not giving up despite being discouraged to >>>>> report the >>>>> >> > incident and CIS for issuing a statement on rather >>>>> ignored >>>>> >> issue >>>>> >> > within our own circles. I personally know many women >>>>> who don’t >>>>> >> > report harassment because there is a lack of support and >>>>> >> significant >>>>> >> > discouragement. Unfortunately, this leads to >>>>> silencing and >>>>> >> harassers >>>>> >> > are thus granted impunity. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > Ms Baruah’s statement betrays another reality that >>>>> women in >>>>> >> this >>>>> >> > field have to live with if they wish to continue >>>>> working: her >>>>> >> > harasser was granted access to her space where he was >>>>> allowed >>>>> >> to >>>>> >> > make her uncomfortable by staring. I have lost count >>>>> of the >>>>> >> number >>>>> >> > of women who have spoken about this. Unless a strong >>>>> >> accountability >>>>> >> > mechanism is enforced, the rate of reporting >>>>> harassment will >>>>> >> remain >>>>> >> > low. Women will not come forward unless they are >>>>> guaranteed >>>>> >> that >>>>> >> > they will not have to face their harasser until they >>>>> are ready >>>>> >> to. >>>>> >> > Furthermore, having to face a harasser is triggering and >>>>> >> emotional >>>>> >> > exhaustion leads to giving up. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > This incident should lead to reflection regarding >>>>> harassment >>>>> >> in our >>>>> >> > own tech community and development in general. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > Strong policies should not only be enforced, but >>>>> should be >>>>> >> > culturally sensitive. For example, if women from a very >>>>> >> patriarchal >>>>> >> > country report harassment to someone, they should not >>>>> be asked >>>>> >> to >>>>> >> > first officially report it legally. Some are unable >>>>> to do so >>>>> >> and >>>>> >> > will hesitate to do so due to lack of support. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > More than anything else, as a community, we need to >>>>> reflect on >>>>> >> how >>>>> >> > we got here and why. Perhaps some accountability on >>>>> our own >>>>> >> roles is >>>>> >> > necessary because men would not able to harass women >>>>> so easily >>>>> >> > unless they knew they had impunity on some level. >>>>> While it is >>>>> >> > heartening to see conversations taking place, I don’t >>>>> believe >>>>> >> we can >>>>> >> > have meaningful change unless we all collectively >>>>> discuss how >>>>> >> we got >>>>> >> > here in the first place. Why does the tech development >>>>> >> industry have >>>>> >> > such a bad reputation when it comes to harassment? >>>>> Surely it >>>>> >> isn’t >>>>> >> > the result of a conspiracy against us. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > Jac it would be great if we make this discussion >>>>> happen at >>>>> >> Gender >>>>> >> > Dynamic Coalition in next IGF and discuss how to >>>>> address the >>>>> >> issue >>>>> >> > of sexual harassment not only restricted to spaces >>>>> like ICANN >>>>> >> and >>>>> >> > IGF but within our own community. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > My two cents.. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > Best, >>>>> >> > Nighat Dad >>>>> >> > Digital Rights Foundation, Pakistan. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > On 21-Mar-2016, at 8:00 pm, Sunil Abraham >>>>> >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>> >>>> >>> >>>>> >> wrote: >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >> The Centre for Internet and Society >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> Statement on Sexual Harassment at ICANN55 >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> The Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”) strongly >>>>> condemns >>>>> >> the >>>>> >> >> acts of sexual harassment that took place against >>>>> one of our >>>>> >> >> representatives, Ms. Padmini Baruah, during ICANN 55 in >>>>> >> Marrakech. >>>>> >> >> It is completely unacceptable that an event the >>>>> scale of an >>>>> >> ICANN >>>>> >> >> meeting does not have in place a formal redressal >>>>> system, a >>>>> >> >> neutral point of contact or even a policy for >>>>> complainants >>>>> >> who >>>>> >> >> have been put through the ordeal of sexual >>>>> harassment. ICANN >>>>> >> >> cannot claim to be inclusive or diverse if it does not >>>>> >> formally >>>>> >> >> recognise a specific procedure or recourse under such >>>>> >> instances. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> Ms. Baruah is by no means the first young woman to >>>>> be subject >>>>> >> to >>>>> >> >> such treatment at an ICANN event, but she isthe first to >>>>> >> raise a >>>>> >> >> formalcomplaint. Following the incident, she was >>>>> given no >>>>> >> >> immediate remedy or formal recourse, and that has >>>>> left her >>>>> >> with no >>>>> >> >> option but to make the incident publicly known in the >>>>> >> interim. The >>>>> >> >> ombudsman’s office has been in touch with her, but this >>>>> >> >> administrative process is simply inadequate for >>>>> >> rights-violations. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> Ms. Baruah has received support from various community, >>>>> >> staff, and >>>>> >> >> board members. While we are thankful for their >>>>> support, we >>>>> >> believe >>>>> >> >> that this situation can be better dealt with through >>>>> some >>>>> >> positive >>>>> >> >> measures. We ask that ICANN carry out the following >>>>> steps in >>>>> >> order >>>>> >> >> to make its meetings a truly safe and inclusive space: >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> 1. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> Institute a formal redressal system and policy with >>>>> >> regard to >>>>> >> >> sexual harassment within ICANN. The policy must be >>>>> >> displayed >>>>> >> >> on the ICANN website, at the venue of meetings >>>>> and made >>>>> >> >> available in delegate kits. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> 2. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> Institute an Anti Sexual Harassment Committee >>>>> that is >>>>> >> neutral >>>>> >> >> and approachable. Merely having an ombudsman who >>>>> is a >>>>> >> white >>>>> >> >> male, however well intentioned, is inadequate and >>>>> >> completely >>>>> >> >> unhelpful to the complainant. The present >>>>> situation is >>>>> >> one >>>>> >> >> where the ombudsman has no effective power and only >>>>> >> advises >>>>> >> >> the board. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> 3. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> Conduct periodic gender and sexual harassment >>>>> training of >>>>> >> the >>>>> >> >> ICANN board to help them better understand these >>>>> issues. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> 4. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> Conduct periodic gender and sexual harassment >>>>> training >>>>> >> for the >>>>> >> >> ombudsman even if he/she will not be the >>>>> exclusive point >>>>> >> of >>>>> >> >> contact for complainants as the ombudsman forms an >>>>> >> important >>>>> >> >> part of community and participant engagement. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> 5. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> Conduct periodic gender sensitisation for the ICANN >>>>> >> community. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> >> >> You received this message as 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 >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> >> 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 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> -- >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance >>>>> >> Arbeitsgruppe >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> www.intgovforum.de >>>>> > ∙ >>>>> www.collaboratory.de >>>>> >> > ∙ >>>>> Newsletter >>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>> >> ∙ Facebook >>>>> >> ∙ Twitter ∙Youtube >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> >> You received this message as 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 >>>>> > Direct: +1-212-461-1912 | Main: >>>>> +1-212-461-1901 | Fax: +1-212-580-0898 >>>>> >>>>> > www.softwarefreedom.org >>>>> > Assistant: Rose Regina Lawrence | roseregina at softwarefreedom.org >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Executive Director >>>>> > SFLC.IN >>>>> > K-9, Second Floor, Jangpura Extn.| New Delhi-110014 >>>>> > Main: +91-11-43587126 | Fax: >>>>> +91-11-24323530 >>>>> > www.sflc.in >>>>> > Assistant: Mamta Varma | mamta at softwarefreedom.in >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > Genderigf mailing list >>>>> > Genderigf at lists.apcwomen.org >>>>> > http://lists.apcwomen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/genderigf >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Erika Smith >>>>> Association for Progressive Communications >>>>> Women's Rights Programme >>>>> >>>>> Take Back the Tech! Reclaim ICTs to end violence against women: >>>>> https://www.takebackthetech.net >>>>> Map tech-related violence https://www.apc.org/ushahidi >>>>> Gender and ICT Policy Portal: https://genderit.org >>>>> >>>>> Connect your Rights! Internet Rights are Human Rights: >>>>> http://www.apc.org/en/node/11424 >>>>> Gender Evaluation Methodology for ICTS: >>>>> https://genderevaluation.net >>>>> GreeningIT - ICTS, Climate Change & Environmental Sustainability: >>>>> https://www.apc.org/node/8022 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Genderigf mailing list >>>>> Genderigf at lists.apcwomen.org >>>>> http://lists.apcwomen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/genderigf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Genderigf mailing list >>>>> Genderigf at lists.apcwomen.org >>>>> http://lists.apcwomen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/genderigf >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Genderigf mailing list >>>> Genderigf at lists.apcwomen.org >>>> http://lists.apcwomen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/genderigf >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> -- >> Niels ten Oever >> Head of Digital >> >> Article 19 >> www.article19.org >> >> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 >> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: IETF Chair >> To: IETF Announcement List , 95all at ietf.org >> Cc: IETF >> Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 13:52:07 -0300 >> Subject: RFC 7776 and the team that can be reached for help regarding harassment concerns >> >> In 2013, the IESG set the IETF anti-harassment policy. Last year, we concluded the process to write a BCP that defines the anti-harassment procedures. That BCP has now been published as RFC 7776. The RFC specifies that there shall be a specialist team that can be reached for help, advice, and possible actions regarding harassment concerns. >> >> I’m happy to announce that Allison Mankin, Pete Resnick, and Linda Klieforth have accepted to become the initial members in this team. They are preparing for this role, working on their operating practices as defined by the RFC, and we are setting up additional training for them. I am though happy to have them serving in this role, given that they have a lot of experience. Allison and Pete of course have a long experience about the IETF culture, topics, and leadership roles. In addition, Pete has volunteer experience from violence and discrimination related tasks. Linda Klieforth has been the acting ombudsperson for the IETF since 2013, and is the head of HR at ISOC. And Allison has a lot of experience about the way IETF selects leadership. >> >> Please welcome Linda, Allison, and Pete to this role. Feel free to contact them if you have any concerns, they are a very easy set of people to talk to, they will be here in Buenos Aires, and obviously everything you tell them will be kept in confidence as requested, as defined in the RFC. >> >> Links: >> >> RFC http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7776 >> Policy https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html >> Team page and contact information https://www.ietf.org/ombudsteam >> >> Jari Arkko, IETF Chair >> >> P.S. Also, while this addition isn’t strictly about harassment, this seems like a good moment to remind everyone about behaving nicely. Please pay attention to how you interact with other people in the meeting and elsewhere. Think how you present criticism, for instance, and behave otherwise in a professional manner. I know you will, but sometimes spending a few seconds to think about how you go about a situation can make the experience so much better for everyone. >> >> P.P.S. As with other announcements, if you reply to mail sent to ietf-announce or 95all lists, please make sure that your reply goes to the appropriate discussion list such as ietf at ietf.org or 95attendees at ietf.org. Posting to the announcement lists is restricted, and we want discussions on other lists. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From javier at accessnow.org Tue Apr 5 18:14:50 2016 From: javier at accessnow.org (Javier Pallero) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 15:14:50 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] ALERT! Help Brazil against harmful congressional report Message-ID: Dear friends, as some of you may already know, the Brazilian house of representatives came up with a dangerous report recommending the adoption of 8 new cybercrime bills, 7 of which include dangerous provisions for digital rights in Brazil. Brazilian activists present at RightsCon wrote this statement and are looking for support from international civil society to raise awareness on this issue and ask the house of representatives to drop this awful provisions. *The deadline to sign is Wednesday April 6 (tomorrow) at 6 PM Brazil time (UTC -3)* *Please support our friends there! * - The letter (signatures updated on a rolling basis): https://www.accessnow.org/joint-statement-brazil-cybercrime/ *More resources* - ITS Rio de Janeiro initial report https://medium.com/@ITSriodejaneiro/politicians-want-to-censor-the-internet-in-brazil-with-the-excuse-of-fighting-cyber-crime-e9d47e4a571c - Andrew McLaughlin's post (with arguments to engage companies and startups) https://medium.com/@mcandrew/brazil-s-internet-is-under-legislative-attack-1416d94db3cb#.e8hcn6et9 - Emergency session in RightsCon (video) https://youtu.be/HapGYuLzy10 - Expressions of concern from the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee http://www.cgi.br/esclarecimento/clarification-note-regarding-the-report-released-by-the-brazilian-parliamentary-commission-of-inquiry-on-cybercrime/ - Technical analysis and recommendations from Coding Rights and IBIDEM (thorough and detailed! In portuguese) https://cpiciber.codingrights.org/ --- *Javier Pallero* Policy Analyst / Analista de Politicas Access Now | accessnow.org PGP 0xEBFD028A Fingerprint 0503 FBA1 10B2 B83C 61FC FE3B 4E7E EBDD EBFD 028A *Participe de RightsCon Silicon Valley, del 30 de Marzo al 1 de Abril de 2016: rightscon.org * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 20:36:42 2016 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 20:36:42 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Twitter Q&A with Under Secretary Catherine Novelli Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: *From:* "Lang, Stephan A" *Date:* April 5, 2016 at 7:22:39 PM EDT *To:* "Lang, Stephan A" *Cc:* "Roybal, Soledad (M/WHL)", "Tseng, Eveline W" *Subject:* *Twitter Q&A with Under Secretary Catherine Novelli* Dear, We want to highlight for you an opportunity to learn more about our new Global Connect Initiative. Under Secretary of State Secretary Catherine Novelli will answer your questions in a Twitter Q&A tomorrow , April 6, at 4:00pm . Learn more about how the U.S. wants to bring an additional 1.5 billion people online by 2020. Submit your questions to #AskNovelli. Thanks, Steve *Steve Lang* Deputy Coordinator and Director of Bilateral Affairs (EB/CIP/BA) International Communication & Information Policy U.S. Department of State Office: 202-647-6842 Mobile: 202-615-0978 This email is UNCLASSIFIED. -- *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 ca at cafonso.ca Wed Apr 6 09:04:51 2016 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 15:04:51 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Note from CGI.br on the report of the Brazilian Cybercrime Parliamentary Commission Message-ID: <57050973.8030102@cafonso.ca> [English below] 5-abril-2016 NOTA de esclarecimento em razão do Relatório da CPI - Crimes Cibernéticos, divulgado no dia 30 de março de 2016 O COMITÊ GESTOR DA INTERNET NO BRASIL – CGI.br, por decisão de maioria, e após tomar conhecimento do relatório final da Comissão Parlamentar de Inquérito de Crimes Cibernéticos, divulgado no dia 30 de março de 2016 VEM A PÚBLICO 1) Expressar grande preocupação com as propostas de flexibilização e modificação do regime jurídico adotado no Brasil com a Lei 12.965 em 23 de abril de 2014 (o Marco Civil da Internet), desconsiderando todo o processo de construção colaborativa que o caracterizou e referenciada internacionalmente por manter a Internet livre, aberta e democrática. 2) Reiterar que continuaremos a destacar a importância - para a Internet no Brasil - da garantia dos princípios que compõem o Decálogo do CGI.br, notadamente os princípios da liberdade de expressão, da privacidade dos cidadãos e da preservação da funcionalidade e estabilidade da rede, em plena consonância com o já estabelecido na Lei 12.965/2014. 3) Expressar DISCORDÂNCIA com os esboços de projetos de lei constantes no relatório da Comissão Parlamentar de Inquérito sobre Crimes Cibernéticos que buscam alterar a Lei 12.965/2014, além de outras, mediante: 3.1) Proposta de alteração do artigo 21 do Marco Civil da Internet, visando alargar o escopo do já previsto, incorporando a este a noção de “crimes contra a honra de maneira acintosa”, conceito de difícil precisão com margem a definição extremamente subjetiva nas hipóteses de remoção de conteúdo mediante notificação privada e extrajudicial; 3.2) Proposta de alteração que objetiva obrigar provedores de aplicação a adotar medidas para impedir disponibilização de “conteúdo idêntico ou similar” ao previamente removido, igualmente com conceito de difícil precisão e com margem a interpretações extremamente subjetivas, quando não de prévia censura; 3.3) Proposta de alterações em leis para forçar o entendimento de que o endereço Internet IP seja considerado como dado cadastral para identificação pessoal, mesmo sabendo-se – tal como expressa toda a comunidade técnica global da Internet – que o número IP não é um número fixo que possa ser utilizado para identificação de um usuário (como sucede com números permanentes de registro de um cidadão), posto tratar apenas de um número de localização de uma máquina, na maior parte das vezes dinamicamente atribuído a cada nova conexão; 3.4) Proposta de alteração do Marco Civil da Internet, objetivando incluir exceção adicional à neutralidade de rede no Brasil, sem nenhuma correlação aos critérios e requisitos técnicos, com o intuito de privar acesso a sítios e aplicações de Internet por filtragem e bloqueio de conteúdo, caracterizando igualmente censura a conteúdos disponíveis. 4) Solicitar, respeitosamente, o adiamento da votação do relatório final, reiterando a disponibilidade em contribuir e se reunir com a CPI de Crimes Cibernéticos, bem como com as demais Comissões Parlamentares, para esclarecer e debater temas como estes suscitados. ---------------- 5-April-2016 Clarification note regarding the report released on March 30th, 2016 by the Brazilian Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry on Cybercrime The BRAZILIAN INTERNET STEERING COMMITTEE (CGI br), after taking note of the final report of the Brazilian Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (CPI) on Cybercrime, released on March 30, 2016, by a majority vote of its members PUBLICLY STATES THE FOLLOWING 1) CGI.br expresses great concern about the proposals of relaxation and modification of the legal framework adopted in Brazil with Law 12,965 of April 23rd, 2014 (the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet, or "Marco Civil da Internet", hereafter "Marco Civil"), in disregard of the collaborative construction process through which Marco Civil was created – a process which is internationally recognized for keeping the Internet free, open and democratic. 2) CGI.br reiterates its commitment to upholding – for the Internet in Brazil – the principles that make up CGI.br's "10 Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet", notably the principles of freedom of expression, privacy and human rights, as well as the preservation of the functionality, security and stability of the network, fully in line with Marco Civil. 3) CGI.br expresses its DISAGREEMENT with the draft bills of law contained in the Commission's report, which aim at modifying Law 12,965/2014 and others, through: 3.1) A proposal to amend Article 21 of Marco Civil, aiming at broadening the scope of the what is already stated by such rule, incorporating to it the notion of "crimes against honor in a nasty way" – a concept of difficult accuracy resulting in extremely subjective interpretations in the hypothesis of removal of content by private and extrajudicial notification; 3.2) An amendment proposal that aims at forcing application providers to take measures to prevent the upload of "identical or similar content" to the one which was previously removed – also a concept of difficult accuracy resulting in extremely subjective interpretations, and even preemptive censorship; 3.3) A proposal to amend existing legislation to impose the understanding that the Internet IP address shall be considered as part of personal identification data, even if it is widely known – and underscored by the global Internet technical community – that the IP number is not a fixed number that can be used for unequivocally identifying a user (as with permanent numbers of a national ID registry), since it is only an address to locate a machine, in most cases dynamically assigned in every new connection; 3.4) The proposed modification of Marco Civil that includes additional exceptions to net neutrality in Brazil, with no correlation to technical criteria and requirements, aiming at preventing access to Internet sites and applications by means of content filtering and blocking, also characterizing censorship. 4) CGI.br respectfully requests that the Commission puts the vote on the final report on hold, and renews its willingness to contribute and take part in a formal meeting with the CPI on Cybercrime, as well as any other Parliamentary Commission, in order to clarify and discuss issues as they are raised. -- Carlos A. Afonso Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br CGI.br - http://cgi.br GPG 0x9EE8F8E3 From ayden at ferdeline.com Thu Apr 7 08:41:37 2016 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_Fabien_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 13:41:37 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- NextGen@ICANN Application Round Open for ICANN56 In-Reply-To: <1460031849056-e1f73bc2-bcb22a59-fea69037@mixmax.com> References: <0.0.22.69.1d17f4eafec0900.0@drone109.ral.icpbounce.com> <56e940e3.1010007@kathykleiman.com> <1460031849056-e1f73bc2-bcb22a59-fea69037@mixmax.com> Message-ID: Hello everyone, If you know anyone living in *Europe *who is still in school and interested in the field of Internet governance, please encourage them to apply for the NextGen at ICANN 56 programme. This is a great introduction to how policy making processes work within the ICANN ecosystem, and travel to Finland is fully funded. Please note that *applications close on 18 April*. For those in *North America*, applications for the NextGen at ICANN 57 programme in Puerto Rico will open a few weeks later - I'll send details once I have them. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: ICANN News Alert -- NextGen at ICANN Application Round Open for ICANN56 Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 02:04:31 -0400 From: ICANN News Alert Reply-To: no-reply at external.icann.org [image: ICANN] News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-15-en ------------------------------ NextGen at ICANN Application Round Open for ICANN56 15 March 2016 *With the announcement of ICANN56 relocation to Helsinki, Finland* the application round to participate in the NextGen at ICANN Program at Meeting B* in June 2016 is now open. This round remains open until 18 April 2016 and successful candidates will be announced on the ICANN website, 2 May 2016. **Please note Meeting B is specifically focused on policy making and on-going work within ICANN Communities.* The NextGen at ICANN Program The NextGen at ICANN program remains the same for Meeting A, B and C: it is an education and awareness based experience, designed for a smaller, younger and more region-specific group of participants. Applicants must be between the ages of 18 and 30, live in the region of the meeting and be engaged in some level of higher education, with focus on Internet related subject matter. Each selected member will deliver a 5-10 minute presentation on a topic relevant to the community. Recent presentation topics include Internet governance, DNS and the future of the Internet. *Find out more about applying to the NextGen at ICANN Program » * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Thu Apr 7 13:28:34 2016 From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:58:34 -0430 Subject: [bestbits] AP Forum on Sustainable Development In-Reply-To: <57051342.4060404@itforchange.net> References: <57051342.4060404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <570698C2.7010201@riseup.net> (this is a copy from ISOC Internet Policy list) Dear Parminder, many thanks for this documents and many thanks to all the people, they work for this statements. But, after i read the 2 documents, i can say: The "Statement..." of the S&T constituency is a chatter without substance. Very different to the "Updated Position..." text. I love this text. And i see, that the basic principles are the same or mostly the same like that from the written ISOC principles. This can be a fantastic base to go deeper. I hope, that the people in this organisations follow this principles. And i ask me: If you also follow this principles, why you don´t speak on the WSIS+10 Review not about? Concentrated in a short form? many greetings, willi St. Elena de Uairen, Venezuela Am 06.04.2016 um 09:16 schrieb parminder: > Hi All > > Over the last 6 days I was at the Asia Pacific (AP) Forum on Sustainable > Development, which is an annual event of the Asia Pacific's Regional UN > Commission ( UN Economic and Social Commission for the Asia Pacific) > ..There is a civil society network of over 250 AP civil society > organisations, called the AP Regional CSOs (Civil Society Organisations) > Engagement Mechanism, which met for three days prior to the official forum. > > The Science and Technology constituency of this civil society network > prepared a constituency statement, which has a part on Internet/ data > issues. It also gave a shorter statement to the official forum. Both are > enclosed. > > Excerpts from the shorter statement submitted to the official Forum > > (begins) > The Agenda 2030 puts emphasis on the development and use of data in > service of the SDGs. Data is not only a resource but a vital reality > structuring people's lives, choices and opportunities today. Vast > amounts of data are now held by big businesses unwilling to share the > same to public agencies for public interest purposes. The socialisation > of all data from people's digital social interactions and its use in > public interest is a precondition for reaching the SDGs. Such data > should by default be publicly owned, with transparent collection > methodologies and well-defined regulatory frameworks for collecting > private firms. There should be in place ethical standards in the > collation and dissemination of data that adhere to gender equality and > women’s rights, sexual and reproductive health and rights, communication > rights, right to privacy and equal access to knowledge. > (ends) > > Internet/ data related issues from the longer constituency statement > > (begins) > > *1.3.5. Corporatisation of ICTs, Internet and big data; and reclaiming > them as a global commons * > > Internet, as its name suggests, is nothing but people inter-connected, > without the hierarchies of technical and institutional mediation. As a > platform that connects people, the Internet should be governed > democratically and appropriated by countries and communities as a > powerful force for equality and social justice. The Internet today is > however greatly commodified, with corporations mediating people's > relationships, surveilling them, and predicting and controlling their > behaviour, in pursuit of profits. Instead of bringing people to new > frontiers of self determination, digital innovation is captured within > the walled gardens of software applications that serve the interests of > their corporate owners. Though derived from public laboratories, > Internet technologies are today almost entirely privatised. In fact, > even their governance is privatised, in the hands of the Internet > industry itself. > > The Internet must be freed. It should be governed democratically, > towards egalitarian outcomes. Internet platforms must be collaborative > spaces, controlled by their users. Big data should be owned by and > employed for the best interests of the people, to whom such data > originally belongs. > > Recent developments indicate that abuse of biometrics, DNA profiling and > other invasive technologies combined with big data for profit, > surveillance and invasion of privacy without any safeguards - such as > unique identity platforms like Aadhar in India – are emerging as serious > threats (in South Asia at least – encompassing India, Pakistan, > Bangladesh and Nepal). This potential abuse of science and science based > technologies – in the name of promoting development - needs to be > questioned and resisted. > > The SDGs document puts great emphasis on the use of big data, and on > strengthening of national statistical agencies for better employment of > data in the service of the SDGs. However, this requires that countries > must put in place the necessary legislative safeguards that guarantee > people's rights with respect to their data. Data is not only a resource > to be used for development. Data is a vital reality structuring people's > lives, choices and opportunities today. Of deep concern is the fact that > 'public data' is held by private corporations motivated purely by > monopolistic control and unwilling to share the same to public agencies > for public interest purposes. This undesirable situation requires that > the basic issue of who owns social data generated over digital 'social' > platforms be addressed. Such data should by default be publicly owned, > with the collating private corporation licensed to make limited > profit-motivated use of it within well-defined regulatory frameworks. > The socialisation of all Internet-based big data that originates from > people's digital social interactions over the Internet and its use in > public interest is a precondition for reaching the SDGs. > > In this regard, both the Internet as the people's inter-connectivity > infrastructure, and big data as the people's digital footprints over the > Internet, should be claimed and governed as a real commons. > > (ends) > > parminder > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Sat Apr 9 19:41:47 2016 From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 19:11:47 -0430 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Next Generation Internet In-Reply-To: <5709900F.2000406@riseup.net> References: <5709900F.2000406@riseup.net> Message-ID: <5709933B.5050600@riseup.net> Dear friends, i will inform you about my proposal to the Eu Survey "Next Generation Internet". Mostly you know this text. Some extension on the end i have made. many greetings, willi St. Elena de Uairen, Venezuela -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: Next Generation Internet Datum: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:58:15 -0430 Von: willi uebelherr An: Next Generation Internet EU Kopie (CC): ISOC Internet Policy , ISOC venezuela general EU Survey: Next Generation Internet https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/nextgen-internet Dear readers, my proposal to the EUSURVEY initiative is based on my text: "Among the design principles of the real Internet" from 17.12.2015. It have a similar structure. I reformat it a little bit and extend it a little bit. 1) About yourself name: Wilhelm Josef Uebelherr email: willi.uebelherr at gmx.de occupation: engineer for technical informatics 2) Status of the Internet in 2016 3) View towards 2025 and beyond 3.1 How do you think the internet will look like in 2025 and beyond? 3.2 What will be the essential functional building blocks of the Internet then? Internet, "the Interconnection of local Networks", "the Net of Nets", has a clear definition basis: The geometrical structure of the net. This structure never we found in the telecommunication worldwide. Therefore, even today, there is no Internet. But because we need it, we have to create it. The network is a recursive geometric structure where each node connects to its neighbors. On this way can arise the net structure also in the telecommunication. The nodes are the local autonomous networks. The connections of this nodes is the Internet. A transport system for digital data in packet form. The local networks are autonomous, because they contain all the necessary elements locally. The clients, the servers and the connections. All the necessary server structures are organized locally. For the exchange of digital data we create the Internet. 3 different types of digital data exist: Text, graphic, digitized voice. They are transported as IP packets. A combination of the digital data with the digital control information for the transport. In our digital transport system, the data are not relevant. Only the information for transport. This model is based on the network of roads. All local communities have their direct connection to the neighboring local communities. And for navigation in this network of roads, there is a clear orientation: The geographical position. Therefore, we derive the addresses in our network of connections of local networks from the geographical location of the local network. We can summarize the principles for the construction of our InterNets in a list. 1) The constituent elements are the local and autonomous networks. 2) All local networks are connect with their neighbors. 3) The transport capacity of these compounds are generally symmetrical in both directions. 4) The global address for the global transport is derived from the geographical position of the local network. 5) In each segment of this network, the line between 2 routers, an error check is made. 6) We distinguish 2 types of transport: asynchronous and synchronous. The synchronous packets are preferred. Within the synchronous packets, there are the emergency call with the highest priority. 7) We decentralize the DNS system (Domain Name System) based on the ccTLD (country coded Top Level Domain). 8) This system for telecommunications is available to all people free and free of charge. It arises from the activities of the people in the local networks. The realization conditions The telecommunications system is a technical system for the transport of digital data in packet form. The technology, the materialization of the laws of the nature, stay in the foreground. The principles of the design of the structure of this system is based on our philosophical foundations. The technologies for our telecommunication system are the subject of our global cooperation network of free technology. Free to participate in the development, free to use the results for all people. With that, we realize 2 basic principles: "Think globally, act locally" and "Knowledge is always world heritage". All people on our planet need this telecommunication system. Therefore it is reasonable, that we organize the search of the solutions in the theoretical and constructive questions for the creation of the components for this system in a free and global cooperation. 3.3 Could you indicate where we should focus our activity research in the next 5-10 years to achieve? Are there new field of research to create/develop? We have two basic technological fields for research. a) The direted radio systems. Today, all antenna systems are based on the transversal waves from Heinrich Hertz. But in the same time, this theoretical work was discussed and proofed, we had also the theory of longitudional waves based on Niclas Tesla. And later, we find a similar theoretical work from Albert Einstein to the photons. I think, we have to open this space for research activities. We need a high efficiency energieflow as a beam from the sender to the receiver over long distances. This is the base for our inter-connections. In this energy flow we modulate our data. The transport efficiency should be near of 100 %. Then we can reduce the emission energy. In our system, i propose to use two unidirectional lines. And if we extend this princip in all technical communication ways, we have a strong flow of data in both direction. Always multi-mastered from the design. b) The computer architecture For our transport system with high capacity we need embedded systems with passive cooling and high data throughput for our routers and network switches. But with this existing systems it will be impossible. In our design the working memory stay in the center. Based on static memory with the same material structure. Around the cross-matrix for parallel acces to the different memory blocks, assigned to processes. Threads and tasks are principal part of the process environment. Outside the Process Units for integer and floating processing, assigned to the processes for parallel working. We don´t need registers and any register architecture, because the memory words act as registers. We don´t need caches and prefetches and sll this things. We organize a free flow of data. Our interconnections is in principal dual unidirectional. Internal and external. Consequently through all parts of our internet and local network environments. many greetings, willi uebelherr St. Elena de Uairen, Venezuela, 09.04.2016 From raquino at gmail.com Fri Apr 1 10:03:15 2016 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:03:15 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [RedLatAm] Brazilian urgent discussion at RightsCon In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Dear Gustavo I am glad Rio Grande do Norte is joining the debate. Please do count on Ceará (copying Alan Kardec, also eLAC) Also copying Alyne Andrade from Pernambuco IBDI - Brazilian Institute of Law and Informatics, a Brazilian lawyer in Rightscon We do hope to be kept included in this Thanks Renata On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Javier Pallero wrote: > A document will be published tomorrow, possibly. We will keep you on the > loop. > > > > --- > > Javier Pallero > > Policy Analyst / Analista de Politicas > Access Now | accessnow.org > > PGP 0xEBFD028A > Fingerprint 0503 FBA1 10B2 B83C 61FC FE3B 4E7E EBDD EBFD 028A > > Participe de RightsCon Silicon Valley, del 30 de Marzo al 1 de Abril de > 2016: rightscon.org > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Gustavo Diógenes de Oliveira Paiva > wrote: >> >> Greetings. >> >> I am an Internet Law researcher at the state of RN, Brazil. Previously I >> have personally talked with Dept. Rafael Motta about the CPI and I believe >> can talk with him about the current situation. Tomorrow morning I'll try to >> schedule a meeting to see what is his position and how we can sway it. >> >> If there is any written document establishing the community's position on >> the matter, or if you agreed upon any points in the emergency talk, please >> send them to me so that I can make a more compelling point. >> >> Thank you all, >> Gustavo Paiva, >> Grupo de Estudos de Direito da Internet, >> UFRN. >> >> Em 31/03/2016 18:50, "Carolina Rossini" >> escreveu: >>> >>> for those at RightsCon, the emergency session on this developments in >>> Brazil will be tomorrow, at 9 AM in The Bridge. >>> Thank you Javier for pulling the logistics together so fast!!!! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Paulo Rená - chefe executivo de >>> pesquisas do IBIDEM wrote: >>>> >>>> The full report has more then 200 pages, so I guess it will not be >>>> completely translated in time. >>>> >>>> Em 31/03/2016 16:37, "Carolina Rossini" >>>> escreveu: >>>>> >>>>> and just to clarify on process >>>>> >>>>> 1) first there is this report (what we all had access now), with draft >>>>> proposals of bills >>>>> 2) if report is approved (around April 7th), the proposed bills become >>>>> bills and the legislative process to approve then starts >>>>> 3) then the bills will pass through a series of commissions in the >>>>> House (2 or 3 depending on the recommendations that will accompany the >>>>> resulting vote) and then go to the Senate... >>>>> >>>>> So, the ideal is to stop this during phase 1... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Carolina Rossini >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Veridiana (Intervozes) just said that this report proposing a series >>>>>> of cyber bills will be voted on April 7th in the Congress Commission, so we >>>>>> actually need to act fast ...and create noise, so the proposals do NOT >>>>>> become bills >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Carolina Rossini >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Guys, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> we should sit together asap and see what we should do as a group >>>>>>> against these horrible bills >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Javier is trying to find a room, so we all host a meeting to discuss >>>>>>> what we can do from RightsCon, since so many of us are here >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Javier, we look forward to your information on where and when we >>>>>>> could meet. Andrew, hope to see you there too :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Javi, pls keep all posted. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> C >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Javier Pallero >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ITS provided this translation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Politicians want to censor the Internet in Brazil with the excuse of >>>>>>>> fighting "cyber crime" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Pay attention to what just happened: the National Congress has just >>>>>>>> released the final report of the CPI of Cybercrime. The report proposes the >>>>>>>> creation of 8 bills to control the Internet. These projects are bombastic: >>>>>>>> they attack fundamental rights directly, such as freedom of expression, the >>>>>>>> right to privacy and maim the most important parts of the Civil Marco >>>>>>>> Internet, precisely those that protect against Internet surveillance and >>>>>>>> censorship. >>>>>>>> Among the proposals that are set out in the final report of the CPI >>>>>>>> of Cybercrime are: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> a) Turning social networks censorship bodies to protect the honor of >>>>>>>> politicians. If anyone speak ill of a politician in a social network, the >>>>>>>> social network will be required to remove the content within 48 hours. If >>>>>>>> not remove, the company will be co-responsible for that content and will >>>>>>>> have to compensate the offended politician. In other words, social networks >>>>>>>> will become permanent agent des surveillance and censorship of its users. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> b) Send to jail for two years people who simply violate the "terms >>>>>>>> of use" of a site. Entered into a website or application and disregarded any >>>>>>>> provision that huge document that everyone clicks without even having read: >>>>>>>> chain for you for two years. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> c) Divert 10% of the collected Fistel, which aim to improve the >>>>>>>> quality of telecommunications in Brazil to finance the police. >>>>>>>> Telecommunications that are already expensive and poor in Brazil will be >>>>>>>> even worse. The feature is collected to monitor the quality of Internet >>>>>>>> access, telephony and other services will be diverted to fund the police. Of >>>>>>>> course, this funding is important. But for that we have paid our taxes. You >>>>>>>> need not divert essential resources for this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> d) Assigning responsibility to the federal police for any crime >>>>>>>> committed using a computer or mobile phone. In other words, the boy or girl >>>>>>>> who download a music from the Internet may receive the federal Japanese >>>>>>>> visit. Someone to write something considered "defamatory" or "libelous" >>>>>>>> against a politician in social networks may have to explain to the Federal >>>>>>>> Police. In other words, several million Brazilians who do these activities >>>>>>>> every day can be watched and even arrested by federal police on suspicion of >>>>>>>> having committed "crimes by computer use," even if they are low offensive >>>>>>>> potential crimes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> e) require Internet providers to automatically reveal who is behind >>>>>>>> each IP address on the network, informing the police the name, affiliation >>>>>>>> and home address of the person without the need for prior judicial order. In >>>>>>>> other words, everyone will be presumed "guilty" in the Brazilian Internet >>>>>>>> and can be constantly monitored. If spoke ill of a politician on the >>>>>>>> Internet, the time you will know their identity and the Federal Police can >>>>>>>> be triggered against you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> f) Establish outright censorship on the Internet. The bill amends >>>>>>>> the Civil Marco, which prohibits censorship, creating a new article that >>>>>>>> will "determine the blocking connection providers access to Internet >>>>>>>> applications for users" to "curb services that are considered illegal." In >>>>>>>> other words, any site can be brought down the Brazilian Internet. Remember >>>>>>>> WhatsApp lock? This will be chump change close to what will happen. Any >>>>>>>> application, website or service may be blocked and censored directly by >>>>>>>> internet providers and Brazilians will be deprived of access it without any >>>>>>>> defense, affecting the lives of millions of people. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The CPI report proposing these changes opens with the signature of >>>>>>>> the Deputy Eduardo Cunha, current mayor. The CPI was chaired by Mrs Mariana >>>>>>>> Carvalho (PSDB-RO) and the text prepared by Mr Espiridião Amim (PP-SC) and >>>>>>>> Members Sandro Alex (PSD-PR), Rafael Motta (PSB-RN), Daniel Coelho (PSDB- >>>>>>>> PE) and Rodrigo Martins (PSB-PI). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What most amazed that CPI report of cybercrimes is how the internet >>>>>>>> is seen just like a "damnable den" and not as a source of jobs, innovation, >>>>>>>> development, and an essential tool for the future of Brazil. >>>>>>>> In other words, they are criminalizing internet and placing the >>>>>>>> network under the strict control of the state. This is the same path taken >>>>>>>> by countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, North Korea and Russia. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is unfortunate that Brazil, at that time the freedom of >>>>>>>> expression and the Internet are essential tools, have your internet CPI >>>>>>>> threatened by the initiative of cybercrimes. Of course, the internet crime >>>>>>>> needs to be fought. But this should be done respecting fundamental rights. >>>>>>>> What we are witnessing now is not an attempt to combat cybercrime, but >>>>>>>> rather an attempt to control the intenret, that has so troubled corrupt >>>>>>>> politicians in Brazil. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you do not want the internet to be censored, share this >>>>>>>> information and speak up against the CPI of Cybercrime and eight bills it >>>>>>>> proposes to control the internet. Censorship never more. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Javier Pallero >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Policy Analyst / Analista de Politicas >>>>>>>> Access Now | accessnow.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> PGP 0xEBFD028A >>>>>>>> Fingerprint 0503 FBA1 10B2 B83C 61FC FE3B 4E7E EBDD EBFD 028A >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Participe de RightsCon Silicon Valley, del 30 de Marzo al 1 de Abril >>>>>>>> de 2016: rightscon.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Mishi Choudhary >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Renata, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can you provide a gist of what has been passed? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 03/31/2016 12:35 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote: >>>>>>>>> > Hi >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Yesterday, Brazilian Congress approved 8 internet censorship >>>>>>>>> > bills >>>>>>>>> > projects. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > This has been brewing for a long time but it is still shocking. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Freedom of expression advocates in the region can use your >>>>>>>>> > support more >>>>>>>>> > than ever. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Unfortunately I have only links in Portugues. More news to come. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > https://medium.com/@ITSriodejaneiro/pol%C3%ADticos-querem-censurar-a-internet-no-brasil-com-a-desculpa-de-combater-o-cibercrime-bb2de118efa3#.w6m5nl35c >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > http://ibidem.org.br/cpiciber-organizacoes-da-sociedade-civil-apresentam-suas-preocupacoes-ao-relator/ >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > http://cpiciber.codingrights.org/sumario-executivo/ >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > All the best >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Renata >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> > You received this message as 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 >>>>>>>>> Direct: +1-212-461-1912| Main: +1-212-461-1901| Fax: >>>>>>>>> +1-212-580-0898 >>>>>>>>> www.softwarefreedom.org >>>>>>>>> Assistant: Rose Regina Lawrence | roseregina at softwarefreedom.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Executive Director >>>>>>>>> SFLC.IN >>>>>>>>> K-9, Second Floor, Jangpura Extn.| New Delhi-110014 >>>>>>>>> Main: +91-11-43587126 | Fax: +91-11-24323530 >>>>>>>>> www.sflc.in >>>>>>>>> Assistant: Mamta Varma | mamta at softwarefreedom.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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Carolina Rossini >>>>> Vice President, International Policy >>>>> Public Knowledge >>>>> http://www.publicknowledge.org/ >>>>> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> RedLatAm mailing list >>>>> RedLatAm at lists.accessnow.org >>>>> https://lists.accessnow.org/listinfo/redlatam >>>>> >>>> >>>> Visite o nosso site ibidem.org.br para mais informações. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> RedLatAm mailing list >>>> RedLatAm at lists.accessnow.org >>>> https://lists.accessnow.org/listinfo/redlatam >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Carolina Rossini >>> Vice President, International Policy >>> Public Knowledge >>> http://www.publicknowledge.org/ >>> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> 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 From nadira.araj at gmail.com Sun Apr 10 17:19:41 2016 From: nadira.araj at gmail.com (Nadira Alaraj) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 00:19:41 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] Identified Fwd: WSIS Forum 2016- High-level Track Facilitator from Civil Society for the High-level Policy Sessions Message-ID: Dear Best Bits members, I'm forwarding to you below the email that lists the 4 recommended High-level Track Facilitator from Civil Society to the WSIS Forum 2016 by the CSCG. Soon their Bios and photos will be found here: http://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2016/About/Chairman#chairman Wishing them enjoyable task, Best regards, Nadira AlAraj *From:* Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] *Sent:* 09 April 2016 11:14 PM *To:* Sah, Gitanjali ; Ginger Paque < virginiap at diplomacy.edu>; Anja Kovacs *Cc:* Ponder, Jaroslaw *Subject:* Re: [Important] Fwd: WSIS Forum 2016 -Open Call to identify High-level Track Facilitator from Civil Society for the High-level Policy Sessions -Deadline 15 April 2016 *Importance:* High Dear Gitanjali, I am pleased to be able to inform you of the four civil society choices for High Level Track Facilitators for the WSIS Forum (May 2-6, Geneva) – and to be able to do so ahead of schedule! The Civil Society Co-ordination Group (CSCG) put out a call via member networks and coalitions (Association for Progressive Communications, Best Bits Coalition, Internet Governance Caucus, Just Net Coalition, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN). Although the call would have reached many thousands of individuals and organisations, it elicited only 7 candidate responses. Perhaps contributing factors here were the lack of travel support – but also perhaps the nature of the sessions and the type of facilitation required which are outside of the normal experience of many civil society organisations. Nevertheless, we did receive very high quality applications, and we are pleased to advise that our four choices are *Puneeth Nagaraj (India)* *Cisse Kane (Senegal)* *Klaus Stoll (Ecuador)* *Amali de Silva-Mitchell (Canada)* Under separate emails I will forward to you the biographical and contact details for each of the selected facilitators, so you can follow up directly. I will also contact them and inform them that I am forwarding their details to you. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact both myself and Ginger Paque for further clarification. Please ensure that you copy Ginger as well, as my email connectivity will be limited between now and May 2 due to travel commitments. Sincerely, Ian Peter Co-Chair, Civil Society Co-ordination Group (CSCG) Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From veridiana.alimonti at gmail.com Mon Apr 11 11:22:31 2016 From: veridiana.alimonti at gmail.com (Veridiana Alimonti) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 12:22:31 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] News about the brazilian cybercrime bills Message-ID: Hi everyone, just to keep you updated on what happened in the last days and what's coming this week. The Inquiry Commission met this past week in the Chamber of Deputies and after our pressure on social networks, in the press, and in person in National Congress (handing letters from organizations and meeting with the rapporteur), the rapporteur decided to make some changes in the Inquiry Commission report (where the bills are proposed). The new version of the report wasn't released yet, but he has publicly commented about some changes, such as the exclusion of the obligation to application providers withdraw offensive contents to honor within 48 hours after notification (without a court order). The procedure already provided in Marco Civil is maintained, but automatic take-down remains in the report in case of duplication of the content already deemed offensive. He also agreed to better define the crime of invasion of electronic devices (let's see the final wording...). As for the access to IP address without a court order, he will establish some parameters, but it will continue to be allowed to police. In short, some parts may have improved, but we still have serious problems. Also last week, CGI.br published a clarification note criticizing the most problematic points and stressing the need to extend the commission to better discuss the report before final approval [ http://www.cgi.br/esclarecimento/clarification-note-regarding-the-report-released-by-the-brazilian-parliamentary-commission-of-inquiry-on-cybercrime/ ]. Today came out the decision that the Comission was extended, but the report can be voted tomorrow (April, 12) afternoon. Since the new version of the report has not yet been released, maybe we can try to convince the president of the Commission to postpone the process - it would be even better, since the impeachment process of the President Dilma Rousseff should be closed on the Chamber of Deputies on Sunday, 17th. Before that, it's almost impossible to talk some time with any congressmen. We will try to talk to her this Monday afternoon, but things are troubled there... Despite that, it's important stress that the report's approval doesn't mean that the bills proposes are approved. All of them will have to follow the regular legislative process after that. Of course, we need to criticize these texts since now because the proposal that comes from a Inquiry Commission has much more political strength in National Congress and makes our life even more difficult in the dispute over these issues later. Here are some links (in portuguese): https://antivigilancia.org/pt/2016/04/mudancas-relatorio-cpiciber/ http://www2.camara.leg.br/camaranoticias/noticias/CIENCIA-E-TECNOLOGIA/506618-RELATOR-DA-CPI-DE-CRIMES-CIBERNETICOS-EXCLUI-PONTO-POLEMICO-DO-RELATORIO.html http://www2.camara.leg.br/atividade-legislativa/comissoes/comissoes-temporarias/parlamentar-de-inquerito/55a-legislatura/cpi-crimes-ciberneticos/documentos/outros-documentos/2a-nota-da-relatoria I guess that Katitza is preparing an online petition to increase the pressure on networks also at the international level. It would be great to have you support - signing and disseminating it! Best, Veridiana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nbourassa at INTERNEWS.ORG Mon Apr 11 12:14:53 2016 From: nbourassa at INTERNEWS.ORG (Nikki Bourassa (nbourassa@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:14:53 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Quick survey: Human Rights, Net Neutrality and Zero-Rating Message-ID: Hi everyone, Apologies for cross-posting! I'm writing to invite the listserv to participate in a survey on the intersection of human rights, net neutrality and zero-rating. It's rather short (3-5 minutes), and would be immensely helpful to ongoing research. For those who attended RightsCon, the survey is a follow-up from a session led on the subject by Professor Arturo Carrillo from GW Law featuring panelists Farieha Aziz, Carlos Brito, Claudio Ruiz and Gbenga Sesan. The survey can be found here: https://tiny.cc/rightscon Thank you! Nikki Nikki Bourassa | Program Associate - ICT & LAC Email nbourassa at internews.org | Skype NikkiBourassa Address 1133 Fifteenth Street, Suite 350, Washington, DC 20005 www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From renata.avila at webfoundation.org Mon Apr 11 13:30:06 2016 From: renata.avila at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:30:06 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] Uma Carta Aberta Aos Legisladores Brasileiros / An Open Letter to Brazilian Lawmakers Message-ID: Dear all, We just published this Open Letter from Tim Berners Lee addressing the Brazilian situation. Please, especially the brasilians, but everyone, spread it broadly. Tomorrow is a crucial day for democracy, for prerserving the Marco Civil legacy, the decade investment from our Brasilian brothers and sisters. Let's show some solidarity. Here the link, text below: http://webfoundation.org/2016/04/uma-carta-aberta-aos-legisladores-brasileiros-an-open-letter-to-brazilian-lawmakers/ Uma Carta Aberta Aos Legisladores Brasileiros / An Open Letter to Brazilian LawmakersWeb Foundation · April 11, 2016 - Web We Want Below is an open letter to Brazilian lawmakers from our Founding Director Sir Tim Berners-Lee . The Portuguese version is first, followed by the English. — O Brasil ama a Internet. Mais da metade dos brasileiros estão online, e este número está crescendo rapidamente. De acordo com um relatório recente , 71% dos brasileiros conectados ficam online pelo menos uma vez a cada hora – mais do que em qualquer outro país. Cidadãos de todas as esferas da vida estão utilizando a Web para construir negócios e criar empregos. Na verdade, estima-se que o sector das TIC irá representar 10,7% do PIB brasileiro em 2022 – essencial em tempos de turbulências econômicas globais fortes. Claro, os benefícios da conectividade vão muito além do financeiro. Apenas para dar um exemplo, 60% dos usuários brasileiros da Web acessam recursos educacionais . Enquanto isso, muitos cidadãos estão utilizando a Web para fortalecer uma democracia vibrante – debatendo on-line questões políticas e se comunicando com políticos eleitos. O Brasil ocupa o segundo lugar na América Latina no barômetro Open Data da Web Foundation – ou seja, os cidadãos estão usando dados abertos na Web para exigir transparência e prestação de contas de figuras públicas. Estes benefícios estão protegidos porque em 2014 – depois de um longo período de debate e consultas – vocês, brasileiros, reconheceram que para a Internet verdadeiramente beneficiar e empoderar a todos, certos fundamentos devem ser reconhecidos e protegidos. Eles incluem o direito de acesso à rede a preços acessíveis para todos, o direito de se expressar online livremente, o direito de se comunicar com segurança e privacidade, e a necessidade de assegurar que todo o conteúdo é tratado da mesma forma, sem priorização, bloqueio ou censura. Seu país tornou-se o primeiro a dar o passo corajoso para colocar em prática uma “Carta de Direitos” para a Internet – o Marco Civil da Internet . Esta abordagem visionária já teve impactos globais. Da Itália até a Nigéria, outros países estão tentando imitar o Brasil. E por isso, a Internet ama o Brasil. É por isso que estou triste em saber que os princípios consagrados no Marco Civil podem estar sob ameaça diante de um novo relatório contra crimes cibernéticos que está sob análise no legislativo. É importante garantir a segurança de todos os que usam a Web, mas este relatório contém muitos aspectos preocupantes. Propostas que ameacem a neutralidade da rede ao fornecer novos poderes para bloquear aplicativos ou retirar conteúdo do ar são profundamente preocupantes, pois representam um duro golpe contra a liberdade de expressão online – em um momento em que a liberdade de expressão e debates profundos são mais necessários do que nunca. Sugestões de que o dinheiro destinado a conectar mais brasileiros seja realocado para fundos de policiamento da rede são iniciativas difíceis de se entender, ainda mais quando quase metade do país ainda não pode se beneficiar de um acesso à Internet com frequência. Enquanto isso, permitir a identificação de pessoas associadas a endereços IP sem um mandado judicial pode constituir uma ameaça à privacidade online – criando um efeito inibidor da liberdade de expressão, e com repercuções negativas para os negócios e a democracia. E estes são apenas alguns dos aspectos preocupantes do relatório. O Brasil precisa de uma Internet livre e aberta – para colher as oportunidades no horizonte e enfrentar os desafios que temos pela frente. E a Internet livre e aberta precisa que o Brasil continue sendo uma referência para o progresso e um modelo para a região e para o mundo. Eu peço aos brasileiros que rejeitem as propostas atuais deste relatório, considerem maneiras alternativas de combater crimes cibernéticos e que se comprometam novamente com os princípios do Marco Civil que protegem a Internet como ela deve ser – um espaço aberto, colaborativo do qual todos possam se beneficiar. Sir Tim Berners-Lee. Inventor da World Wide Web Diretor da World Wide Web Foundation — Brazil loves the Internet. Over half of her people are online, and this number is rising fast. According to a recent report , 71% of connected Brazilians go online at least once an hour – more than any other country. Citizens from all walks of life are using the Web to build businesses and create jobs. In fact, it is estimated that the ICT sector will represent 10.7% of Brazil’s GDP by 2022 – essential in a time of strong global economic headwinds. Of course, the benefits of connectivity go far beyond the financial. 60% of Brazilian Web users access educational resources, to give just one example . Meanwhile, many citizens are using the Web to further strengthen your vibrant democracy – debating the political issues of the day online and communicating with elected officials. Brazil ranks second in Latin America on the Web Foundation’s Open Data Barometer – meaning citizens are using open data on the Web to demand transparency and accountability from public figures. These benefits are safeguarded because in 2014 – after a long period of debate and consultation – you recognised that for the Internet to truly benefit and empower everyone, certain fundamentals must be acknowledged and protected. These include the right to affordable access for all, the right to speak freely online, the right to communicate securely and privately, and the need to ensure that all content is treated equally, with no prioritisation, blocking, or censoring. Your country became the first to take the bold step of putting in place a ‘Bill of Rights’ for the Internet – the Marco Civil da Internet. This visionary approach has already had global impacts. From Italy to Nigeria, other countries are seeking to emulate Brazil. And for this, the Internet loves Brazil. This is why I am saddened to learn that the principles enshrined in the Marco Civil may be under threat following a new report on combatting cybercrime which you are being asked to consider. It is important to ensure the safety of all who use the Web, but this report contains many worrying aspects. Proposals that threaten net neutrality by providing new powers to block applications or throttle content are deeply worrying, as they would deal a hammer blow to freedom of speech online – at a time when freedom of speech and robust debate is needed more than ever. Suggestions that money should be diverted to police from funds earmarked for connecting more Brazilians are hard to understand when almost half of the country still cannot benefit from accessing the Internet frequently. Meanwhile, allowing law enforcement to identify people associated with IP addresses without a warrant would threaten privacy online – creating a chilling effect for freedom of speech, and with knock on effects for business and democracy. These are just some of the concerning elements in the report. Brazil needs a free and open Internet – to reap the opportunities on the horizon and meet the challenges that lie ahead. And the free and open Internet needs Brazil to continue to act as a beacon for progress and a model for the region and the World. I urge you to reject the proposals in the report before you, consider alternative ways to combat cybercrime, and recommit to the principles of Marco Civil that protect the Internet as it should be – an open, collaborative space for all to benefit from. Sir Tim Berners-Lee. Inventor of the World Wide Web Director, World Wide Web Foundation Renata Avila Jabber ID renataavila at jabber.ccc.de - Skype ID renata.avila.pinto Key: 0xB43D89CA1 Fingerprints C8A2 5CC8 2E10 BEC2 3E86 7E0E 4AFC 981A B43D 89CA Telephone +49 15252609522 @webwewant *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA* *| * *www.webfoundation.org* * | Twitter: @webfoundation* *http://webwewant.org/fast-africa/ * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steve at openmedia.ca Mon Apr 11 17:37:11 2016 From: steve at openmedia.ca (Steve Anderson) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 14:37:11 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [RedLatAm] Tim Berners Lee: Uma Carta Aberta Aos Legisladores Brasileiros / An Open Letter to Brazilian Lawmakers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Renata. OpenMedia will share far and wide. On Apr 11, 2016 10:27 AM, "Renata Avila" wrote: > Dear all, > > We just published this Open Letter from Tim Berners Lee addressing the > Brazilian situation. > > Please, especially the brasilians, but everyone, spread it broadly. > Tomorrow is a crucial day for democracy, for prerserving the Marco Civil > legacy, the decade investment from our Brasilian brothers and sisters. > > Let's show some solidarity. > > Here the link, text below: > > > http://webfoundation.org/2016/04/uma-carta-aberta-aos-legisladores-brasileiros-an-open-letter-to-brazilian-lawmakers/ > > Uma Carta Aberta Aos Legisladores Brasileiros / An Open Letter to > Brazilian LawmakersWeb Foundation · April > 11, 2016 > > - Web We Want > > Below is an open letter to Brazilian lawmakers from our Founding Director Sir > Tim Berners-Lee . > The Portuguese version is first, followed by the English. > > — > > O Brasil ama a Internet. Mais da metade dos brasileiros estão online, e > este número está crescendo rapidamente. De acordo com um relatório recente > , > 71% dos brasileiros conectados ficam online pelo menos uma vez a cada hora > – mais do que em qualquer outro país. Cidadãos de todas as esferas da vida > estão utilizando a Web para construir negócios e criar empregos. Na verdade, > estima-se > que > o sector das TIC irá representar 10,7% do PIB brasileiro em 2022 – > essencial em tempos de turbulências econômicas globais fortes. Claro, os > benefícios da conectividade vão muito além do financeiro. Apenas para dar > um exemplo, 60% dos usuários brasileiros da Web acessam recursos > educacionais . Enquanto > isso, muitos cidadãos estão utilizando a Web para fortalecer uma democracia > vibrante – debatendo on-line questões políticas e se comunicando com > políticos eleitos. O Brasil ocupa o segundo lugar na América Latina no > barômetro Open Data da Web Foundation > – ou > seja, os cidadãos estão usando dados abertos na Web para exigir > transparência e prestação de contas de figuras públicas. > > Estes benefícios estão protegidos porque em 2014 – depois de um longo > período de debate e consultas – vocês, brasileiros, reconheceram que para a > Internet verdadeiramente beneficiar e empoderar a todos, certos fundamentos > devem ser reconhecidos e protegidos. Eles incluem o direito de acesso à > rede a preços acessíveis para todos, o direito de se expressar online > livremente, o direito de se comunicar com segurança e privacidade, e a > necessidade de assegurar que todo o conteúdo é tratado da mesma forma, sem > priorização, bloqueio ou censura. Seu país tornou-se o primeiro a dar o > passo corajoso para colocar em prática uma “Carta de Direitos” para a > Internet – o Marco Civil da Internet > . > Esta abordagem visionária já teve impactos globais. Da Itália até a > Nigéria, outros países estão tentando imitar o Brasil. E por isso, a > Internet ama o Brasil. > > É por isso que estou triste em saber que os princípios consagrados no > Marco Civil podem estar sob ameaça diante de um novo relatório contra > crimes cibernéticos que está sob análise no legislativo. É importante > garantir a segurança de todos os que usam a Web, mas este relatório contém > muitos aspectos preocupantes. Propostas que ameacem a neutralidade da rede > ao fornecer novos poderes para bloquear aplicativos ou retirar conteúdo do > ar são profundamente preocupantes, pois representam um duro golpe contra a > liberdade de expressão online – em um momento em que a liberdade de > expressão e debates profundos são mais necessários do que nunca. Sugestões > de que o dinheiro destinado a conectar mais brasileiros seja realocado para > fundos de policiamento da rede são iniciativas difíceis de se entender, > ainda mais quando quase metade do país ainda não pode se beneficiar de um > acesso à Internet com frequência. Enquanto isso, permitir a identificação > de pessoas associadas a endereços IP sem um mandado judicial pode > constituir uma ameaça à privacidade online – criando um efeito inibidor da > liberdade de expressão, e com repercuções negativas para os negócios e a > democracia. E estes são apenas alguns dos aspectos preocupantes do > relatório. > > O Brasil precisa de uma Internet livre e aberta – para colher as > oportunidades no horizonte e enfrentar os desafios que temos pela frente. E > a Internet livre e aberta precisa que o Brasil continue sendo uma > referência para o progresso e um modelo para a região e para o mundo. Eu > peço aos brasileiros que rejeitem as propostas atuais deste relatório, > considerem maneiras alternativas de combater crimes cibernéticos e que se > comprometam novamente com os princípios do Marco Civil que protegem a > Internet como ela deve ser – um espaço aberto, colaborativo do qual todos > possam se beneficiar. > > > > Sir Tim Berners-Lee. > > Inventor da World Wide Web > > Diretor da World Wide Web Foundation > > — > > Brazil loves the Internet. Over half > of her > people are online, and this number is rising fast. According to a recent > report > , > 71% of connected Brazilians go online at least once an hour – more than any > other country. Citizens from all walks of life are using the Web to build > businesses and create jobs. In fact, it is estimated > that > the ICT sector will represent 10.7% of Brazil’s GDP by 2022 – essential in > a time of strong global economic headwinds. Of course, the benefits of > connectivity go far beyond the financial. 60% of Brazilian Web users access > educational resources, to give just one example > . Meanwhile, many > citizens are using the Web to further strengthen your vibrant democracy – > debating the political issues of the day online and communicating with > elected officials. Brazil ranks second in Latin America on the Web > Foundation’s Open Data Barometer > – > meaning citizens are using open data on the Web to demand transparency and > accountability from public figures. > > These benefits are safeguarded because in 2014 – after a long period of > debate and consultation – you recognised that for the Internet to truly > benefit and empower everyone, certain fundamentals must be acknowledged and > protected. These include the right to affordable access for all, the right > to speak freely online, the right to communicate securely and privately, > and the need to ensure that all content is treated equally, with no > prioritisation, blocking, or censoring. Your country became the first to > take the bold step of putting in place a ‘Bill of Rights’ for the Internet > – the Marco Civil da Internet. This visionary approach has already had > global impacts. From Italy to Nigeria, other countries are seeking to > emulate Brazil. And for this, the Internet loves Brazil. > > This is why I am saddened to learn that the principles enshrined in the > Marco Civil may be under threat following a new report on combatting > cybercrime which you are being asked to consider. It is important to ensure > the safety of all who use the Web, but this report contains many worrying > aspects. Proposals that threaten net neutrality by providing new powers to > block applications or throttle content are deeply worrying, as they would > deal a hammer blow to freedom of speech online – at a time when freedom of > speech and robust debate is needed more than ever. Suggestions that money > should be diverted to police from funds earmarked for connecting more > Brazilians are hard to understand when almost half of the country still > cannot benefit from accessing the Internet frequently. Meanwhile, allowing > law enforcement to identify people associated with IP addresses without a > warrant would threaten privacy online – creating a chilling effect for > freedom of speech, and with knock on effects for business and democracy. > These are just some of the concerning elements in the report. > > Brazil needs a free and open Internet – to reap the opportunities on the > horizon and meet the challenges that lie ahead. And the free and open > Internet needs Brazil to continue to act as a beacon for progress and a > model for the region and the World. I urge you to reject the proposals in > the report before you, consider alternative ways to combat cybercrime, and > recommit to the principles of Marco Civil that protect the Internet as it > should be – an open, collaborative space for all to benefit from. > > Sir Tim Berners-Lee. > > Inventor of the World Wide Web > > Director, World Wide Web Foundation > > Renata Avila > > Jabber ID renataavila at jabber.ccc.de - Skype ID renata.avila.pinto > > Key: 0xB43D89CA1 Fingerprints C8A2 5CC8 2E10 BEC2 3E86 7E0E 4AFC 981A B43D > 89CA > > Telephone +49 15252609522 > > @webwewant > > *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA* *| * > *www.webfoundation.org* * | Twitter: > @webfoundation* > *http://webwewant.org/fast-africa/ * > > _______________________________________________ > RedLatAm mailing list > RedLatAm at lists.accessnow.org > https://lists.accessnow.org/listinfo/redlatam > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Apr 11 20:48:31 2016 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:48:31 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] NOTE - Sign on letter to Financial Ministers Message-ID: Dear all, As many of you know, this week DC will be receiving all the Multilateral Development Banks for the Spring Meetings. So we are building on this opportunity and the Global Connect meetings to deliver the following letter to all the Financial Ministers in town. I hope you can join us in this effort. Thank you for those who contributed with comments to the letter drafts. The letter is ready and open for sign ons at: http://bestbits.net/finance-ministers-global-connect/ Deadline: Tuesday, 6pmEST Best, 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 ayden at ferdeline.com Tue Apr 12 09:30:55 2016 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_Fabien_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:30:55 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Call for Applications: Transatlantic Digital Debates In-Reply-To: <1460467656737-ea8e99e9-c667361e-aac96920@mixmax.com> References: <1460467656737-ea8e99e9-c667361e-aac96920@mixmax.com> Message-ID: Hello all, This email has landed in my inbox this morning. It will only be of interest to those from the U.S. or Germany, but I'm forwarding it along just in case. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline Begin forwarded message: *From: *“Isabel Skierka” *Subject: **[netsociety] Call for Applications: Transatlantic Digital Debates* *Date: *April 12, 2016 at 10:49:43 GMT+2 *To: *“netsociety at lists.networkofcenters.net” < netsociety at lists.networkofcenters.net> Dear all: The Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi) in Berlin and New America in Washington, DC, are seeking fellows for the inaugural round of Transatlantic Digital Debates . Transatlantic Digital Debates is a dialogue program that brings together nine young professionals from Germany and nine from the US to meet for two week-long sessions in summer and fall 2016. It is funded by the Transatlantic Program from the German Federal Government. Fellows will engage in discussions on innovation, regulation in the digital economy as well as cybersecurity and privacy. We are accepting applications from now until *May 1, 2016*. You will find more information about the program as well as the application requirements below and on the Transatlantic Digital Debates website ( www.transatlanticdigitaldebates.net). Best regards, Isabel Skierka *Call for Applications* Transatlantic Digital Debates is a joint project between the Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi) and New America that brings together young professionals from Germany and the United States who are committed to finding answers to key challenges that sit at the intersection of technology and policy. We seek 18 participants who work in civil society, academia, politics and business and who are willing to explore and challenge each other’s ideas concerning the future of the digital economy and cybersecurity in Europe and the US. The fellows will have the opportunity to debate and discuss their ideas with leading experts and practitioners from different sectors. They will emerge from the program with a broader understanding of the pressing issues that will define transatlantic relations in the coming years and with new ideas on how to tackle respective challenges. We hope that our fellows will form a strong network of future decision-makers in the US and Germany. Over the course of 2016, the fellows will meet for two week-long dialogue sessions in Germany and in the US. Discussions will center on two issue areas: on innovation and regulation in the digital economy as well as on cybersecurity and privacy. The two dialogue sessions will take place in Berlin and Munich (July 9–16, 2016) and in San Francisco and Washington, DC (November 12–19, 2016). The fellows of Transatlantic Digital Debates will disseminate the results of their work through blog posts on the program website, op-eds in major publications, and high-profile presentations. The application deadline is May 1, 2016, at 23:59 Central European Time (CET). *Application Requirements* Interested applicants must: - Be a citizen of Germany or the United States. - Have at least three years of professional experience. - Be under the age of 35. - Demonstrate a strong interest in internet and technology policy and in contributing to addressing emerging global challenges. - Have an outstanding academic record and an excellent command of English. - Demonstrate commitment, motivation and leadership. - Be able to attend both sessions of the program. Successful candidates will be asked to provide written confirmation from their employers agreeing to the time commitment. Please submit your application as a single PDF file. Your application package must include: - Your curriculum vitae (including date of birth, nationality, professional experience, position of responsibility, academic background, language skills and extracurricular activities). - A letter of motivation explaining why you want to join Transatlantic Digital Debates. Please refer to instances in which you have demonstrated interest and/or professional experience in the program’s topics. Please explain as well how your participation in the program would further your development. - Optional: one letter of recommendation (can be sent in a separate email). Please send your application to tdd at gppi.net. The deadline is May 1, 2016, at 23:59 Central European Time (CET). Interested applicants (and their employer) are welcome to contact the program team with questions at the email address above. The selection process will be administered by GPPi in close consultation with New America and the steering committee. The applications of short-listed candidates will be sent to the steering committee for final selection. Successful candidates notified in early June, 2016. Please note: We are not able to discuss unsuccessful applications. The program will pay for travel, accommodation and meals. Each fellow must pay a one-time participation fee of €200 (or $230). Transatlantic Digital Debates is organized by GPPi in Berlin and New America in Washington, DC, with guidance from a steering committee of experts hailing from a range of stakeholder groups. The program is generously supported by the Transatlantic Program of the German Federal Government, with funding from the European Recovery Program (ERP) of the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy. … Isabel Skierka Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi) Reinhardtstr. 7, 10117 Berlin, Germany Office: +49 30 275 959 75-0 Mobile: +49 177 17 05 711 Fax: +49 30 275 959 75-99 *iskierka at gppi.net * Twitter: @i_skierka and @GPPi gppi.net _______________________________________________ netsociety mailing list netsociety at lists.networkofcenters.net https://lists.networkofcenters.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/netsociety -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Apr 12 10:51:11 2016 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:51:11 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] CORRECT VERSION - NOTE - Sign on letter to Financial Ministers Message-ID: Folks, for some reason, a older version of the letter went up on BB platform. Here is the correct version, it will be up soon https://docs.google.com/a/publicknowledge.org/document/d/1iBdosx6FS7CcAy8dIsXVNgSkxcY_E0EbKVZ3PxTzmgs/edit?usp=sharing You can sign on directly in the BB platform. Tks On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > As many of you know, this week DC will be receiving all the Multilateral > Development Banks for the Spring Meetings. > > So we are building on this opportunity and the Global Connect meetings to > deliver the following letter to all the Financial Ministers in town. > > I hope you can join us in this effort. > Thank you for those who contributed with comments to the letter drafts. > The letter is ready and open for sign ons at: > > http://bestbits.net/finance-ministers-global-connect/ > > Deadline: Tuesday, 6pmEST > > Best, Carolina > > > -- > > *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: From laura at article19.org Tue Apr 12 11:21:45 2016 From: laura at article19.org (laura at article19.org) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:21:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [bestbits] Mass tweeting? Message-ID: <1233943543.2604188.1460474505068.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org> Dear all, As you may be aware, a Brazilian Parliamentary Investigation Committee (CPI) will start to vote today a report on cybercrimes. The rapporteur decided to make a few last minute changes. Even though civil society pressured, there are still very alarming and problematic issues: - Blocking - The text allows to demand blocking at infrastructure level through a court order. This goes against Marco Civil and net neutrality, not to mention that this is a disproportionate measure that may affect FoE online. - Take-down content without the need of notification or a new court order - They are proposing that ISPs ostensibly monitor user content in order to search and delete for already deleted, illegal content. - Investigatory authorities can request IP identification without court order - That's basically it, they want to go against what Marco Civil has already defined as the due process. They are alleging that this is meant to grant "celerity" to the process. Definetely will be massively used. - Funds dedicated to internet access and infrastructure monitoring could be applied to enhance specialiazed investigatory capability - This represents a clear deviation of the purpose of the federal fund and it is a problem since Brazil still struggles with internet access. We call for support in order to stop these actions that would hinder freedom of expression online. Help us on making them hear society's claims. If possible, we would like you to send tweets in the next hours (the voting starts at 14:30h BRTime, UTC-3) to the voting members of the CPI and rapporteurs. You'll find below ten suggestions of tweets, and the details of contacts and twitter ID of the voting members of the CPI and rapporteurs. Please, help us. The situation is very serious and we do believe that social pressure can stop these alarming proposals. All the best! Tweets to block #cpiciber 1. Brazilian politicians want to deviate the purpose of internet development fund (Fistel) to enhance cybercrimes investigation #cpiciber 2. Congress in Brazil pushes for website blocking text that could lead to disproportionate court orders and break net neutrality #cpiciber 3. Brazilian Congress bill aims to block apps/services w/ court order. Blocking fails to comply w/ proportionality and net neutrality #cpiciber 4. Congress pushes for automatic take-down in case of duplication of the content already deemed offensive in #cpiciber final text 5. Internet apps/services will have to hunt and take-down every kind of content already deemed offensive, without new notification #cpiciber 6. Internet access in Brazil still a problem, but Congress pushes through #cpiciber to use net infrastructure fund to investigate cybercrimes 7. ISPs obliged to ostensibly monitor user content in order to take-down already illegal content is a disproportionate measure #cpiciber 8. Investigative authorities want to request IP addresses used in investigation without court order in Brazil, at #cpiciber final text! 9. Brazilian Police and investigative bodies aim to indiscriminately demand IPs for investigations, and Congress is pushing for it at #cpiciber 10. #cpiciber, at Brazilian Congress, seek to legitimate disproportionate mechanism to massively request IPs without court order #surveillance Twitter list: @a_mendes2727 @depcabucu @esperidiaoamin_ @joao_arruda @MarceloAguiarMA @odelmoleao @marcofeliciano @deputadopeninha @ronaldornrn @Alice_Portugal @EderMaurOficial @roman_evandro @laerte_bessa @LeoDoPT @odoricomonteiro @sandroalex2323 @SilasFreire @atilalira @danielcoelho45 @depfabiosousa @MarianaPSDB @RafaelMottaRN @RodrigoPSB @SubGonzagaMG @Dep_Arnaldo1452 @celsojacob @dep_CSampaio @DepJuscelino @_lauracarneiro @paulohelustosa @DepValtenir @jomoraes @JFMargarida @DeputadoFederal @AlexManentePPS @DepBrunaFurlan @brunocovas @flavinhocn @deputadoJHC @marchezan_ Speak with the rapporteur congressmen of the CPI ESPERIDIÃO AMIN HELOU FILHO (PP-SC) • Telephone: (+5561) 3215-5252 - Fax: 3215-2252 • Send a message: http://migre.me/tqLBU or dep.esperidiaoamin at camara.leg.br • Twitter: @esperidiaoamin_ SANDRO ALEX CRUZ DE OLIVEIRA (PSD-PR) • Telephone: (+5561) 3215-5221 - Fax: 3215-2221 • Send a message: http://migre.me/tqLHb or dep.sandroalex at camara.leg.br • Twitter: @SandroAlex2323 RAFAEL HUETE DA MOTTA (PSD-RN) • Telephone: (+5561) 3215-5737 - Fax: 3215-2737 • Send a message: http://migre.me/tqLIK or dep.rafaelmotta at camara.leg.br • Twitter: @RafaelMottaRN DANIEL PIRES COELHO (PSDB-PE) • Telephone: (+5561) 3215-5813 - Fax: 3215-2813 • Send a message: http://migre.me/tqLVP or dep.danielcoelho at camara.leg.br • Twitter: @DanielCoelho45 RODRIGO RODRIGUES DE SOUZA MARTINS (PSB-PI) • Telephone: (+5561) 3215-5558 - Fax: 3215-2558 • Send a message: http://migre.me/tqLYr or dep.rodrigomartins at camara.leg.br • Twitter: @RodrigoPSB Speak with the voting members of the CPI President: Mariana Carvalho (PSDB/RO) – twitter @MarianaPSDB 1st Vice-President: Leo de Brito (PT/AC) – twitter @LeoDoPT 2nd Vice-President: Pr. Marco Feliciano (PSC/SP) – twitter @marcofeliciano 3rd Vice-President: João Arruda (PMDB/PR) – twitter @joao_arruda Members Substitutes Aluisio Mendes PTN/MA - @a_mendes2727 Arnaldo Faria de Sá PTB/SP - @Dep_Arnaldo1452 Cabuçu Borges PMDB/AP - @depcabucu Celso Jacob PMDB/RJ - @celsojacob Esperidião Amin PP/SC - @esperidiaoamin_ Conceição Sampaio PP/AM - @dep_CSampaio João Arruda PMDB/PR - @joao_arruda Juscelino Filho DEM/MA - @DepJuscelino Marcelo Aguiar DEM/SP - @MarceloAguiarMA Laura Carneiro PMDB/RJ - @_lauracarneiro Odelmo Leão PP/MG - @odelmoleao Paulo Henrique Lustosa PP/CE - @paulohelustosa Pr. Marco Feliciano PSC/SP - @ marcofeliciano Valtenir Pereira PMDB/MT - @DepValtenir Rogério Peninha Mendonça PMDB/SC - @ deputadopeninha Ronaldo Nogueira PTB/RS - @ronaldornrn Alice Portugal PCdoB/BA - @Alice_Portugal Jô Moraes PCdoB/MG - @jomoraes Delegado Éder Mauro PSD/PA - @EderMaurOficial Margarida Salomão PT/MG - @JFMargarida Evandro Roman PSD/PR - @roman_evandro Paulo Pimenta PT/RS @DeputadoFederal Laerte Bessa PR/DF - @laerte_bessa Leo de Brito PT/AC - @LeoDoPT Odorico Monteiro PROS/CE - @odoricomonteiro Sandro Alex PSD/PR - @sandroalex2323 Silas Freire PR/PI - @SilasFreire Átila Lira PSB/PI - @atilalira) Alex Manente PPS/SP - @AlexManentePPS Daniel Coelho PSDB/PE - @danielcoelho45 Bruna Furlan PSDB/SP - @DepBrunaFurlan Fábio Sousa PSDB/GO - @depfabiosousa Bruno Covas PSDB/SP - @brunocovas Mariana Carvalho PSDB/RO - @MarianaPSDB Flavinho PSB/SP - @flavinhocn Rafael Motta PSB/RN - @RafaelMottaRN Jhc PSB/AL - @deputadoJHC Rodrigo Martins PSB/PI - @RodrigoPSB Nelson Marchezan Junior PSDB/RS - @marchezan_ Subtenente Gonzaga PDT/MG - @SubGonzagaMG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katitza at eff.org Tue Apr 12 11:44:10 2016 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:44:10 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Mass tweeting? In-Reply-To: <1233943543.2604188.1460474505068.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org> References: <1233943543.2604188.1460474505068.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org> Message-ID: <7D1EA001-80B9-4F11-B9D0-8F46D21249C5@eff.org> Laura Please talk to Bia anda Joana since i have been told to be in stand by. Our actúan is read y but Bia, Veridiana, Joanna everyone told me not tonosunch until Monday. Im standing by Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 12, 2016, at 08:21, laura at article19.org wrote: > > Dear all, > > As you may be aware, a Brazilian Parliamentary Investigation Committee (CPI) will start to vote today a report on cybercrimes. The rapporteur decided to make a few last minute changes. Even though civil society pressured, there are still very alarming and problematic issues: > - Blocking - The text allows to demand blocking at infrastructure level through a court order. This goes against Marco Civil and net neutrality, not to mention that this is a disproportionate measure that may affect FoE online. > - Take-down content without the need of notification or a new court order - They are proposing that ISPs ostensibly monitor user content in order to search and delete for already deleted, illegal content. > - Investigatory authorities can request IP identification without court order - That's basically it, they want to go against what Marco Civil has already defined as the due process. They are alleging that this is meant to grant "celerity" to the process. Definetely will be massively used. > - Funds dedicated to internet access and infrastructure monitoring could be applied to enhance specialiazed investigatory capability - This represents a clear deviation of the purpose of the federal fund and it is a problem since Brazil still struggles with internet access. > > We call for support in order to stop these actions that would hinder freedom of expression online. Help us on making them hear society's claims. If possible, we would like you to send tweets in the next hours (the voting starts at 14:30h BRTime, UTC-3) to the voting members of the CPI and rapporteurs. > > You'll find below ten suggestions of tweets, and the details of contacts and twitter ID of the voting members of the CPI and rapporteurs. > > Please, help us. The situation is very serious and we do believe that social pressure can stop these alarming proposals. > > All the best! > > > Tweets to block #cpiciber > 1. Brazilian politicians want to deviate the purpose of internet development fund (Fistel) to enhance cybercrimes investigation #cpiciber > 2. Congress in Brazil pushes for website blocking text that could lead to disproportionate court orders and break net neutrality #cpiciber > 3. Brazilian Congress bill aims to block apps/services w/ court order. Blocking fails to comply w/ proportionality and net neutrality #cpiciber > 4. Congress pushes for automatic take-down in case of duplication of the content already deemed offensive in #cpiciber final text > 5. Internet apps/services will have to hunt and take-down every kind of content already deemed offensive, without new notification #cpiciber > 6. Internet access in Brazil still a problem, but Congress pushes through #cpiciber to use net infrastructure fund to investigate cybercrimes > 7. ISPs obliged to ostensibly monitor user content in order to take-down already illegal content is a disproportionate measure #cpiciber > 8. Investigative authorities want to request IP addresses used in investigation without court order in Brazil, at #cpiciber final text! > 9. Brazilian Police and investigative bodies aim to indiscriminately demand IPs for investigations, and Congress is pushing for it at #cpiciber > 10. #cpiciber, at Brazilian Congress, seek to legitimate disproportionate mechanism to massively request IPs without court order #surveillance > > Twitter list: > @a_mendes2727 > @depcabucu > @esperidiaoamin_ > @joao_arruda > @MarceloAguiarMA > @odelmoleao > @marcofeliciano > @deputadopeninha > @ronaldornrn > @Alice_Portugal > @EderMaurOficial > @roman_evandro > @laerte_bessa > @LeoDoPT > @odoricomonteiro > @sandroalex2323 > @SilasFreire > @atilalira > @danielcoelho45 > @depfabiosousa > @MarianaPSDB > @RafaelMottaRN > @RodrigoPSB > @SubGonzagaMG > @Dep_Arnaldo1452 > @celsojacob > @dep_CSampaio > @DepJuscelino > @_lauracarneiro > @paulohelustosa > @DepValtenir > @jomoraes > @JFMargarida > @DeputadoFederal > @AlexManentePPS > @DepBrunaFurlan > @brunocovas > @flavinhocn > @deputadoJHC > @marchezan_ > > Speak with the rapporteur congressmen of the CPI > > ESPERIDIÃO AMIN HELOU FILHO (PP-SC) > • Telephone: (+5561) 3215-5252 - Fax: 3215-2252 > • Send a message: http://migre.me/tqLBU or dep.esperidiaoamin at camara.leg.br > • Twitter: @esperidiaoamin_ > > SANDRO ALEX CRUZ DE OLIVEIRA (PSD-PR) > • Telephone: (+5561) 3215-5221 - Fax: 3215-2221 > • Send a message: http://migre.me/tqLHb or dep.sandroalex at camara.leg.br > • Twitter: @SandroAlex2323 > > > RAFAEL HUETE DA MOTTA (PSD-RN) > • Telephone: (+5561) 3215-5737 - Fax: 3215-2737 > • Send a message: http://migre.me/tqLIK or dep.rafaelmotta at camara.leg.br > • Twitter: @RafaelMottaRN > > > DANIEL PIRES COELHO (PSDB-PE) > • Telephone: (+5561) 3215-5813 - Fax: 3215-2813 > • Send a message: http://migre.me/tqLVP or dep.danielcoelho at camara.leg.br > • Twitter: @DanielCoelho45 > > > RODRIGO RODRIGUES DE SOUZA MARTINS (PSB-PI) > • Telephone: (+5561) 3215-5558 - Fax: 3215-2558 > • Send a message: http://migre.me/tqLYr or dep.rodrigomartins at camara.leg.br > • Twitter: @RodrigoPSB > > > Speak with the voting members of the CPI > > President: Mariana Carvalho (PSDB/RO) – twitter @MarianaPSDB > 1st Vice-President: Leo de Brito (PT/AC) – twitter @LeoDoPT > 2nd Vice-President: Pr. Marco Feliciano (PSC/SP) – twitter @marcofeliciano > 3rd Vice-President: João Arruda (PMDB/PR) – twitter @joao_arruda > > Members > Substitutes > Aluisio Mendes PTN/MA - @a_mendes2727 > Arnaldo Faria de Sá PTB/SP - @Dep_Arnaldo1452 > Cabuçu Borges PMDB/AP - @depcabucu > Celso Jacob PMDB/RJ - @celsojacob > Esperidião Amin PP/SC - @esperidiaoamin_ > Conceição Sampaio PP/AM - @dep_CSampaio > João Arruda PMDB/PR - @joao_arruda > Juscelino Filho DEM/MA - @DepJuscelino > Marcelo Aguiar DEM/SP - @MarceloAguiarMA > Laura Carneiro PMDB/RJ - @_lauracarneiro > Odelmo Leão PP/MG - @odelmoleao > Paulo Henrique Lustosa PP/CE - @paulohelustosa > Pr. Marco Feliciano PSC/SP - @marcofeliciano > Valtenir Pereira PMDB/MT - @DepValtenir > Rogério Peninha Mendonça PMDB/SC - @deputadopeninha > > Ronaldo Nogueira PTB/RS - @ronaldornrn > > Alice Portugal PCdoB/BA - @Alice_Portugal > Jô Moraes PCdoB/MG - @jomoraes > Delegado Éder Mauro PSD/PA - @EderMaurOficial > Margarida Salomão PT/MG - @JFMargarida > Evandro Roman PSD/PR - @roman_evandro > Paulo Pimenta PT/RS @DeputadoFederal > Laerte Bessa PR/DF - @laerte_bessa > > Leo de Brito PT/AC - @LeoDoPT > > Odorico Monteiro PROS/CE - @odoricomonteiro > > Sandro Alex PSD/PR - @sandroalex2323 > > Silas Freire PR/PI - @SilasFreire > > Átila Lira PSB/PI - @atilalira) > Alex Manente PPS/SP - @AlexManentePPS > Daniel Coelho PSDB/PE - @danielcoelho45 > Bruna Furlan PSDB/SP - @DepBrunaFurlan > Fábio Sousa PSDB/GO - @depfabiosousa > Bruno Covas PSDB/SP - @brunocovas > Mariana Carvalho PSDB/RO - @MarianaPSDB > Flavinho PSB/SP - @flavinhocn > > Rafael Motta PSB/RN - @RafaelMottaRN > Jhc PSB/AL - @deputadoJHC > Rodrigo Martins PSB/PI - @RodrigoPSB > Nelson Marchezan Junior PSDB/RS - @marchezan_ > Subtenente Gonzaga PDT/MG - @SubGonzagaMG > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 cgcs at asc.upenn.edu Fri Apr 1 11:07:05 2016 From: cgcs at asc.upenn.edu (Cgcs) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 11:07:05 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Extended Deadline: 2016 Annenberg-Oxford Summer Institute Applications Message-ID: Extended Deadline: 2016 Annenberg-Oxford Summer Institute Applications The deadline has been extended for applications to the 18th annual Annenberg- Oxford Media Policy Summer Institute, to be held from Monday June 27 to Friday July 8, 2016 at the University of Oxford. Applications are now due by Monday April 11, 2016 at 5:00PM EST. To apply, please visit: https://upennasc.hobsonsradius.com/ssc/aform/M07026C7T86G0x67023M.ssc For seventeen years, the Institute has brought together top early career communications scholars, media lawyers and regulators, internet governance experts, and freedom of expression and human rights activists from countries around the world to discuss the effects of technology and policy from a global and multidisciplinary perspective. The Summer Institute provides participants with an intensive two week interdisciplinary curriculum that combines expert instruction from media policymakers and scholars with hands-on activities such as stakeholder mapping, policy analysis, group case studies, and participant presentations. The 2016 Annenberg-Oxford Summer Institute will explore themes such as strategic narratives and propaganda, the role of the media in political change and conflict, global internet governance processes, online censorship and surveillance, and the relationship between international media laws and national jurisdictions. Applications are welcomed from students studying communications, sociology, political science, international relations, area studies, anthropology, information studies, and related disciplines. Practitioners working in media, law, policy, regulation, and technology are also encouraged to apply. This year, limited scholarships are available for Iranian and Southeast Asian participants as well as applicants with a focus on internet policy. Applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis before the deadline, so please submit as soon as possible. Several partial scholarships are available to top applicants. For more information about the program and the application, please visit our website (http://bit.ly/21USTpC) and FAQ page (http://www.global.asc.upenn.edu/annenberg-oxford-faq/) From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Apr 12 13:54:48 2016 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:54:48 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] CORRECT LETTER UP AND RUNING - SIGN ON TIME Message-ID: http://bestbits.net/finance-ministers-global-connect/ tks all -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Apr 12 14:22:42 2016 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:22:42 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] new blog post on OECD Ministerial Message-ID: https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/oecds-cdep-meeting-declassifies-materials-for-upcoming-ministerial-and-advances-digital-economy/ -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Apr 12 15:43:14 2016 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:43:14 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] OFFICIAL Deliver - Civil Society Letter to Financial Ministers, WB and USSD Message-ID: Dear Mr. Bhardwaj and Mrs. Melhem, I come to you as only one voice from Civil Society to deliver the co-signed letter attached. This letter brings a series of recommendations that are not only addressed at your institutions, but also at the countries' Financial Ministers present at the MDBs Spring Meetings and at the Global Connect Meeting, both this week. The online version can be viewed at http://bestbits.net/finance-ministers-global-connect/. I should note that more endorsements are coming in, every minute. Finally, I would ask your support to have this letter distributed broadly. In any case, I will also bring print out versions tomorrow, during the IEEE meeting, and at the GC meeting on the 14th. Kind regards and looking forward to collaborating with you, 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2FinMinGCSpringMtgs_final.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 306359 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nadira.araj at gmail.com Wed Apr 13 14:59:57 2016 From: nadira.araj at gmail.com (Nadira Alaraj) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 21:59:57 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] Millennia2025 She4Innovation: your input Message-ID: The *Millennia2025 Women and Innovation Foundation* is happy to launch the new concrete action *Millennia2025 She**4**Innovation* and to invite you to contribute to the foresight survey. Our colleague Leena-Maija Laurén, Creative Director of the new International Working Group, is on her way to New York where she will present our work to the 60th United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. Looking forward to your contribution, Best regards, Marie-Anne Delahaut === Cher-e-s collègues, *La Fondation Millennia2025 Femmes et Innovation* est heureuse de lancer la nouvelle action concrète *Millennia2025 She**4**Innovation* et de vous inviter à contribuer à l'enquête prospective. Notre collègue Leena-Maija Laurén, Creative Director du nouveau Groupe de travail international, est en route pour New York où elle présentera nos travaux à la 60ème session de la Commission sur le statut des femmes des Nations Unies. Au plaisir de votre contribution, Très cordialement, Marie-Anne Delahaut === [image: Millennia2025-She4Innovation_Invitation.jpg] _ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Marie-Anne Delahaut delahaut.marie-anne at institut-destree.eu * delahaut.marie-anne at millennia2025-foundation.org [image: Institut-Destree_Logo-ico-100px] [image: Millennia2025_F-F-I_Logo_230px] - Directrice de recherche à l'Institut Destrée, Responsable fondatrice de Millennia2015, Présidente, fondatrice & administratrice déléguée de la Fondation Millennia2025 Femmes et Innovation, FUPu, Responsable du Pôle Société de l'information de l'Institut Destrée, ONG partenaire officiel de l'UNESCO (statut de consultation), et en statut consultatif spécial auprès du de l'ECOSOC, Conseil économique et social des Nations Unies. *- Director of research at The Destree Institute, **Head and f**ounder of Millennia2015,* * President, founder & CEO of the Millennia2025 Women and Innovation Foundation, PUF, Head of the Information Society Unit of The Destree Institute, NGO official partner of UNESCO (consultative status),* * and in Special consultative status with the ECOSOC, United Nations Economic and Social Council.* www.Millennia2015.org * www.institut-destree.eu * www.millennia2015.org/Millennia2025_WePROMIS https://twitter.com/millennia2015 @Millennia2015 #M2025 * www.facebook.com/Millennia2015 http://be.linkedin.com/pub/marie-anne-delahaut/3/5b9/791/ www.millennia2015.org/Marie_Anne_Delahaut 9, avenue Louis Huart, BE 5000 Namur, Wallonia * Tel: 32.495.213.981. -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 13344 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 193235 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 8417 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Millennia2025-She4Innovation_Invitation.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 193235 bytes Desc: not available URL: From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Thu Apr 14 07:58:05 2016 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:58:05 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill 2015 - Documents Message-ID: <5CEB1FE6-6EDB-40E3-816C-FC2702D86158@bytesforall.pk> Folks, As you may be aware that Pakistan’s National Assembly passed The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill 2015 yesterday. It will become an Act if Senate passed it too and President signed upon it. It says a lot of about transparency of the process that it took more than 24 hours for digital rights activists and media to get hold of the copy of this bill. We received following documents in hard copy so had to scan them to put online for everyone’s review and access. These documents are accessible at https://content.bytesforall.pk/node/190. 1. The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill 2015 (as introduced in the National Assembly) 2. Report of the Standing Committee on Information Technology and Telecommunication on the Bill 3. Clause wise List of Amendments 4. Note of Dissent by Ms. Shazia Atta Marri, Member National Assembly of Pakistan 5. Statement of Objects and Reasons by Ms. Anusha Rahman Khan, Minister of State for Information Technology Forwarded for your information and review. Best wishes and regards Shahzad --- Shahzad Ahmad Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan IM: shahzad at jit.si | Google Talk: bytesforall Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup Office Direct Landline: +92 51 8437982 Cell. +92 333 5236060 PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From deborah at apc.org Thu Apr 14 10:21:03 2016 From: deborah at apc.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:21:03 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] New APC policy paper on access to the internet Message-ID: <570FA74F.5000107@apc.org> Dear colleagues, [With apologies for cross-posting] APC released a new policy paper on access to the internet, "Ending digital exclusion: Why the access divide persists and how to close it". We posted a blog with key highlights from the paper: https://www.apc.org/en/news/ending-digital-exclusion-why-access-divide-persist And you can read the full paper here: https://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_EndingDigitalExclusion.pdf Kind regards, Deborah -- Deborah Brown Senior Project Coordinator Association for Progressive Communications (APC) www.apc.org deborah at apc.org @deblebrown -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca Thu Apr 14 12:44:27 2016 From: roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:44:27 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Ranking Digital Rights seeks Research Director (or Manager) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Might be of interest to some on this list… > > Dear Friends, > > Please circulate this to anybody who might potentially be interested. > > Best > Rebecca > > http://newamerica.applytojob.com/apply/pFtGgd > > > Position: Research Director (or Manager), Ranking Digital Rights > Location: Washington DC preferred, New York possible; other remote locations > may be considered under special circumstances. > Ranking Digital Rights, a non-profit human rights and corporate accountability > project based at New America’s Open Technology Institute, seeks a full-time > Research Director or Research Manager (title depending on seniority and > experience) to oversee the planning and execution of research for the Ranking > Digital Rights Corporate Accountability Index and related research activities. > This individual will answer to the project Director and work in close > coordination with other project staff. The job represents a unique opportunity > to shape the direction and scope of an innovative new project whose core > output is applied research in the service of policy, advocacy, and responsible > investing. > After more than two years of research, stakeholder consultation, pilot > testing, and iteration, Ranking Digital Rights released its inaugural > Corporate Accountability Index in November 2015 and is currently undertaking > methodological review and research needed to refine and expand the Index. The > next Index will be released in the first half of 2017, after which the project > aims to continue on an annual cycle of research, release, promotion, > stakeholder engagement, and iteration. For an experienced research > professional who wants to have a direct and positive impact on corporate > policy and practice in the area of freedom of expression and privacy, this > position brings an exciting opportunity to innovate and demonstrate thought > leadership. For more information about the project please visit > rankingdigitalrights.org . > About Ranking Digital Rights: > Ranking Digital Rights is a non-profit research initiative housed at New > America’s Open Technology Institute, working with an international network of > partners to set global standards for how companies in the information and > communications technology (ICT) sector should respect freedom of expression > and privacy. The project's inaugural 2015 Corporate Accountability Index > ranked 16 of the world's most powerful Internet and telecommunications > companies on their disclosed commitments, policies, and practices affecting > freedom of expression and privacy. Future iterations of the Index will expand > over time to include more companies that produce a broader range of digitally > networked products and services with implications for global human rights. > About the Open Technology Institute: > The Open Technology Institute at New America is committed to freedom and > social justice in the digital age. To achieve these goals, it intervenes in > traditional policy debates, builds technology, and deploys tools with > communities. > About New America > New America is dedicated to the renewal of American politics, prosperity, and > purpose in the Digital Age. We carry out our mission as a nonprofit civic > enterprise: an intellectual venture capital fund, think tank, technology > laboratory, public forum, and media platform. Our hallmarks are big ideas, > impartial analysis, pragmatic policy solutions, technological innovation, next > generation politics, and creative engagement with broad audiences. > Responsibilities will include: > ● Plan, structure, and coordinate the work of a team of researchers, some > based at New America’s Open Technology Institute and others based elsewhere > around the world who are either employed by the project’s institutional > research partners or who are engaged to work with RDR on a contract basis; > ● Develop training materials and design/lead training sessions to ensure > the researchers understand the substance of the Index and the research > process; > ● Design and run an effective process for researcher communication and > addressing questions/problems as they arise during the research cycle; > ● Lead and design/refine the process for reviewing Index research for > quality and accuracy, ensuring that the data collected captures what the Index > is addressing; > ● Lead the process of analyzing Index data, pulling out relevant findings > and developing recommendations. This includes structuring and drafting the > main Index report, in addition to writing or directing the production of white > papers and other products throughout the year focused on specific facets of > the Index data in connection with emerging policy and industry developments; > ● Working with other project staff responsible for engagement and outreach, > support outreach to and engagement with researchers from other organizations > around the world who want to use or build upon Index data or analysis in their > own work; > ● Support conversations with company representatives and civil society > organizations about the Index research and its findings, recommendations, > etc.; > ● Alongside the project director and other staff, write and speak publicly > about the Index and the project as a whole. > Minimum Qualifications: > ● Substantive knowledge, gained through prior employment or academic > experience, of digital rights including privacy and freedom of expression > online; > ● Experience managing complex research projects with remote team members; > ● Proven ability to function well on a team that includes remote staff; > ● Proven ability to write clearly, concisely, and on deadline; > ● Detail-oriented; > ● Demonstrated ability for creative problem-solving: This is an early stage > project with opportunities for the successful candidate to shape how the > project approaches and structures its research in the future. The successful > candidate is flexible and open to iterating on that process; > ● Demonstrated ability to balance “substance” and “process:” The successful > candidate has the ability to understand and review the content of research as > well as develop, execute, and improve the processes by which the research gets > done; > ● Fluency in written and spoken English > Candidates with some combination of the below will receive strongest > consideration: > ● Experience working with research databases and quantitative methods; > ● Experience conducting research related to human rights, governance, > accountability, and transparency; > ● Experience working on issues related to business and human rights; > ● Experience conducting research on companies in general, and corporate > “environmental, social, and governance” (ESG) issues in particular; > ● Experience working in professional or academic environments outside the > United States, particularly in the developing world; > ● Proficiency in at least one language other than English; > ● Public speaking experience; > ● Experience in writing or contributing to grant proposals and/or reports; > ● A relevant graduate degree > > Application materials: In addition to cover letter and CV, please include at > least one example of a published research product that you have led, managed, > or otherwise made a substantial contribution to. > New America is an equal opportunity employer committed to hiring a diverse > workforce at all levels of the organization thereby creating a culture that > allows us to better serve our clientele, our employees and our communities. We > value and encourage the contributions of our employees and strive to create an > environment where everyone can reach their full potential and drive > outstanding results. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for > employment without regard to race, national origin, age, sex, religion, > disability, sexual orientation, marital status, veteran status, gender > identity or expression, or any other basis protected by local, state, or > federal law. This policy applies with regard to all aspects of one’s > employment, including hiring, transfer, promotion, compensation, eligibility > for benefits, and termination. > > > -- > Rebecca MacKinnon > Director, Ranking Digital Rights @ New > America > Author, Consent of the Networked > Co-founder, Global Voices > Twitter: @rmack > Office: +1-202-596-3343 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 20:30:57 2016 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 20:30:57 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Today with Kerry and Kim In-Reply-To: <5D97DE87C3630C40ACDF889373A7A97B0127541651@SESSMSVEXMB01U.ses.state.sbu> References: <5D97DE87C3630C40ACDF889373A7A97B0127541651@SESSMSVEXMB01U.ses.state.sbu> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Bhardwaj, Manu* Date: Thursday, April 14, 2016 Subject: Today with Kerry and Kim To: "Bhardwaj, Manu" “Global Connecters”: Just a quick note to say THANK YOU ! A key message to finance ministers + MDBs -- “investments in internet access is actually an investment in people," Secretary John Kerry, April 14, 2016. Thrilled to announce support of over 35+ countries and thanks to everyone from the technical, policy, industry and NGO communities for guiding us. Proud of our 65 new and ongoing connectivity initiatives, with investments valued @ more than $20B (see below Global Actions doc). Universal, affordable connectivity is an ambitious goal but – with nearly 60% of the globe still lacking Internet access – looking to all of you for your advice and ideas in helping to continue to shape this important international push. congratulations everyone. Manu Website -- https://share.america.gov/globalconnect/ · Global Connect Initiative Connectivity Principles · Global Connect Initiative Global Actions · Global Connect Initiative Support Document · Global Connect Initiative Road Map -- *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 shahzad at bytesforall.pk Fri Apr 15 06:13:34 2016 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:13:34 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] APC, B4A, MMfD - Joint statement on PECB 2016 Message-ID: <1CEE7C10-E443-43A9-8F3F-E999BE40502B@bytesforall.pk> Dear People, We have just issued a joint public statement on PECB 2016. More in-depth analysis of this bill will follow as the relevant documents were made available only last evening. The statement is accessible here https://content.bytesforall.pk/node/191. We have also linked our Charter of Demands here calling for strengthening of Pakistan's National Commission on Human Rights and an independent Privacy Commissioner. https://content.bytesforall.pk/node/167. For your kind feedback and future guidance. Thanks and best wishes Shahzad --- Shahzad Ahmad Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan IM: shahzad at jit.si | Google Talk: bytesforall Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup Office Direct Landline: +92 51 8437982 Cell. +92 333 5236060 PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From lea at gp-digital.org Fri Apr 15 15:47:35 2016 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:47:35 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF 2016 Call for Workshop Proposals In-Reply-To: <087701d19742$e09d83b0$a1d88b10$@unog.ch> References: <087701d19742$e09d83b0$a1d88b10$@unog.ch> Message-ID: Dear all, Please see below the call for workshop proposals for IGF 2016. Feel free to share widely! Best wishes, Lea ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Chengetai Masango Date: Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:16 PM Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF 2016 Call for Workshop Proposals To: IGF Maglist Dear All, The IGF Secretariat has published the Call for workshop proposals at: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf16-workshops The deadline to submit a proposal is *6 June 2016.* I would be grateful if you could all kindly publicize the call through your respective stakeholder networks. Best regards Chengetai _______________________________________________ Igfmaglist mailing list Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Apr 1 15:53:58 2016 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 12:53:58 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [1st-mile-nm] FCC Lifeline Program In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <013b01d18c50$41c273b0$c5475b10$@gmail.com> Hmmm, it seems that the fountainhead for untrammeled competition in the Internet/Broadband, the USA, is implementing a program through government regulation to enable those with low incomes to access broadband/the Internet. Perhaps one or another of the CS groups who are supporting the "Best Practices" component of the A4AI initiative where such government intervention in the Internet marketplace is explicitly forbidden could explain why they aren't coming out in opposition to this FCC initiative--perhaps one or another of the A4AI supporters might want to draft a letter of opposition to such interference in the market for circulation and sign-on and ultimately to be sent to the USG. M -----Original Message----- From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces+gurstein=gmail.com at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Richard Lowenberg Sent: April 1, 2016 9:20 AM To: 1st-mile Nm <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> Subject: [1st-mile-nm] FCC Lifeline Program Yesterday, the FCC passed the new Lifeline program, offering support to the poor for Internet services. See attached. RL --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DOC-338676A1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 296610 bytes Desc: not available URL: From puneeth.nagaraj at nludelhi.ac.in Sat Apr 16 02:50:09 2016 From: puneeth.nagaraj at nludelhi.ac.in (Puneeth Nagaraj) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 12:20:09 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] CCG Working Paper Series: Evaluating MLATs in the Era of Online Crimnal Conduct Message-ID: *Apologies for cross posting* Dear All, The second paper in our 2015-16 Working Paper Series has now been published. It examines the legal basis for the MLAT system and recommends reforms. This paper will be published in the upcoming volume of the Indian Journal of Law and Technology. You can access the paper here . We look forward to receiving your inputs/feedback on the paper. 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: From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Tue Apr 19 19:20:23 2016 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 19:20:23 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] State of Things at WSIS This Year -- was Re: Comments and Recommendations for WSIS+10 Review Committee Message-ID: FYI -- This is the framework I presented to the State Department at the beginning of the year, describing my approach and concerns I will address related to the Internet in the international telecommunications context. Seth ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Seth Johnson Date: Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:59 PM Subject: For ITAC Call -- My Planned Contributions Following WSIS+10 To: "Zoller, Julie N" Cc: Paul Najarian , "Gordon, Marian R" Hello, the following is a template of concerns I will address following the conclusion of the WSIS+10 Review. They reflect my comments on the last ITAC call, which focused chiefly on my concerns regarding the WSIS+10 Review as connected to sustainable development and the trade agenda. The WSIS+10 outputs are generally stated, so are of little concern as stated. The issues brought on in the context established after 2015 are in the diverse intergovernmentally endorsed pieces being brought together, where we may find how the WSIS processes are representing the Internet. So, these are areas that need attention: ICTs for Development: the use of the term ICTs as an overgeneral frame, with no recognition of the difference between a network of autonomous networks and networks that support various specialized functions by upholding policy across routers under their control Sustainable Development: The Information Society proceedings paid little attention sustainable development in the UN's full sense; this means the project has not addressed sustainability in relation to shared physical layer infrastructure Trade Agenda: This includes the globalization, partnerships and interdependence themes of the 1996 UNCTAD 9, and the trade efficiency framework of UNCTAD 10, as well as enhanced cooperation. The trade context is built on industry categories that do not distinguish the open Internet from specialized service networks, and that place the Internet in a vertically integrated telecom category (whether fully private or simulated under Title II and "facilities-based competition"). The trade context is also where copyright-related concerns are being addressed. This lays a foundation and develops copyright-related policy that will affect the Internet, in processes outside the Information Society's proceedings in which stakeholders are not as effectively engaged. Information Policy in General: Public aspects of information policy have been overlooked since the 1980's, under political thrusts for privatization and deregulation that began in the US at about the same time as the Vienna Program for Science and Technology for Development in the international arena (around 1978). This has affected telecommunications policy, copyright, and technology transfer in ways that need to be addressed before these areas can be satisfactorily addressed in the international context. These need to be addressed with a proper understanding of the nature of the international arena. Some of its most important impacts on the stewardship context for the Internet, on rights we rely on at the domestic level, and Internet governance and enhanced cooperation in general. The ITU Plenipotentiary conference asserted the relationship of the Information society project to UN General Assembly initiatives in overgeneral terms, declared the relationship of the ITU's activities for the Information Society to sustainable development, articulate sustainability in terms consistent with vertical integration and managed service intranets, and act to establish the ITU's flawed framework as underlying technical infrastructure to support the Internet. This connections need to be clarified with respect to the difference between the open network of autonomous networks and other types of IP-based networks. The assessment of the WSIS Action Lines is not attentive to the difference between the open Internet and other types of networks, so doesn't capture the special strengths the Internet brings or the effect of the Information Society on the Internet The WSIS Review affirms an approach to Internet Governance based on overgeneral terms such as IP-based networks and ICTs rather than a proper understanding of the Internet, affirming a flwed representation of the Internet, and the Information Society project's relationships to sustainable development and the trade agenda as presently articulated. In the meantime, in the same period at the domestic level, shifts in patterns of interconnection have taken place as the FCC's regulatory oversight has implemented a vertically integrated telecommunications environment (and maintained that structure even unde Title II), which fundamentally alter the nature of the network of networks. I will focus on these areas, including the WTSA's "merely technical" outputs from the 2012 WTSA conference, as they address these areas anew at the 2016 conference, while as they intersect with the present affirmation of the UN's full conception of sustainable development, last articulated in the UN's more technological and Information Society-related processes with the 1997 Development Agenda, and as they intersect with recent developments in the trade agenda as framed since UNCTAD 9 and 10. Three questions are key in relation to Internet governance and enhanced cooperation in the international context now developing, and I will focus on these How do we address rights in the international arena, and how do we assure the distinctive empowerment of network participants that the Internet enables? This includes considerations of the role of fundamental rights, centralized and decentralized approaches to cybersecurity, the role of diversity in sustaining the openness of the network of networks, non-discrimination, and technology transfer. How do we foster development of a telecom environment for open internetworking, and how does the open network of autonomous networks coexist with network environments that implement policy across routers under their control to support specialized services? This includes considerations related to the enabling environment and ICT applications, inherent limits on the notion of convergence that apply in a network of networks, as well as network neutrality, specialized service concerns such as quality of service and prioritization/"fast lanes," settlement-free peering and interconnection policy, and right of way policy. What roles should technical infrastructure and conformance assessment play in relation to interoperability, security, policy, and relevant aspects of international agendas -- including how the Internet should converge with content-related policies such as copyright? This includes considerations of conformance and interoperability assessment and the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the use of Internet-related identifiers, the role of connectivity in local governance and local content, and the broadcaster's treaty and the notion of retransmission consent. Beyond the above, the WSIS+10 Review's flaws are methodological,. I will also offer recommendations for how to approach the UN's method of review of implementation and followup, on which the WSIS+ 10 Review is based. Seth Johnson On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Seth Johnson > Date: Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:01 PM > Subject: Fwd: Comments and Recommendations for WSIS+10 Review > Committee was:Re: Important Recommendations for CWG-WSIS -- was: Re: > [ITAC] ITU Council Working Group on WSIS (October 2-3)/GVA > To: itu-d , itac at lmlist.state.gov > > > FYI > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Seth Johnson > Date: Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:00 PM > Subject: Comments and Recommendations for WSIS+10 Review Committee > was:Re: Important Recommendations for CWG-WSIS -- was: Re: [ITAC] ITU > Council Working Group on WSIS (October 2-3)/GVA > To: "Gordon, Marian R" > Cc: "ITAC at LMLIST.STATE.GOV" , "Zoller, Julie N" > , Paul Najarian > > > Hi Marian, Julie, Paul: > > Sorry for the roughness of prose here, but believe me this is > massively reduced and improved from earlier drafts. It's also not > quite streamlined to eliminate redundancy. The recommendations section > at the end is very rough, as I try to get this in before today's ITAC > call. > > The preceding text is important to organize conceptions, and I > encourage you to review it. It's much the same sort of stuff I've > been saying, just related to various aspects. But you can jump to the > recommendations at the end to get the quickest sense of where this is > driving. I guess now I'll have to go back and improve it. > > > Comments and Recommendations for WSIS+10 Review Committee: > > The Information Society project does not recognize key characteristics > of the Internet or the unique ways it contributes to the project's > goals, and is not designed to recognize how policy decisions and > technological solutions may affect the Internet. Instead, the project > encourages a confusion of the open Internet with IP-based networks in > general, including specialized service networks and NGNs. > > We are presently proceeding to the culminating phases of the WSIS+10 > review despite this defect in the project. Indeed, the WSIS+10 review > is not effectively designed to capture or address this type of input, > and has failed to recognize this problem during the 2014 > multistakeholder review phase. As a result, the WSIS+10 Review will > affirm an information society project after 2015 that does not > recognize the nature of the Internet unless we compel the review > process to recognize this concern before the intergovernmental > negotiation phase begins in the UN General Assembly in the latter half > of this year. > > In the following comments I will present recommendations regarding how > to contribute to the WSIS+10 review in light of these problems, as > well as how to correct the intergovernmental frame that UN and ITU > have set up in their resolutions as well as in the outcomes of > activities by other agencies in the UN System, including ECOSOC, > UNCTAD and UNESCO. > > The ITU Council, ITU Resolutions and UN General assembly Resolution > 68/302 articulate the modalities of the WSIS+10 Review with reference > to the WSIS Tunis outcome document and its major section addressing > implementation. UN GA 68/302 cites only the WSIS outcomes and UN GA > 68/198, so one might fairly suppose that the review process was > developed purely as a sort of reading of the WSIS events in > themselves. However, UN GA 68/198, on ICTs for Development (now > updated with UN GA 69/204), cites many other sources, including UN GA > 57/270 B. UN GA 57/270 B describes the UN system's developed approach > to reviewing the implementation and follow-up of the outcomes of all > major UN summits and conferences. > > We can better understand the role of the WSIS+10 Review and how it > relates to the implementation section of the Tunis Agenda by examining > this method of review, including its rationales and how the UN uses > it. 57/270 B cites previous incarnations in 57/270 A and 50/227, > which in turn cites 46/235. > > We might tend to think of the Information Society project as > originating at the Geneva and Tunis WSIS events in 2003 and 2005, but > it in fact traces to a G7 conference in 1995, followed by the > Information Society and Development conference in South Africa in > 1996. The UN's method of review traces to 1977, in the Vienna Program > for Science and Technology in Development, and the origin of the CSTD > in 1978. The UN has undergone an extensive process of restructuring > throughout this period. > > The review of implementation and follow-up for the Information Society > project is being undertaken in the present phase by the CSTD under the > auspices of ECOSOC, with assistance from UNCTAD. The 57/270 B system > was modified recently with UN GA Resolutions 68/1, 68/210 and 69/214. > > I will reserve for later fuller comments on the overall schema of UN > activities, represented by numerous other major conferences whose > activities are converging this year and next. Here I am simply > referencing the UN's method to help address the WSIS+10 Review process > properly as we enter its concluding phases and the UN General Assembly > commences its intergovernmental review of the first 10 years of the > project and negotiating of the post-2015 agenda in the latter half of > this year. For reference, the UN Secretary-General has created a draft > synthesis of inputs for the post-2015 agenda at > (http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/69/700) that is one > way to get good picture of the overall intergovernmental framework > being developed. The most notable recent developments relate to the > sustainable development agenda, as well as the World Summit for Social > Development, a 1995 conference that has recently been “activated” by > initiating its own review of implementation and follow-up. The UNCTAD > agenda related to globalization, interdependence and partnerships in > the arena of trade, initiated through UNCTAD’s 9th Session conference, > which took place in South Africa in 1996, just prior to the > Information Society and Development conference, and which was keynoted > by Nelson Mandela. > > > > The notable feature of the outcomes of both of the Geneva and Tunis > WSIS conferences is the fact that they are articulated almost entirely > through the general terms ICTs or telecommunications/ICTs (and in a > misleading use of the term "IP-based networks" in the resolutions the > ITU has issued in support of the project). The usage of the term > Internet in the WSIS outcome documents is almost entirely confined to > the term "Internet Governance." > > Implementing an international system of oversight for the Internet > that is based on a general term like ICTs, without acknowledging the > basic nature of the open Internet, will easily undermine the Internet > by failing to understand it. A project like the Information Society > project also pursues purposes that the Internet uniquely supports > through its special characterstics, and thus a review of the status of > the project -- particularly as it contemplates systems for > international governance and "enhanced cooperation" -- is best served > by understanding what the Internet as such contributes to its goals. > > The upshot here is that a review of implementation and follow-up of > ICTs can mislead us if we allow a review in those terms to be > conflated with the Information Society's concern for "Internet > Governance." > > By affirming the Information Society as currently framed, the WSIS > Review process will have numerous effects on the Internet, and in > various ways is already designed in ways that will supplant the > Internet with other types of networks. I have already elaborated how > the universal general purpose technical interoperability of the > Internet will be affected by a notion of interoperability that would > treat it as conformance with policy, and how the project's design > supports vertical integration without clearly recognizing the role of > an open and competitive physical infrastructure layer in establishing > the network of networks. > > The project fails to address the enabling environment, digital > inclusivity, capacity building, or the digital divide and the > standardization gap in terms of empowering both end users and > independent providers. Rather than emphasizing open and > permissionless innovation based on a competitive, freely peering > network of networks, its emphasis is more on interconnection. > > The project is examining numerous policy areas related to the Internet > while encouraging the development of international forms of > governance. A number of these policy areas relate to the WSIS Action > Lines, which were a key focus of the 2014 multistakeholder and > high-level event portion of the WSIS+10 Review. These and more policy > areas are presently being examined in the CSTD along with ITU Council > working groups on Enhanced Cooperation and Internet-Related Public > Policy, as well as in the Internet Governance Forum and various > proceedings of the ITU and other UN organs. At the same time, core > names, numbers, addressing and identifiers functions are being > transitioned from their present relationship with the United States' > NTIA, raising numerous issues regarding the implications of placing > these areas into the international context. > > The WSIS+10 Review is built on an intergovernmentally-endorsed > framework, a portion of which has been developed through the work of > the ITU, including the outcomes of the 2012 ITU-T WTSA and 2014 WTDC > events as well as the recent ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. These > ITU activities also contribute to a number of initiatives associated > with the UN System and supported by acts of the UN General Assembly. > The ITU's activities in support of the Information Society project > similarly do not address the open Internet as distinct from more > specialized types of networks. As long as this distinction is not > clear, the frame set up by the ITU leads to a broader > intergovernmental frame for the Information Society in the UN that > will become a basis for supplanting the open Internet with other types > of networks. > > The ITU’s resolutions were updated to render explicit a number of > these relationships to broader UN initiatives at the just-concluded > ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. They were also updated to endorse the > outcomes of the 2014 multistakeholder phase of the WSIS+10 Review, > directing the ITU to submit these outputs as the multistakeholder > contribution to the final High Level conference at the conclusion of > the WSIS+10 Review at the end of this year, which will produce the > UN's final conclusions regarding the future of the Information Society > project after 2015. > > The multistakeholder review process concluded during 2014 did not > address the Action Lines in terms of how the Internet contributes to > them, and for that matter it did not consider the question of how the > Information Society project would affect the Internet. The WSIS+10 > Review also uses performance measures that do not recognize the open > Internet as a distinct category from other types of IP-based networks, > such as those designed to support specialized services. > > These concerns were raised in the concluding months of the review, and > reiterated in an open letter to various relevant agencies, but were > not admitted into the materials on the basis of which the 2014 WSIS+10 > prepared their conclusions. This letter listed concerns in the areas > of empowerment, digital inclusion and capacity building; development, > competition and the enabling environment (including the sustainability > of the open Internet); openness, flexibility and innovation; > governance and cybersecurity; and rights. It also identified problems > with the performance measures the Information Society project is using > to assess its progress. > > Since the ITU has not clarified the distinction between open Internet > and other types of networks, and the ITU's 2014 MPP review therefore > does not reflect this concern, the present CSTD/ECOSOC phase of the > WSIS+10 Review in the first half of 2015 is the remaining occasion to > make clear that the way we approach the future of the WSIS project, > including how enhanced cooperation and Internet Governance, needs to > recognize the unique characteristics and strengths of the open > Internet. > > In the US domestic context we see an approach to telecom policy that > is focused on fast lanes in the limited context of a few incumbent > providers, and on interconnection policy rather than on a competitive > physical layer readily accessible by independent and autonomous > providers. > > > The methodology of the UN's WSIS+10 Review will have effects in all of > the above areas, by serving to confirm the project's frame while > overlooking the nature of the Internet. The outcomes of the ITU's > activities in these areas will be placed within a framework > established by the activities of the UN system in general. As the > WSIS+10 review affirms WSIS goals by reporting progress in achieving > the Action Lines, it overlooks how the unique strengths of the > Internet contribute to the project's purposes, the effects that the > project will have on the open Internet, and indeed how those effects > will in turn affect the project's goals. The WSIS+10 Review method > can be traced to a general system of reviewing the outcomes of UN > initiatives, articulated in UN General Assembly resolutions, that does > not provide for effective examination of premises embedded in these > initiatives. > > Recent revisions to the UN's system of review also establish new > relationships of the Information Society project to an overall > framework being articulated through the UN's other major initiatives. > > By confirming the project as framed at a time when oversight of the > Internet is placed into the international arena, the intergovernmental > context will have critical effects on the context within which the > stewardship of the Internet has heretofore been conducted. > > > Recommendations: > > 57/270 B says that the review and follow-up must focus on the progress > made in the implementation of commitments. > > The review is also not to renegotiate the outcomes of the summits they > are assessing > > This combination of features gives a clear suggestion of how the UN's > process can tend to become a self-fulfilling prophecy that serves to > reaffirm the "process owners'" perspective rather than subject the > review to examination of its underlying presumptions or potential > contradictions contained in the use of overgeneral terms. However, > there is no reason why the process can't be open to examination of the > presuppositions and internal conflicts that may be built in. This is > not renegotiating outcomes of summits, but providing for means to > recognize that greater precision in terminology is necessary. From > the standard process excellence standpoint, the capture of the voice > of the stakeholders serves as an independent criterion against which > process owners (who apply themethod in earnest) hold themselves. So > the main thing is to capture the stakeholder voice as a separate > phase, then transform that input , which is more likely to be frank > and more fully attentive to real concerns, into a report by a second > step that can appropriately be judged by observers in terms of its > fidelity to that independent input. > > In the process excellence method, this second step often is to > translate the stakeholder concerns into measures that assess the > process by that independent criterion. > > Now, this can be rationalized clearly on the basis of un ga resolutions. > > 57/270 B calls for the format of the review process to address the > "specific nature" of the issue. Clearly the nature of the Internet is > critical to Internet Governance. > > 57/270 A asked the working group developing the method to assure that > the outcomes of major UN summits and conferences "re taken fully into > account." > > 57/270 B notes the need for the process to identify constraints and > obstacles in implementation, lessons learned, important measures, and > new challenges ad emerging issues > > 68/302 and 68/198 reflect this call. > > Finally, the purpose of the UN's review process is to strengthen > political will and political impetus. This is usually construed in > terms of energizing the activities in a way that doesn't necessarily > examine premises, but clearly division can develop on the basis of > contradictions that my arise in the implementation of generalized > terms. > > This recommendation needs to be addressed to the UN General Assembly > and cc'd to UNGIS, the CEB, and CSTD and ECOSOC. It also contributes > to "continuous overall improvement in the effectiveness, efficiency, > management and impact of the United Nations system in delivering its > development assistance" > > > Seth > > > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: >> Below are my recommendations for the CWG on WSIS meeting. >> >> First, for reference, see the following letter to the UN GIS on the >> WSIS+10 Review, sent this past June: >> http://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/statements/wsis-10-letter/ >> >> >> Next, what's happening at this juncture: >> >> The WSIS+10 Review conducted this year, prior to the ITU >> Plenipotentiary Conference, has articulated the status of the >> Information Society project's Action Lines through a process that >> combined the capture of inputs from diverse stakeholders with the >> production of outcome documents for the HLE event this past June. >> >> This review process has emphasized the Action Lines but has not >> examined how they will be affected by the way the Information Society >> project represents the Internet. It has not considered how the >> confusion regarding the distinction between the Internet and other >> types of networks in the project's framing documents and resolutions, >> as well as in its performance measures, may affect the project's >> goals. >> >> The CWG on WSIS recommends forwarding the outcomes of this review >> process as the multistakeholder contribution to the intergovernmental >> WSIS+10 review that will be conducted by the UN General Assembly next >> year, along with outputs of a CSTD review to be conducted in the first >> half of the year. >> >> However, the important concern that arises for the CWG's >> recommendations, in the context of the ITU's role in the Information >> Society project, has to do with the need to correct the confused >> representation of the Internet in the ITU's framing documents before >> they are affirmed at the Plenipotentiary Conference as an >> intergovernmentally endorsed framework. >> >> As the US proceeds to remove US national agencies from their role >> in the stewardship of the Internet, the ITU and its resolutions will >> remain in place, serving as an intergovernmentally-endorsed foundation >> for Internet-related concerns and activities in the international >> arena. The resolutions must therefore be corrected prior to the >> conclusion of the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, to assure that the >> framework we are left with does not fail to recognize the Internet's >> most important characteristics, does not undermine its unique >> strengths, and does not undermine the unique contributions that the >> Internet brings to the goals of the Information Society. At that >> point ITU Member States, including the US, will be able to appeal to >> the ITU's framework as embodying an established intergovernmental >> consensus that could only be reconsidered with considerable difficulty >> after the fact. The problems in the framework that are most pertinent >> to this meeting of the CWG on WSIS have to do with how the ITU's >> confused representation of the Internet will affect the Information >> Society's goals. This concern must be made a part of the 10-year >> review of the Information Society project before the close of the >> ITU's Plenipotentiary Conference next month. >> >> Nothing in the frame of the CWG-WSIS's responsibilities as given >> in Council Resolutions 1332 and 1334, or ITU Resolutions 102, 140, >> 178, or UN GA Resolution 68/302 contradicts the above considerations. >> They simply fail to recognize that the Information Society project's >> framing documents, and the WSIS+10 Review, lead us to a new governance >> context that will allow the nature of the Internet to be reshaped >> under a new basis of authority, while the frame encourages confusion >> between the Internet and other IP-based networks. >> >> >> Recommendations >> >> (The latter recommendations are more concrete manifestations of the >> first more abstract ones.) >> >> 1) Recognize the needs to address the ways in which the Internet >> contributes to the Information Society's goals, and to clarify the >> proper usage of the terms Internet, IP-based networks and >> Next-generation networks in the ITU's framing resolutions, prior to >> the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference and prior to transferring the >> WSIS+10 Review to the CSTD and the UN General Assembly next year. >> >> 2) Recognize that unless the distinction between the Internet and >> other types of networks is explicitly acknowledged and the question of >> how the Internet contributes to the Action Lines is explicitly raised, >> it is unlikely that the review will capture how well the project >> brings the advantages of the Internet to the Action Lines. >> >> 3) Use a methodology that conducts the process of capturing the voice >> of stakeholders independently from a process of articulating >> forward-looking outcome documents. >> >> Having stakeholders both voice comments on the status of the WSIS >> Action Lines and prepare outcome statements to direct the future >> course of the WSIS project, in the same process, can interfere with >> frank and full commentary. >> >> A better approach would be to break the review into a first phase >> collecting comments and concerns on the Action Lines as voiced by >> stakeholders, and then a separate phase by other participants >> developing conclusions regarding what these inputs constitute. Better >> yet would be a second phase that translates the captured input into >> quantifiable criteria for measuring progress in the future, in the >> voice of stakeholders. >> >> 4) Issue a statement indicating that: >> >> - the WSIS+10 HLE Outcomes do not address how well the project >> employs the advantages of the Internet to serve the goals of the >> Information Society >> - the Information Society's performance measures do not yet address >> the distinction between the Internet and other types of networks >> - the unique contributions that the Internet brings to the goals of >> the Information Society need to be clarified before the completion of >> WSIS+10 Review >> - the question of recognizing how the Internet and policy and >> development initiatives of the Information Society affect each other >> should be identified as an area for continued focus >> - performance measures that distinguish between types of networks >> will help clarify the relationship between Information Society goals >> and the Internet >> - the relationship between the Action Lines and the nature of the >> Internet are important global references for improving connectivity >> and access in the use of ICTs in promoting the objectives of the Plan >> of Action and of the endorsed WSIS+10 High Level Event Outcome >> Documents >> >> Issue this statement as a complement to the Report on the Outcomes >> of the WG-WSIS meetings held since PP-10 >> >> 5) Note for the benefit of CWG-WSIS some of the issues elaborated in >> the analysis in my letter on how confusion regarding the nature of the >> Internet can affect the Action Lines, particularly C2, C5 and C6. >> >> 6) Recommend that processes be initiated to develop our understanding >> of this relationship between the Internet and the IS goals >> >> 7) Notify CWG-WSIS that >> >> - the ITU Plenipotentiary Resolutions need to be revised to >> incorporate recognition of the difference between Internet, IP-based >> networks and Next-generation networks. >> >> This will affect PP Resolutions 140, 178, 172 and 102, all of >> which define the responsibilities of CWG-WSIS. >> >> The revisions needed include the following: >> >> The confusion of terms will need to be clarified in PP 101, >> 102, 133, 137 and 180. >> >> The activities of the ITU-T and ITU-D Sectors will need to be >> defined with recognition of these distinctions in PP 178 and PP 140. >> PP 122 and PP 135, which set parameters for PP 178 and PP 140 >> respectively, also will need to reflect these distinctions. >> >> - the ITU's WSIS Performance Measures need to be revised to >> distinguish between open Internet networks and specialized service >> networks, and to track the difference between vertically integrated >> telecommunications contexts and contexts that support competitive >> access to shared physical infrastructure. >> >> This will affect PP 172 and 131. >> >> >> Seth >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Seth Johnson wrote: >>> Hi, I'll likely make a few comments on these resolutions and your >>> contribution to the CWG. We need to note that any issues in terms of >>> how the ITU's activities derive from 2010 PP Resolutions will need to >>> be considered at the 2014 conference. This relates to the ITU's role, >>> but how to address it is a complex question that I'll be trying to >>> sort out. >>> >>> The phone call drew to a close a bit too quickly for me to stick in my >>> two cents, so noting this here. >>> >>> >>> Seth >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Gordon, Marian R wrote: >>>> The meeting will be held at ATT, 1120 20th Street, Conference Room 8-2 on >>>> the 8th floor. If you will be attending the meeting in person, please let >>>> Amy Alvarez know, who I copy here for your convenience. A conference >>>> bridge will follow. >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Gordon, Marian R wrote: >>> For those of you who have not yet let Sally Gadsten know that you wish to be >>> part of the US delegation to the ITU CWG/WSIS meeting on October 2-3, 2014, >>> please do so no later than Monday, September 22nd. Sally is copied on this >>> email for you convenience. Thanks, Marian From sunil at cis-india.org Wed Apr 20 07:25:03 2016 From: sunil at cis-india.org (Sunil Abraham) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 16:55:03 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] CIS Response to the ICANN Ombudsman's Office Message-ID: *CIS Statement on ICANN55 Sexual Harassment : A response to the ICANN Ombudsman’s Office * On March 30, 2016, the Ombudsman’s Office at ICANN released its final report (Report) in the matter of the complaint filed by Ms. Padmini Baruah (Complainant). The Complainant had alleged that she had been subjected to conduct that amounted to sexual harassment by a member of the ICANN community attending ICANN 55. We would like to state for the record our extreme disappointment with the Ombudsman’s Report. The Report bases the inability to carry on any further investigation in this regard on the claim that confidentiality of proceedings was breached. The breach of confidentiality, if an issue, must be treated as a separate matter and nothing prevents the Ombudsman from pursuing it independently. However, this does not prevent an investigation into the incident of sexual harassment, itself. Further, we find that the tone of the Report is problematic. It completely disregards the Complainant’s detailed account of events, and fails to even acknowledge them in the final Report. Further, many parts of the statement are completely misleading. For example, in describing the event, the Report says that “There was a general discussion about food” but as per the accounts of the Complainant as well as the witness to the incident, this is completely untrue. The Complainant’s account to the Ombudsman does not speak of any discussion prior to the incident in question whatsoever and to claim otherwise is to dilute the complaint significantly. There have also been lapses in procedure throughout this process. First, during ICANN55, the Complainant was given no interim relief, with the alleged perpetrator freely walking around the conference venue, and as per the Complainant’s account, at one instance even staring at the her. Second, the Ombudsman failed to contact a witness who, according to the Complainant, was referred to by her both at the meeting and through email after ICANN55. In spite of the witness being put in direct correspondence with the Ombudsman on 24th March, 2016, as of 5th April, 2016, the witness has still not been contacted or asked to provide a statement. This shows an utter lack of seriousness in dealing with this issue. Another failing has been that the Ombudsman provided no clarity to the Complainant with respect to the powers and mandate of his office, leading to a situation of no alternative forum and no clear signal. Please find our specific objections to the Report: 1. What constitutes sexual harassment? In his Report, the Ombudsman states that “the matters alleged cannot be considered serious by any standard.” He further goes to say that if “in fact the action and statement were made, it may have been a lapse of good manners and insensitive to gender.” The Report does not clarify if the Office of the Ombudsman has used a standard or a definition of what constitutes sexual harassment to arrive at the conclusion that the conduct in question was merely “a lapse of good manners and insensitive to gender,” nor is there any reasoning for why he considers the matters alleged as not “serious by any standard”. Without going into questions of fact, we find the levity with which the Report deals with the alleged conduct extremely problematic and inconsiderate of globally recognised principles on what constitutes sexual harassment. Article 11 of the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) defines sexual harassment as including: *“such unwelcome sexually determined behaviour as physical contact and advances, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography and sexual demand, whether by words or actions. Such conduct can be humiliating and may constitute a health and safety problem; it is discriminatory when the woman has reasonable grounds to believe that her objection would disadvantage her in connection with her employment, including recruitment or promotion, or when it creates a hostile working environment.”* Further, the Employment Policy of ICANN itself includes within the scope of sexual harassment “verbal, physical and visual conduct that creates an intimidating, offensive or hostile working environment, or interferes with work performance.” The policy goes on to state: *Harassing conduct can take many forms and includes, but is not limited to, the following:1. Slurs, jokes, epithets, derogatory comments, statements or gestures;2. Assault, impeding or blocking another’s movement or otherwise physically interfering with normal work;3. Pictures, posters, drawings or cartoons based upon the characteristics mentioned in the first paragraph of this policy.Sexually harassing conduct includes all of the above prohibited actions, as well as other unwelcome conduct, such as requests for sexual favors, conversation containing sexual comments, and unwelcome sexual advances.”* The alleged conduct involved physical contact with the victim, offensive remarks and behaviour that made the victim extremely uncomfortable, and falls within the scope of both definitions mentioned above. The Ombudsman’s Report states at a later stage that “ICANN, for internal staff purposes and for the board has a specific zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment.” While we appreciate the difficulty of the Ombudsman’s office that the Internal Policy for ICANN staff is not applicable in the immediate matter, we are extremely puzzled why an unspecified metric for determining sexual harassment so divergent from not only globally accepted standards but also ICANN’s own internal policy was relied upon. 2. Confidentiality While this entire process has, according to the Ombudsman’s report, boiled down to the question of a breach of confidentiality, it remains to be shown how a breach in confidentiality nullifies an allegation of sexual harassment. It is forseeable that the question of confidentiality becomes a separate matter, but to make it the deciding factor is a distinct investigation is completely ridiculous. While breach of confidentiality may be damaging to the reputation of the alleged perpetrator, how does it have an impact on the facts and questions that the Ombudsman is seeking to address? Section 3 of Article V of the Bylaws for ICANN provides that the Office of Ombudsman shall comply with ICANN’s confidentiality policies. This mandate applies the Ombudsman’s office and not on the Complainant. As per the Complainant, she had, at no instance, been asked to maintain confidentiality of the event. According to the Complainant, the lack of a clear policy and the intent of the Ombudsman to close the investigation left her with little choice than to go public. The Complainant decided to go public in the absence of processes on which she could put faith upon, and in the absence of a clear indication of the expected course of action. The next issue is whether revealing the name of the alleged perpetrator compromises the procedural fairness of the investigation, and to what extent. In what ways does it compromise the perpetrator’s ability to defend himself and the ombudsman’s ability to come to an impartial assessment? There are three recognised rules of procedural fairness. First, the parties must be provided with a right to fair hearing (the Hearing Rule). Second, the decision-maker must be an impartial body (the Bias Rule). Finally, the decision must be based on logically probative evidence and not on mere speculation or suspicion. (the Evidence Rule). The Ombudsman’s Report seems to suggest the Hearing Rule has been compromised on account of the Complainant revealing the name of the alleged perpetrator in her public statement. The Report states that *“The other party has been publically named without an opportunity to make any comment or denial of the incident. It is also part of my role as the ombudsman to ensure that standards of procedural fairness are met, and the premature publication regrettably does not meet the standards of natural justice, because the parties have a right to be heard before this occurred.”* The Hearing Rule requires a decision-maker to inform a person of the case against them or their interests and give them an opportunity to be heard. Procedural fairness is often said to be breached in cases where there is a legitimate expectation that a decision-maker will act in a certain ways and does not. Further, the Hearing Rule mandates that parties are given reasonable notice, adequate time to prepare for a meeting, entitlement to a hearing and an opportunity to respond to adverse materials. We understand that revealing the alleged perpetrator’s identity in a public statement can cause damage to his reputation, and there may be separate remedies available to him to address the same, either within the ICANN framework or outside of it. The parties have a right be a fair hearing in front the decision-maker (in this case, the Office of the Ombudsman), which should be in no way impacted by a public statement. There could be an argument that in some cases, a trial by media and overwhelming public opinion can compromise juries and the scales of justice. Such a concern, we feel, may not be pertinent, in the immediate case, owing to the presence of a judicially trained decision-maker and limited press coverage of the incident in question. Therefore, we completely fail to understand how the public statement compromised the Hearing Rule, so much so that the only recourse that the Ombudsman’s office could imagine was to arrive at a conclusion of his inability to be an impartial adjudicator and refuse to investigate further. It is worth noting that the Complainant, a final year law student, has time and again, emphasised the importance of procedural fairness in her interactions with the Ombudsman’s office and has sought satisfy the Evidence Rule, through her testimony and that of a witness, who—it cannot be emphasised enough—was never approached by the Ombudsman’s office. In conclusion, we also want to state that we found the tone of the Ombudsman’s Report extremely surprising in that it seemed to place much more value in the reputational damage to the alleged perpetrator than the need to comprehensively investigate and address the sexual harassment complaint of the Complainant. This balance is, in our opinion highly skewed, and while we do appreciate the value for confidentiality to the accused, we find issue with an adjudication process which seems to make this its priority. 3. Ombudsman’s role, powers and duties In our opinion, the role played by the Ombudsman’s office in this matter leaves a lot to be desired. We state our specific objections below: a. The question of jurisdiction It was conveyed to the Complainant as well as clearly stated in the Ombudsman’s Report that this was a matter in which he had “jurisdiction as any such allegations are a matter of unfairness under Bylaw V.” However, a reading of Article V of the ICANN Bylaws reveals the following: “The principal function of the Ombudsman shall be to provide an independent internal evaluation of complaints by members of the ICANN community who believe that the ICANN staff, Board or an ICANN constituent body has treated them unfairly. The Ombudsman shall serve as an objective advocate for fairness, and shall seek to evaluate and where possible resolve complaints about unfair or inappropriate treatment by ICANN staff, the Board, or ICANN constituent bodies, clarifying the issues and using conflict resolution tools such as negotiation, facilitation, and "shuttle diplomacy" to achieve these results.” (emphasis added) According to the above clause, only complaints against ICANN staff, Board and ICANN constituent body fall within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. If this is the case, then we wonder on what basis did the Ombudsman’s office undertake the investigation in this matter, let alone, recommending shutting down of the complaint. We also feel that it would have been the duty of the Ombudsman’s office to very clearly spell out the extent of their authority, and the kind of redressal they could offer to the Complainant, at the very outset. If the Complainant was made aware of the lack of authority on the Ombudsman’s part, she could have immediately explored other avenues to pursue her complaint at ICANN 55 rather than relying on a process which had ultimately proved fruitless. b. The manner in which the complaint was dealt with. We find various issues with the manner in which the complaint was dealt with by the Ombudsman’s office. According to the Complainant, on March 15th, 2016, she received an email from the Ombudsman stating that he was inclined to shut down the case because: a) the alleged perpetrator had not conceded or admitted to the incident, and b) he had apparently left Marrakech on 10 March, 2016, putting him outside the territorial jurisdiction of the conference. We believe that the neither of the two factors mentioned should have any bearing on whether the Ombudsman chooses to proceed with the investigation. The alleged perpetrator had been a part of the ICANN community for many years, and his leaving Marrakech did not in any way curtailed the Ombudsman’s powers to censure and sanction him. With regard to the first matter of the alleged perpetrator denying the incident, we feel that there were a number of things that the Ombudsman’s office could have by way to trying to reconstruct the events of March 6, 2016, most importantly seeking an account from the witness. Another reason for shutting down the case provided by the Ombudsman was the delay in receiving some details from the Complainant. The Ombudsman’s office was aware that the Complainant had been travelling back to India after ICANN 5 in the past few days, and the haste in wanting to close the investigations is odd, to say the least. This raises questions about the seriousness with which the Ombudsman viewed and pursued the matter. Further, no records were kept of the Complainant’s interview during her meeting with the Ombudsman. According to the Complainant’s account, she asked for the same and was told the meeting was being electronically registered. According to her, she was told that she would be provided a written account of her complaint but this was not done for as long as 19 days after the meeting. On March 25, as per the Complainant’s account, she received a response with the screenshot about her complaint which contained a single line – “Complaint that there is no sexual harassment policy for ICANN meetings” However, this did not capture her individual complaint. We believe that by making the Complainant repeatedly seek information and failing to properly address her concerns, the Ombudsman’s office made the process extremely difficult for the Complainant. The Ombudsman's office and any authority investigating a sexual harassment complaint is expected to be sympathetic to the Complainant and without compromising procedural fairness, make the process as painless for them. In this respect, the Ombudsman has clearly failed. The lack of record-keeping also reflects in the narration of the events in the Ombudsman’s Report which is inaccurate according to the accounts of both the victim and the witness, as narrated to us. It is worth noting that it was in light of these factors that the Complainant felt compelled to release a public statement on this matter on March 19, 2016. Had the Ombudsman’s office acted more responsibly and not made her question her faith in the fairness of the process, the Complainant may not have felt the need to resort to alternate avenues to seek justice. c. Factual divergence The Ombudsman’s Report says the the Complainant “provided the name of a witness, but this was only given after the substantial publicity and after the other party was named.” While this in itself should not have prevented the Ombudsman from seeking an account from the witness before adjudicating on the matter, we are even more concerned about the divergence in facts as presented by the Ombudsman and the Complainant. The Complainant in her account is extremely clear about having mentioned the existence of a witness and her name to the Ombudsman a number of times during her meetings with the Ombudsman at Marrakech. As there are no written records of these meetings, we have no way to ascertain the veracity of the two accounts, but we find this extremely disturbing 4. Clarifications to previous statement CIS published a Statement on this issue on March 21, 2016. Following this, a few complaints and disagreements have been levelled on social media and mailing lists. We think it important to clarify some important concerns expressed by the ICANN community. a. In our ask for “Gender sensitization” of the ICANN community, we were merely reflecting the requirement under India’s sexual harassment law. This was in no way to offend or accuse the community. b. In discussing the Ombudsman’s office and the lack of diversity, we used the term “white male” to demonstrate how the office was simply not equipped to deal with such a sensitive matter. This was not to demonize a particular demographic, but instead to point out to the vast cultural and gender differences on understanding invasion of space and discomfort due to sexual harassment. The stark difference in approach and seriousness of this issue is evidenced from the course of events that have taken place since the 6th of March, where the Complainant’s case of sexual harassment has been reduced to a “lapse of good manners.” -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maryant.fernandez-perez at edri.org Thu Apr 21 05:55:40 2016 From: maryant.fernandez-perez at edri.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Maryant_Fern=c3=a1ndez?=) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 11:55:40 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Global letter to Europe's regulators to defend net neutrality. Deadline to sign on: 25 April Message-ID: <5718A39C.1080402@edri.org> Dear all, I'm writing on behalf of a coalition of NGOs that are putting together a letter to the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on the net neutrality guidelines they need to issue by 30 August 2016. [1] Please, find the letter attached and below. This is the list of the current signatories: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11YLPOVtG1ScqH_2KR1GU07fbpzCjRUrZ98FFmm9gd5g/edit#gid=0 If you want to sign on, please let me know or put the name of your organisation and contact person here . Deadline: 25 April Launch date: in principle, 26 April Thanks and best, Maryant [1] Article 5(3) of the EU Regulation on net neutrality: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32015R2120 Background info: https://edri.org/edris-first-input-on-net-neutrality-guidelines/ ------------------ 26 April 2016 Global open civil society letter to the Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communication (BEREC) in support of strong net neutrality guidelines The signatories of this letter support BEREC and its members in their task to provide guidelines on the implementation of the EU Regulation 2015/2120.1 The new EU regulation creates a basis for strong and stable net neutrality safeguards. We therefore encourage BEREC and the 28 national telecom regulators to bring an end to the uncertainty and establish strong net neutrality guidelines. Clear guidelines will ensure a digital single market, with the freedom and legal certainty to provide services across borders and consumer choice. We urge you to respect the Regulation's goal to “ensure the continued functioning of the internet ecosystem as an engine of innovation”, respecting the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Since the inception of the Internet, net neutrality has been a vital precondition for freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, competition and freedom to conduct business. The success of the US and Indian consultations should boost BEREC's work. 3.7 million comments were submitted to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC)'s consultation, while over one million comments were submitted to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). These are probably the biggest direct democratic engagements in any telecom regulatory issue in history. Now it is the European Union's turn. BEREC decided to put the consultation at the very end of its decision making process, with very little time to analyse the feedback and let alone take it into account. We encourage you to reconsider the limited and tight deadline for responding to your public consultation, so you can duly consider citizens and stakeholders' input when finalising the guidelines. A flexible approach to the deadline will have no negative consequences, but will add credibility to the process. In the elaboration of the guidelines, we ask you to consider the following points: - "Services other than internet access services" (also known as "specialised services") need careful consideration. Weak guidelines could permit the circumvention of all net neutrality safeguards. - Zero-Rating is a harmful practice that restricts consumer choice, distorts competition, undermines the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and the freedom to conduct business. The Regulation should be understood as prohibiting this abuse. - Traffic management should be as application-agnostic as possible. Class-based traffic-management risks discriminating against services, harming user choice, discouraging to use encryption and would contradict transparency requirements established under the Regulation. The difficult questions you are faced with in these months are not about theoretical business models. You are setting the limits and safeguards for the future of the Internet in Europe and ensuring that Europe will not be globally disadvantaged by anti-competitive restrictive practices. Signatories: -- Maryant Fernandez Perez Advocacy Manager European Digital Rights Rue Belliard 20 B- 1040 Brussels http://edri.org Tel: +32 2 274 25 70 PGP: D59A 1D3F 50CC 231B DCFE 3F2C 92FA 6F29 3D74 0B42 @edri | @maryantfp Donate to EDRi! https://edri.org/donate/ Subscribe to the EDRi-gram, our fortnightly roundup of digital rights news! http://edri.org/newsletters/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20160414_NN_BEREC_CivilSocietyletter.odt Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text Size: 66327 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bkilic at citizen.org Thu Apr 21 11:49:09 2016 From: bkilic at citizen.org (Burcu Kilic) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:49:09 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Public Citizen is hiring a senior-level public interest litigator Message-ID: <3620AA8DD8446B49BBB11ACA23A413BB1DD763BC@DAGN16b-e6.exg6.exghost.com> Please see my colleague Paul’s email about the position below! If you have interest in public interest lawyering, please apply! Since 1971, Public Citizen has served as a leading force in the fight to put people before corporate profits. We accept no funding from corporations or governments. Our strength comes from our 400.000 members and supporters of our work. It would be great to have someone with an interest/background in Internet law and policy. Cheers, Burcu From: lawfuluse at publicknowledge.org [mailto:lawfuluse at publicknowledge.org] On Behalf Of Paul Alan Levy Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 10:56 AM To: Lawful Use listserv (lawfuluse at publicknowledge.org) Subject: [lawfuluse] Sad news -- with a silver lining I was devastated to learn this week that my colleague Scott Michelman is leaving Public Citizen Litigation Group to become a senior lawyer at our local ACLU affiliate. Scott was the second on all of my Doe cases; he was the lead in the Kleargear case and our other work on non-disparagement clauses. He came to us a few years ago from an ACLU national project and in the end the lure of a chance to help shape the work of a local ACLU affiliate was too much for him to resist. But I am going to miss him very much. The only silver lining is that we will be able to hire a replacement -- we are looking for an experienced litigator who is able to step right in and take the lead in a sophisticated caseload. The creativity to formulate new cases and indeed new areas for litigation (as Scott has done over the past five years) is a plus -- dedication to public interest lawyering is a must. I can say I have been here for 38 years, putting two children through college despite a public interest salary, because this is such a great place to work on many levels that might not be apparent from the job posting linked below – many people say after they left that it was the best job they ever had. For example, because of our extensive Supreme Court practice, chances are you will end up taking the lead in a Supreme Court case and arguing there within a few years after coming. And you can actually make a career of it if that is what you want – for example my colleague Allison, currently the director, is in her 22nd year at the group. Three other of my Litigation Group colleagues (including one who is returning after a two-year absence) have been here for more than ten years. If interested (or if you know someone else who OUGHT to be interested), you or they should apply as shown in the position announcement, but I am happy to talk offline if people want to know more. http://www.citizen.org/documents/PCLG-staff-attorney.pdf Paul Alan Levy Public Citizen Litigation Group 1600 20th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 588-7725 http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=396 Twitter: @paulalanlevy Public Citizen Foundation participates in the Combined Federal Campaign with the CFC Code 11168 -- . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Apr 25 09:41:25 2016 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 09:41:25 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [A2k] IASC Knowledge Commons -, International Conference - 20-21 Oct 2016 Paris - CALL FOR, ABSTRACTS In-Reply-To: <571D0FBC.10901@commonsnetwork.eu> References: <571D0FBC.10901@commonsnetwork.eu> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sophie Bloemen Date: Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 2:26 PM *Extended deadline : till Sunday 5th of May* **Apologies for double posting** Please find below in attachment the full text of the call for abstract of the 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Commons. Could you disseminate this in your research networks ? *Call for abstracts: 3rd Thematic IASC-??Conference on Knowledge Commons * *?Advancing Knowledge Commons through Legal and Social Changes: When commons meet law and public policy? * 20-??21 October 2016, Paris, France Organized by SciencesPo Paris and the International Association for the Study of the Commons (IASC) * Conference key-notes* Julie Cohen, Georgetown Law School Jeremy de Beer, University of Ottawa Michael J. Madison, University of Pittsburg Stefano Rodota, Emeritus Professor, University of Torino (tbc) Geertrui van Overwalle, University of Leuven *International scientific program committee* Jean-Benoit Zimmermann, CNRS Olivier Weinstein, Universit? Paris 13 Charlotte Hess, Syracuse University Library, New York Tine De Moor, Utrecht University, The Netherlands Brett M. Frischmann, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, New York Michael J. Madison, University of Pittsburgh School of Law Charles M. Schweik, University of Massachusetts Amherst Paul David, Stanford University, US & UNU Merit *General Tracks * Track 1 Knowledge commons in legal and public policy strategies Track 2 Commons as an opportunity to revise property concepts Track 3 Global public goods, public domain and common heritage of mankind as new concepts Track 4 Communities, agencies and actions Track 5 Knowledge commons, social justice and equity *Highlight Tracks* Track 6 Indigenous and local communities? knowledge and social practices Track 7 Libraries and knowledge-??pools Track 8 Scientific research *Overview of the topic and specific themes of the 3rd Thematic IASC-??Conference on Knowledge Commons * Building upon the successful 2012 and 2014 thematic IASC conferences on knowledge commons, this third conference aims to look at the normative effects and institutionalization of the many initiatives based on knowledge commons and how commons provide new legal tools, public policy choices, and forms of social, economic and governance innovations. To this purpose the conference aims to take stock of the latest developments in public policies and legal initiatives around knowledge commons, as well as how the attempts to give a proper legal definition of commons in different countries bring changes in law and property regimes. The key questions that this conference will cover are the sustainability of knowledge commons that could be achieved by giving normative effects to the relationships and collectiveness they create, the possible articulation between grassroots commons movements and public policy, To such end, examples of governance models or legal revisions organizing commons in diverse countries will be studied, particularly as far as knowledge commons are concerned. The International Association for the Study of the Commons (IASC), founded in 1989 as The International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASCP), is devoted to bringing together multi-??disciplinary researchers, practitioners and policymakers for the purpose of improving governance and management, advancing understanding, and creating sustainable solutions for commons, common-??pool resources, or any other form of shared resource. - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Apr 25 10:55:33 2016 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 20:25:33 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] GPS mandatory on all mobile phones to be manufactured in India. Message-ID: The government of India today made it mandatory for all mobile phone makers to install GPS chip sets in handsets from 2018 https://twitter.com/CNBCTV18News/status/724611179956436992 Is this right from a privacy point of view? Also, while in enhances the ability of Governments to track the movements of its citizens, it exposes the mobile user to severe security risks, as the GPS data is accessible and usable by a multitude of mobile applications, so the whereabouts of a mobile phone user is easily tracked by criminals as well. Sivasubramanian M -- Sivasubramanian M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maryant.fernandez-perez at edri.org Mon Apr 25 13:11:14 2016 From: maryant.fernandez-perez at edri.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Maryant_Fern=c3=a1ndez?=) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 19:11:14 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Global letter to Europe's regulators to defend net neutrality. Deadline to sign on: 27 April In-Reply-To: <5718A39C.1080402@edri.org> References: <5718A39C.1080402@edri.org> Message-ID: <571E4FB2.7010108@edri.org> Dear all, Thanks a lot for your support! Due to the high amount of interested organisations, we have extended the deadline for *signatures until 27 April*: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11YLPOVtG1ScqH_2KR1GU07fbpzCjRUrZ98FFmm9gd5g/edit#gid=0 In the meantime, please prepare your press releases. *The letter will be sent out on 28 April.* I'll send an e-mail to this list once we send it out to the European regulators. Thanks a lot again and best, Maryant Le 21/04/2016 11:55, Maryant Fernández a écrit : > Dear all, > > I'm writing on behalf of a coalition of NGOs that are putting together > a letter to the Body of European Regulators for Electronic > Communications (BEREC) on the net neutrality guidelines they need to > issue by 30 August 2016. [1] Please, find the letter attached and below. > > This is the list of the current signatories: > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11YLPOVtG1ScqH_2KR1GU07fbpzCjRUrZ98FFmm9gd5g/edit#gid=0 > If you want to sign on, please let me know or put the name of your > organisation and contact person here > . > Deadline: 25 April > Launch date: in principle, 26 April > > Thanks and best, > Maryant > > [1] Article 5(3) of the EU Regulation on net neutrality: > http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32015R2120 > Background info: > https://edri.org/edris-first-input-on-net-neutrality-guidelines/ > > ------------------ > 26 April 2016 > > Global open civil society letter to the Body of European Regulators of > Electronic Communication (BEREC) in support of strong net neutrality > guidelines > > The signatories of this letter support BEREC and its members in their > task to provide guidelines on the implementation of the EU Regulation > 2015/2120.1 The new EU regulation creates a basis for strong and > stable net neutrality safeguards. We therefore encourage BEREC and the > 28 national telecom regulators to bring an end to the uncertainty and > establish strong net neutrality guidelines. Clear guidelines will > ensure a digital single market, with the freedom and legal certainty > to provide services across borders and consumer choice. > > We urge you to respect the Regulation's goal to “ensure the continued > functioning of the internet ecosystem as an engine of innovation”, > respecting the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. > Since the inception of the Internet, net neutrality has been a vital > precondition for freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, > competition and freedom to conduct business. > > The success of the US and Indian consultations should boost BEREC's > work. 3.7 million comments were submitted to the US Federal > Communications Commission (FCC)'s consultation, while over one million > comments were submitted to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India > (TRAI). These are probably the biggest direct democratic engagements > in any telecom regulatory issue in history. > > Now it is the European Union's turn. BEREC decided to put the > consultation at the very end of its decision making process, with very > little time to analyse the feedback and let alone take it into > account. We encourage you to reconsider the limited and tight deadline > for responding to your public consultation, so you can duly consider > citizens and stakeholders' input when finalising the guidelines. A > flexible approach to the deadline will have no negative consequences, > but will add credibility to the process. > > In the elaboration of the guidelines, we ask you to consider the > following points: > - "Services other than internet access services" (also known as > "specialised services") need careful consideration. Weak guidelines > could permit the circumvention of all net neutrality safeguards. > - Zero-Rating is a harmful practice that restricts consumer choice, > distorts competition, undermines the freedom to seek, receive and > impart information and the freedom to conduct business. The Regulation > should be understood as prohibiting this abuse. > - Traffic management should be as application-agnostic as possible. > Class-based traffic-management risks discriminating against services, > harming user choice, discouraging to use encryption and would > contradict transparency requirements established under the Regulation. > > The difficult questions you are faced with in these months are not > about theoretical business models. You are setting the limits and > safeguards for the future of the Internet in Europe and ensuring that > Europe will not be globally disadvantaged by anti-competitive > restrictive practices. > > Signatories: > -- > Maryant Fernandez Perez > Advocacy Manager > European Digital Rights > Rue Belliard 20 > B- 1040 Brussels > http://edri.org > > Tel: +32 2 274 25 70 > PGP: D59A 1D3F 50CC 231B DCFE 3F2C 92FA 6F29 3D74 0B42 > @edri | @maryantfp > > Donate to EDRi! https://edri.org/donate/ > > Subscribe to the EDRi-gram, our fortnightly roundup of digital rights > news! http://edri.org/newsletters/ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Maryant Fernandez Perez Advocacy Manager European Digital Rights Rue Belliard 20 B- 1040 Brussels http://edri.org Tel: +32 2 274 25 70 PGP: D59A 1D3F 50CC 231B DCFE 3F2C 92FA 6F29 3D74 0B42 @edri | @maryantfp Donate to EDRi! https://edri.org/donate/ Subscribe to the EDRi-gram, our fortnightly roundup of digital rights news! http://edri.org/newsletters/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Apr 25 22:50:58 2016 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 08:20:58 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] GPS mandatory on all mobile phones to be manufactured in India. In-Reply-To: <969060081.3211099.1461617992494.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <969060081.3211099.1461617992494.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Arsene, GPS makes navigation precise for the common man, and is of ample help in finding one's way even while walking in the streets. Parents could use GPS to ensure that their children are within safe bounds, and there are several such positive uses. Law and Order agencies would certainly find it easier to track the elusive criminals and other elements. But the idea of surveillance over an entire population in order to enhance Law and Order capabilities over a just a few targets is a disturbing idea. Besides raising privacy concerns for the common man, it causes a totally different kind of security problem for the average person, whose whereabouts are not only known to responsible officers of Law, but to a multitude of others who do find a way to access this data. Sivasubramanian M On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 2:29 AM, Arsene TUNGALI (Yahoo) < arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr> wrote: > Dear Siva and Said, > > Thanks for raising this issue and for sharing your thoughts and experience > re: free wifi, surveilliance and gps chips. > > Privacy is at stake here. > > However, i would love to hear from you if there is any positivity that can > be found in this practice. Is there any positive effect of having GPS in > all phones? > > I would love to hear from you and anyone else interested in this topic. > > Thanks, > A > > > --------------------- > Arsene Tungali, > IGC Co-coordinator > @arsenebaguma > +243 993810967 <+243%20993810967> (DRCongo) > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone (excuse typos > and brievity) > > > On Monday, April 25, 2016, 5:56 PM, Said Zazai > wrote: > > I was in Delhi last week and I was surprised to see that Free Wifi was > given at the cost of giving away your mobile phone number which in turns is > registered with a government ID usually. As a tourist with no active Indian > number, wifi was not free for me. I understand that free wifi is not a > mandatory thing to have but a general practice in non-military or > non-surveillance states is that there is some level of free internet at > airports, shopping malls, coffee shops etc., which makes life a lot easier. > > The mandatory gps chip in phones is yet another method of monitoring > general public. I believe the government must have a reason to monitor or > track an individual. Imagine someone walking right behind you and make > notes of what you buy, how much you buy them for, where you buy them, who > you talk to and what you talk to them. As a child I would get highly > uncomfortable when the bakery store owner would conclude that we had guests > at home if i would buy more breads than usual and vice versa. The > government does not need to monitor all its citizens but only criminals and > those suspicious but in a transparent manner and within legal framework. > > The enemy creation or exaggeration has allowed governments in India, > Pakistan, Afghanistan and many others i'm sure, to invest in technology > that allows them to invade our privacy and general public sell their > privacy for national security. For as long as their is an "enemy" there > will be government tracking us down to save us. > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 7:25 PM, Sivasubramanian M > wrote: > >> The government of India today made it mandatory for all mobile phone >> makers to install GPS chip sets in handsets from 2018 >> >> >> https://twitter.com/CNBCTV18News/status/724611179956436992 >> >> Is this right from a privacy point of view? Also, while in enhances the >> ability of Governments to track the movements of its citizens, it exposes >> the mobile user to severe security risks, as the GPS data is accessible and >> usable by a multitude of mobile applications, so the whereabouts of a >> mobile phone user is easily tracked by criminals as well. >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Said Zazai > P: +93.70.8064251 > E: saidsemail at gmail.com > L: af.linkedin.com/in/saidzazai > T: @smzazai > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: