From nadira.araj at gmail.com Fri Jul 1 03:44:56 2016 From: nadira.araj at gmail.com (Nadira Alaraj) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 10:44:56 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] Update on the CSCG Working Group Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ian Peter Date: Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:11 AM Subject: [cs-coord] Update on CSCGWG To: cs-coord at internetgov-cs.org ​Folks, here is a summary of the progress so far of the CSCG Working Group – my personal summary, happy for any comments from other WG members or anyone else interested. Feel free to copy to other lists. Ian ------ ​ GENERAL AGREEMENT SO FAR Maintain “coalition of coalitions” model Two year terms for coalition representatives, 2 reps per member, stand down after max two terms (4 years) before being eligible for re-election again Chair elected by members – can be from among members or an outsider Chair plus up to two co-chairs – co-chairs from member reps. Nomcoms are one rep per member coalition plus separate non voting chair Scope to remain solely to ensure a coordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies. Support to develop separate entity - but related body- to look at funding issues for civil society representatives travel (eg CSCG members might be trustees of new entity) ISSUES Some discussion has taken place on new coalition members, with a general agreement that this might include regional coalitions. However we need to clarify what procedures might be adopted for inclusion of regional coalitions and other potential new members. STILL TO DO REFINE AND EXPAND ON SUGGESTED DIRECTIONS ABOVE REVISE PROCEDURES OUTREACH ISSUES ​ _______________________________________________ CS-coord mailing list CS-coord at internetgov-cs.org http://internetgov-cs.org/mailman/listinfo/cs-coord -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aarti.bhavana at nludelhi.ac.in Fri Jul 8 07:53:08 2016 From: aarti.bhavana at nludelhi.ac.in (Aarti Bhavana) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 17:23:08 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Centre for Communication Governance: Highlights from 2016 (mid-year update) Message-ID: Dear All, Please find attached a mid-year update from the Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University, Delhi. The first six months of 2016 have seen a series of important changes in the information policy space in India and internationally. Debates on net neutrality, Aadhaar and Internet Shutdowns raised important legal and policy questions in India. At the global stage, the completion of important transformations like the WSIS+10 process, and the IANA transition have given the global internet governance regime a new mandate. It has been our privilege to be closely involved with these processes. The attached newsletter offers a mid-year update about the work that we have done so far at the Centre for Communication Governance in 2016. The highlights include: - A lecture on surveillance in India as a part the Mellon Sawyer seminar series at UC Davis. - Academic sector membership of the International Telecommunication Union. This will help tremendously with our research. - Participation in the WSIS forum this year as a high-level facilitator for the event. We also co-hosted a panel on the Working Group for Enhanced Co-operation. - A research paper on human rights in the WSIS process, that brings nuance to the articulation of human rights on the internet at the international level. - TRAI adopted our freedom of expression and constitution law arguments in its explanatory memorandum to the Prohibition of Differential Tariffs for Data Services Regulations, 2016. - Our table detailing all Internet Shutdowns in India was submitted to the Indian Supreme Court as a part of a petition challenging the practice of Internet Shutdowns. - Our memorandum on the Aadhaar money bill was submitted to petitioner challenging the money bill before the Supreme Court of India, and our opinion piece criticising the legislation was circulated widely. I invite you to take a look at the work the Centre has produced so far. We have several interesting projects, including one on multistakeholderism in internet governance, that we shall be sharing with you at in the coming days. We thank you for your continued support and welcome your feedback about how we can do better. Best, Aarti Aarti Bhavana | Research Fellow Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.ccgtlr.org . *https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/aartibhavana/ *| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CCG Newsletter 2016_New.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2161211 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Jul 8 09:42:41 2016 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:42:41 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE ATTRIBUTIONS AND MULTISTAKEHOLDER NATURE OF CGI.BR In-Reply-To: References: <576D6F11.2060902@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <577FADD1.1020904@cafonso.ca> Grande Mawaki, tudo bem contigo? CGI.br is a commission created in 1995 by the federal government. Since 2003 it became truly multistakeholder as its majority of non-government members is elected by their consituencies. The attributions of CGI.br can be seen in detail in this 2003 decree (in Portuguese): http://www.cgi.br/pagina/decretos/108 You of course can read it, but most other people in this list can't, so here is an English summary of CG's structure and mission: http://www.cgi.br/about This goes far beyond managing ".br" names and IP numbers -- which CGI.br actually does not manage by itself; it supervises the actual work of NIC.br, the non-profit NGO which runs all services, resources and projects related to CGI.br's mandate. The Brazilian chapter of ISOC was born much later, after a protracted process initiated in the late 90's. It is still a minimalist organization, with practically no resources, basically participating in events and running an internal discussions collective on Internet and IT issues -- now with more than 1,100 members, nearly all non-paying, and less than 5% actually participating somehow. About Barão de Itararé (the journalist and pioneer political humorist in Brazil), since you read Portuguese, see: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar%C3%A3o_de_Itarar%C3%A9 We are so sorry he is not alive during these times of political turmoil and prevalence of incredible gangsterism in politics in the country. He would be so overwhelmed with prime material... Hope this helps. :-) fraternal regards --c.a. On 08/07/2016 01:24, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Dear Carlos, > > Thank you for keeping us informed about this. I understand the topic here > is to harness support for this letter but I have two questions, if you > don't mind. > > I'm assuming there's an ISOC chapter in Brazil and wanted to inquire: > Beyond the allocation of IP addresses and name registration in the ".br" > domain (coordinated by CGI.br), how is their work distinct from, and how > does it overlap with, the work of CGI.br? What is the scope and content of > your relationship? > > My second question is just a detail. Among the signatories I see "Barão de > Itararé". Is it really that or a typo for Barão de Itacaré? > > Thanks again, and best regards. > Mawaki > > On Friday, June 24, 2016, Carlos Afonso wrote: > >> [sorry for possible duplicates] >> >> Note: given the recent transition in the Brazilian federal government >> and the political uncertainties involved, a group of civil society and >> academic organizations has produced this public declaration in defense >> of the multistakeholder nature of CGI.br and its attributions. >> >> LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE ATTRIBUTIONS AND MULTISTAKEHOLDER NATURE OF >> CGI.BR >> >> 24-6-2016 >> >> The Internet Steering Committe of Brazil, CGI.br, a multistakeholder >> commission, has a crucial mission in the development of the Internet in >> Brazil. In particular, CGI.br supervises the actions of NIC.br - a >> non-profit private civil society organizationm in charge of carrying out >> the management of all activities derived from policies defined by the >> Committee. Decree Number 4829, of September, 2003, describes >> attributions of CGI.br, which include: >> >> - proposing policies and procedures regarding the regulation of Internet >> activities; >> >> - recommending standards for technical and operational procedures for >> the Internet in Brazil; >> >> - establishing strategic directives related to the use and development >> of the Internet in Brazil; >> >> - promoting studies and technical standards for network and service >> security in the country; >> >> - coordinating the allocation of Internet addresses (IPs) in Brazil and >> registration in the ".br" domain; >> >> - collecting, organizing and disseminating information on Internet >> services, including indicators and statistics; >> >> - be represented in national and international technical forums related >> to the Internet; >> >> - to adopt administrative and operational procedures so that Internet >> governance in Brazil follows internationally accepted standards, >> enabling it to celebrate agreements and partnerships. >> >> These activities, fully funded by private income derived from >> distribution of domain names and IP numbers, are essential for the >> operation and development of the Internet in Brazil. These attributions >> are being carried out in a multistakeholder approach, with participation >> of civil society, academia, technical community, private sector and >> government. >> >> This pluralist feature has been the basis for the charter of principles >> which is at the origin of the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the >> Internet ("Marco Civil da Internet"). The success of this pluralist >> practice has turned CGI.br into a worldwide reference on Internet >> governance, considering that since its creation in 1995, and even in the >> preparation of the Decree of 2003, any change in its structure and >> operation has been preceded by broad consultations with society, >> including significant participation of civil society and academic >> organizations. >> >> In order to protect the stability, security and quality of the work >> which has been and continues to be carried out and developed by the >> Committee, the undersigned organizations affirm the centrality of CGI.br >> to develop activities absolutely vital for the Internet of today and >> tomorrow in the country, stressing the importance of preserving the >> above attributions, as well as the pluralist, multissectorial nature of >> CGI.br. >> >> Actantes >> Artigo 19 >> Barão de Itararé >> Coding Rights >> Colab-USP >> Coletivo Digital >> CTS-FGV >> GPoPAI/USP >> Ibase >> Ibidem >> InternetLab >> Instituto Bem Estar Brasil >> Intervozes >> ITSRio >> Lavits >> Medialab.UFRJ >> Nupef >> ProTeste >> Safernet Brasil >> ULEPICC-BR >> >> -- >> >> Carlos A. Afonso >> [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] >> [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] >> >> Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br >> CGI.br - http://cgi.br >> ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br >> >> GPG 0x9EE8F8E3 >> >> > -- Carlos A. Afonso [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br CGI.br - http://cgi.br ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br GPG 0x9EE8F8E3 From nadira.araj at gmail.com Sat Jul 9 01:55:34 2016 From: nadira.araj at gmail.com (Nadira Alaraj) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 08:55:34 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_expression_of_interest_-_to_those_?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=8Blocated_in_the_asia-pacific?= Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: anita Date: Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 6:54 AM Recently UNESCAP came out with a research report (which we authored) on egovernment and gender in the Asia Pacific. http://egov4women.unescapsdd.org/files/documents/E-Government-for-Women-in-Asia-Pacific.pdf In early October ESCAP plans to have a 2 day brainstorming on building modules for policy makers on the subject drawing upon the above report. The modules will cover issues related to connectivity, delivery of services and citizen participation, looking at appropriate legal and institutional frameworks and mechanisms. If you know of experts/ researchers/ trainers/ NGOs working in the area, and ​​ located in the asia-pacific who may be interested in being part of this brainstorming exercise, do send a mail to me and i could pass the contact information to ESCAP for consideration. regards -- *Anita Gurumurthy* | Executive Director IT for Change (*In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC)* 91-80-26654134 | T:00-91-80-26536890 | Fax 91-80-41461055 Email:anita at itforchange.net ------------------------------ * Have you visited: www.gender-is-citizenship.net * -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics1 Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics4 Type: image/png Size: 359 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics3 Type: image/png Size: 298 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics2 Type: image/png Size: 676 bytes Desc: not available URL: From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Sat Jul 9 16:39:57 2016 From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 16:39:57 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Europe Telecom industry attacked net neutrality Message-ID: European telecoms groups unveil 5G manifesto http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a1948026-4393-11e6-9b66-0712b3873ae1.html#axzz4DwgSK3Hx 5G Manifesto for timely deployment of 5G in Europe http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=16579 greetings, willi From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Sat Jul 9 16:42:52 2016 From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 16:42:52 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Europe Telecom industry attacked net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <323c5248-3c83-d044-9fef-4b1afe9afab4@riseup.net> Complement: Save the Internet https://savetheinternet.eu/en/ Am 09/07/2016 um 16:39 schrieb willi uebelherr: > > European telecoms groups unveil 5G manifesto > http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a1948026-4393-11e6-9b66-0712b3873ae1.html#axzz4DwgSK3Hx > > > 5G Manifesto for timely deployment of 5G in Europe > http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=16579 > > greetings, willi > From wisdom.dk at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 06:37:54 2016 From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:37:54 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion (CENB) Phase II call for inputs Message-ID: Kindly find attached document. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- IGF Secretariate Date: Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 2:21 AM Subject: [IGFmaglist] CENB Phase II call for inputs Dear All, Later today we will issue the attached Call for Public Input on Phase II of the intersessional theme *Policy Options for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion*. This call is based on the framework document which was developed with the generous assistance of MAG members and various stakeholders over the past few months. This document stressed both the need for emphasizing national and regional specificities, as well as the importance of investigating the ways in which connecting and enabling more users can help support the new sustainable development goals (SDGs). We would like to hereby encourage all MAG members to spread this Call for Input among your networks and to contribute to this important initiative, which will help pave the way to IGF 2016 in Guadalajara. While all contributions will be welcomed, a proposed format for submissions is contained in the attached Call for Input. Kindly send all input to Anri van der Spuy (avanderspuy at unog.ch) and Brian Gutterman ( gutterman at un.org). We would also like to thank the MAG volunteers – Julian Casasbuenas G., Wisdom Donkor, Alejandra Erramuspe, Miguel Estrada, Segun Olugbile, Renata Aquino Ribeiro, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro – who will help us gather and analyse the input we hope to receive from diverse stakeholders over the next few months, and Constance Bommelaer, the coordinator of this initiative. Best regards, IGF Secretariat _______________________________________________ Igfmaglist mailing list Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2016 CENB Call for Contributions_11 July 2016v2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 453030 bytes Desc: not available URL: From raquino at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 10:48:37 2016 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:48:37 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultations Message-ID: Hi Just a reminder that IGF Open Consultations day has started Participate online here http://www.intgovforum.org (apologies for cross-posting) Best, Renata From lea at gp-digital.org Wed Jul 13 16:50:49 2016 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:50:49 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] Call for input / Connecting & Enabling the Next Billion 2016 -- Please disseminate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Please find below a Call for Public Input on Phase II of the IGF intersessional theme 'Policy Options for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion'. Best wishes, *Lea Kaspar* Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3818 3258 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 gp-digital.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Constance Bommelaer Date: Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 4:03 PM Subject: [IGFmaglist] Call for input / Connecting & Enabling the Next Billion 2016 -- Please disseminate To: IGF Maglist Dear all, This is to invite all MAG members to disseminate the attached Call for Public Input on Phase II of the intersessional theme '*Policy Options for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion**'*. This call is based on the framework document which was developed with the generous assistance of various stakeholders over the past few months. In this document, both the need for emphasizing national and regional specificities, as well as the importance of investigating the ways in which connecting and enabling more users can help support the new sustainable development goals (SDGs) were stressed. All IGF stakeholders, as well as leaders of IGF initiatives, including best practice forums (BPFs), dynamic coalitions (DCs) and workshop sessions are encouraged to contribute to this important initiative, which will help pave the way to IGF 2016 in Guadalajara, Mexico, in December this year. While all contributions will be welcomed, a proposed format for submissions is contained in the attached Call for Input. Kindly send all input to Anri van der Spuy (avanderspuy at unog.ch) and Brian Gutterman (gutterman at un.org). Best regards, Constance _______________________________________________ Igfmaglist mailing list Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2016 CENB Call for Contributions_11 July 2016.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 170250 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jmalcolm at eff.org Wed Jul 13 20:45:40 2016 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 17:45:40 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Civil society letter to UN DESA on transparency and accountability of IGF Retreat References: Message-ID: <60DB0A4C-FFAF-4412-8989-E86AA663A5E3@eff.org> This response has just been received to our joint letter on transparency and accountability of the IGF Retreat. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Begin forwarded message: > From: Wai Min Kwok > Date: 13 July 2016 at 5:23:34 PM GMT-7 > To: jmalcolm at eff.org > Cc: Chengetai MASANGO , Brian Clarke GUTTERMAN , "Lynn St.Amour" , Deniz Susar > Subject: Re: Fwd: Civil society letter to UN DESA on transparency and accountability of IGF Retreat > > Dear Jeremy, > > Thank you for your letter of 30 June 2016. > > First and foremost, please rest assured, as reaffirmed by USG Wu on behalf of the SG, that the UN commitment to the open, transparent, democratic and multi-stakeholder character of the IGF remains firm. The retreat is just start of an ongoing process aimed at improving the working modalities of the IGF, as called for in WSIS+10. > > Indeed, the retreat will be informed and guided by the WSIS+10 resolution that renewed the mandate of the IGF as stated in the Tunis Agenda, and the report of the Working Group on Improvements to the IGF of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development. A set of relevant background documentation as well as the proposed agenda of the retreat are made available online for public access: > (Refer to http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2016-06-23-15-15-52/background-documentation; http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat-2016-agenda). The UN Secretariat has also requested a call for inputs and all contributions are made available online (Refer to http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat-written-inputs) > > The retreat is envisaged as a strategic dialogue and it is hoped that it will further strengthen the IGF, leading to enhanced and accelerated progress on implementing improvements to the IGF, taking into account the report of the Working Group. It is expected that there will be further suggestions for improvements that will need to be reviewed broadly by all Stakeholder groups following the retreat. Specifically, any idea or suggestion coming out of the retreat will be shared with the broader IGF community for further comment/consultation. Daily summaries will be made available as soon as they are available. Remote participation, however, will not be possible due to the retreat brainstorming modality and on-site logistics. (Refer to http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat-faqs) > > The modalities for considering and taking forward any idea or suggestion coming out of the retreat will be subsequently considered by the global IGF community itself, following various work streams of the IGF community including the IGF's Multistakeholder Advisory Group. > > Once again, we thank you and look forward to your continued participation and contribution to the IGF. > > Best regards, > Wai Min > > Wai Min KWOK > Division for Public Administration and Development Management | Department of Economic and Social Affairs > United Nations | Office DC2-1750 | kwok at un.org | +1 (917) 367 3026 | publicadministration.un.org > > > > > > > > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Subject: Civil society letter to UN DESA on transparency and accountability of IGF Retreat > Date: June 30, 2016 at 11:57:45 PM GMT+2 > To: igfretreat at intgovforum.org, IGF > Dear organizers, > > In light of the scheduled “Retreat on Advancing the 10-Year Mandate of the Internet Governance Forum” to be held in New York from 14-16 July 2016, we would like to note that the theme is of interest to all parties in the IGF community. As such, we kindly request that remote participation facilities be made available to widen participation in this event, and that more information be provided on the expected modalities for implementation of the meeting’s outcomes and the lines of accountability for such implementation. > > The Tunis Agenda states in paragraph 73, “The Internet Governance Forum, in its working and function, will be multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent.” To the extent that UN DESA has custodianship of this unique multi-stakeholder institution, it is incumbent upon it to uphold these values, and this extends to the transparency and accountability of meetings such as the IGF retreat and of the implementation of the recommendations of such meetings. > > The IGF has been working since its inception to be open, transparent, and fully accessible to all stakeholders through the live streaming of all its sessions and its planning meetings. It also offered remote participants the possibility to intervene, collecting inputs from the widest possible range of stakeholders. It is also valuable to mention that platforms for remote participation have been made available in meetings with limited membership, such as the 2013/2014 CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC). > > As the purpose of the retreat is to show “progress on working modalities and the participation of relevant stakeholders from developing countries”, remote participation constitutes the very essence of a participatory working modality and broadens the chance for under-represented communities to engage in the IGF’s mandate. > > Apart from the need for transparency of the working sessions of the retreat itself, it is also important to ensure clarity around the bigger picture of how this event will impact the evolution of the IGF, and by what means. We therefore ask for clarification of to whom the retreat’s recommendations will be addressed or directed, who will have the authority and responsibility to implement these recommendations, and to whom they will they be accountable in doing so. > > We trust that the organizers will find these to be reasonable requests that will contribute to the public legitimacy of the outcomes of this meeting by all stakeholders, and we look forward to receiving your reply on these points in advance of the retreat next month. > > Endorsed by: > > Baltic Internet Policy Initiative, Belarus > University of Zurich, Switzerland > IT for Change, India > Eurolinc, France > v5n4e8, Canada > SFLC.in, India > Electronic Frontier Foundation, USA > Renata Aquino Ribeiro, Brazil > Nadira Al Araj, Palestine > Timothy McGinnis, United States > Louis Pouzin, France > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mime-attachment.gif Type: image/gif Size: 9285 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nadira.araj at gmail.com Fri Jul 15 04:57:25 2016 From: nadira.araj at gmail.com (Nadira Alaraj) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:57:25 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [Chapter-delegates] From Berners=Lee, Lessig and van Schewick In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dave Burstein Date: Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 6:44 AM Subject: [Chapter-delegates] From Berners=Lee, Lessig and van Schewick To: ISOC Chapter Delegates Four Days to Save the Open Internet in Europe: An Open LetterW eb Foundation · July 14, 2016 Web We Want The post below is an open letter to European citizens, lawmakers and regulators, from our founder and Web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee, Professor Barbara van Schewick, and Professor Larry Lessig. Join the conversation in the comments below or on Twitter using #savetheinternet or #netneutrality. — We have four days to save the open Internet in Europe By Sir Tim Berners-Lee, Professor Lawrence Lessig, and Professor Barbara van Schewick Network neutrality for hundreds of millions of Europeans is within our grasp. Securing this is essential to preserve the open Internet as a driver for economic growth and social progress. But the public needs to tell regulators now to strengthen safeguards, and not cave in to telecommunications carriers’ manipulative tactics. We are so close. In October, the European Parliament voted on network neutrality rules for the European Union. Now regulators are writing guidelines to determine how the law will be applied in practice. These guidelines could secure net neutrality in Europe – if regulators use them to close potential loopholes in the law. Telecom companies know this. And so they are lobbying hard to get regulators to adopt weak guidelines that would benefit their businesses over the public interest. They have connections to the highest levels of EU governments, a well-oiled lobbying machine, and lots of money to pay lawyers and experts to write extensive comments. Their latest move came last Wednesday, when the 17 largest telecom companies in Europe threatened not to invest in the next generation of 5G mobile networks unless regulators water down the guidelines. We – the ordinary users of the Internet – don’t have expensive lobbyists. But we have millions of people – everyday Europeans, startups, investors, small businesses, activists, NGOs, bloggers, independent artists – who have experienced the power of the open Internet first hand and want to protect it. That’s where you come in. For a few more days, until July 18, the public has an opportunity to comment on the guidelines and convince regulators to close loopholes and protect the open Internet in Europe. The Internet has become the critical infrastructure of our time – for our daily life, for our economy, for our democracy. Strong guidelines will protect the future of competition, innovation, and creative expression in Europe, enhancing Europe’s ability to lead in the digital economy. They will ensure that every European, no matter the color of their skin or the size of their wallets, has an equal chance to innovate, compete, speak, organize, and connect online. If we speak up now, we can convince regulators to do the right thing. Here’s what you can do to help. Speak Up: Before July 18th, 14:00 CEST, visit www.savenetneutrality.eu or www.savetheinternet.eu to participate in the public consultation by submitting a comment in support of strong net neutrality rules. Spread the Word: Share this post and others on Facebook, Twitter, or anywhere else, using #savetheinternet and/or #netneutrality. Talk with your friends, colleagues, and family and ask them to take action. If you are a blogger or journalist, write about what is going on. If you are an entrepreneur or investor, review and sign the entrepreneurs’ letter. If you have a blog or a website, protest Internet slow lanes by adding a widget to your site. There are four areas that regulators need to get right to secure meaningful net neutrality in Europe. BAN FAST LANES: Regulators need to close a loophole that could allow carriers to offer special “fast lanes” to normal websites and applications for a fee. The telecom companies that connect us to the Internet want the power to charge websites extra fees to reach people faster. In a world where some websites can pay telcos to be in the “fast lane,” anyone who can’t afford the extra fees – start-ups, small businesses, bloggers, artists, activists, and everyday Europeans – will be left behind in the slow lane. Innovation and economic growth will suffer, and Europeans will be left with an Internet that is less vibrant, less diverse, and less useful. Europe’s net neutrality law stops telecom carriers from creating fast lanes online. But it contains an exception for “specialized services” that cannot work on the regular Internet. Carriers want to squeeze as much of a pay-to-play business model as they can into this exception, turning it into a giant loophole. Their stated goal: A world in which any application can buy a fast lane – not just those that could not function without it. Regulators need to close this loophole by clarifying that the “specialized services” exception cannot be used to create fast lanes for normal Internet content. And they should regularly review what qualifies as a specialised service – remember that in the not too distant past, everyday services like web-based email or online video would have been seen as a specialized service! BAN ZERO-RATING: Regulators need to ban harmful forms of zero-rating. Carriers want to be able to exempt certain favored applications from users’ monthly data caps, a practice called “zero-rating”. Like fast lanes, zero-rating lets carriers pick winners and losers by making certain apps more attractive than others. And like fast lanes, zero-rating hurts users, innovation, competition, and creative expression. In advanced economies like those in the European Union, there is no argument for zero-rating as a potential onramp to the Internet for first-time users. The draft guidelines acknowledge that zero-rating can be harmful, but they leave it to national regulators to evaluate zero-rating plans on a case-by-case basis. Letting national regulators address zero-rating case-by-case disadvantages Internet users, start-ups, and small businesses that do not have the time or resources to defend themselves against discriminatory zero-rating before 28 different regulators. The guidelines need a comprehensive, Europe-wide ban on harmful forms of zero-rating. BAN DISCRIMINATION: Regulators need to prevent carriers from discriminating among classes of traffic to manage their networks. Carriers would like to define classes of traffic to be sped up or slowed down, even in the absence of congestion. They say this will let them offer better quality Internet access. But class-based traffic management lets carriers discriminate against services at will. It allows carriers to distort competition, stifle innovation, and hurt users and providers who encrypt by putting all encrypted traffic in the slow lane. The draft guidelines make clear that class-based traffic management can only be used as a last resort during exceptional or temporary congestion if less discriminatory methods cannot solve the problem. This is good, and ensures that the Internet remains a level playing field even during times of severe congestion. But the guidelines are less clear for traffic management in the absence of congestion. This ambiguity could be misused as a loophole to allow carriers to discriminate in the name of addressing problems admittedly less severe than congestion, where discrimination can only be used as a last resort. The draft guidelines should clarify that class-based traffic management can be used only if less discriminatory, application-agnostic methods cannot solve the problem, regardless of whether there is congestion or not. PROTECT INTERNET ACCESS: Regulators need to prohibit new “specialized” services from taking over bandwidth that people bought to access the Internet. Carriers want to offer new kinds of “specialized” services that need special handling not available on the Internet. People would buy these services separately, in addition to their normal Internet access. Carriers find these services attractive because they can charge the providers of these services extra fees for special treatment. The draft guidelines allow these specialized services to take away bandwidth from people’s Internet connection. In essence, telecom companies would take bandwidth that a customer bought to connect to the Internet and use it for a specialized service that the same person (and, potentially, the providers of these services) is paying for separately. That means people signing up for a specialized service would pay twice for the same bandwidth, and would have less bandwidth available for the websites and Internet apps of their choice. This harms people signing up for a specialized service, and makes it harder for Internet applications, content, and services to reach consumers. The current version of the guidelines directly contradicts the law, which requires that specialized services be offered in addition to access to the Internet and must not reduce the quality of normal Internet access. Regulators need to correct the guidelines. . . . Telecom regulators can still protect net neutrality in Europe – if they make the key changes described above. We urge regulators to make these changes. And we urge you to contact those regulators before July 18th and let them know the public supports strong network neutrality guidelines. We have four days to save the open Internet in Europe. Let’s use them. Take action before July 18th, 14:00 CEST here: www.savenetneutrality.eu www.savetheinternet.eu. Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, and founding director of the World Wide Web Foundation Professor Lawrence Lessig, author of “Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace” and Professor of Law, Harvard University Professor Barbara van Schewick, author of “Internet Architecture and Innovation” and Professor of Law and (by courtesy) Electrical Engineering, Stanford University -- Editor, Fast Net News, Net Policy News and DSL Prime Author with Jennie Bourne DSL (Wiley) and Web Video: Making It Great, Getting It Noticed (Peachpit) _______________________________________________ As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Fri Jul 1 10:06:34 2016 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 15:06:34 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] New guide to the UPR for HRD working to advance human rights online Message-ID: Dear all, I am writing to share a guide to the UN's Universal Periodic Review (UPR), aimed specifically at human rights defenders working to advance human rights online, co-authored by Deborah Brown (APC) and myself. The guide provides examples of how the UPR has been used for human rights online, including examples of recommendations that states have accepted relating to the internet, sample civil society reports, advocacy documents, and tips on how to use the UPR to complement ongoing advocacy work. *You can find an introductory piece here*: http://www.gp-digital.org/introducing-our-new-guide-to-the-upr-for-human-rights-defenders/ *The link for the guide is here:* http://www.gp-digital.org/publication/using-the-universal-periodic-review-for-human-rights-online/ We hope it will function as a useful introduction to the mechanism and an orientation tool for successful advocacy, as the UPR enters its third cycle next year. Please feel free to share and any feedback is of course welcome! Best, -- *Sheetal Kumar* Programme Manager | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258 0337| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Fri Jul 15 09:06:55 2016 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 15:06:55 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] IGF retreat starts Message-ID: <5788DFEF.2080502@apc.org> Dear all The UNDESA convened retreat on the IGF is starting. Some people will tweet, and the secretariat will share summaries of discussion. Follow at #igfretreat Chatham House rule is being applied. So no attribution - we can write about what was said but not by whem. The agenda, information about participants and submissions in response to the open call are all here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat Here is how the process is described on the site: "Against that backdrop, a two-day working retreat is proposed by UN Secretariat as part of the process of continual improvement of the IGF. A strategic dialogue will be held among experts, policymakers and practitioners in enriching IGF as the global forum for facilitating multistakeholder policy discussion and exchange on public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance, in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet (in line with its mandate as established by the Tunis Agenda para 72)." [snip] Expected outcomes of the retreat include (but are not limited to): (i) ways to improve the overall preparatory process of the IGF, the structure and nomination process for the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), and ways to strengthen the IGF Secretariat; (ii) measures to engage those stakeholders who are currently unengaged, with a view to expand and diversify physical and virtual participation; (iii) finding ways to better capture the outputs of the IGF and increasing their visibility and impact; (iv) ideas to support the work of national and regional IGF initiatives, and leverage the synergies between them as well as synergies with the IGF; and (v) modalities to ensure sustained funding to support the IGF and the IGF Secretariat. Thanks to CSCG for nominating me to be part of this process. Thanks to to those of you who sent in submissions. There is rich content - and a good mix of concrete and broader more analytical input among the submission. Doing justice to all these ideas in a 2-day process will be hard. We have been reassured that this process is one of an longer and ongoing process of facilitating debate about the IGF. Anriette -- ----------------------------------------- Anriette Esterhuysen Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org www.apc.org IM: ae_apc From raquino at gmail.com Fri Jul 15 11:13:39 2016 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:13:39 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IGF retreat starts In-Reply-To: <479417098.5797903.1468594740251.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <5788DFEF.2080502@apc.org> <479417098.5797903.1468594740251.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Anriette It is great to know that you and CS folks are there and to know more, thanks! Also would be great if you could mention CSCG new WG efforts. It is an amazing team and the CSCG processes will only improve. Best, Renata Em 15 de jul de 2016 10:59, "Arsene TUNGALI (Yahoo)" escreveu: > Dear Anriette, > > Thanks for reporting about the start of the research. Thanks also for > offering to give updates whenever you can especially sharing the link > whenever something is announced for the public. > > We will follow using Twitter. Good luck to all our representatives :) > > Regards, > A > --------------------- > Arsene Tungali, > IGC Co-coordinator > @arsenebaguma > +243 993810967 (DRCongo) > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone (excuse typos and brievity) > > On Friday, July 15, 2016, 3:06 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > > Dear all > > The UNDESA convened retreat on the IGF is starting. Some people will > tweet, and the secretariat will share summaries of discussion. Follow at > #igfretreat > > Chatham House rule is being applied. So no attribution - we can write > about what was said but not by whem. > > The agenda, information about participants and submissions in response > to the open call are all here: > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat > > Here is how the process is described on the site: > > "Against that backdrop, a two-day working retreat is proposed by UN > Secretariat as part of the process of continual improvement of the IGF. > A strategic dialogue will be held among experts, policymakers and > practitioners in enriching IGF as the global forum for facilitating > multistakeholder policy discussion and exchange on public policy issues > related to key elements of Internet governance, in order to foster the > sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the > Internet (in line with its mandate as established by the Tunis Agenda > para 72)." > > [snip] > > Expected outcomes of the retreat include (but are not limited to): (i) > ways to improve the overall preparatory process of the IGF, the > structure and nomination process for the Multistakeholder Advisory Group > (MAG), and ways to strengthen the IGF Secretariat; (ii) measures to > engage those stakeholders who are currently unengaged, with a view to > expand and diversify physical and virtual participation; (iii) finding > ways to better capture the outputs of the IGF and increasing their > visibility and impact; (iv) ideas to support the work of national and > regional IGF initiatives, and leverage the synergies between them as > well as synergies with the IGF; and (v) modalities to ensure sustained > funding to support the IGF and the IGF Secretariat. > > Thanks to CSCG for nominating me to be part of this process. Thanks to > to those of you who sent in submissions. There is rich content - and a > good mix of concrete and broader more analytical input among the > submission. Doing justice to all these ideas in a 2-day process will be > hard. > > We have been reassured that this process is one of an longer and ongoing > process of facilitating debate about the IGF. > > Anriette > > > > -- > ----------------------------------------- > Anriette Esterhuysen > Executive Director > Association for Progressive Communications > anriette at apc.org > www.apc.org > IM: ae_apc > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Fri Jul 15 13:40:11 2016 From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:40:11 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] management of technology patents, licenses and ... In-Reply-To: <1726361171.3582731.1468555776680.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1726361171.3582731.1468555776680.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5697f501-676c-8a81-7c8e-a8ce0d33db5d@riseup.net> Dear Amali De Silva, many many thanks for your initiative in this environment to discuss this theme. One of the most important question for us. I have addressed many lists. And i know, many friends act on different lists. Maybe, sometimes we bring the different discussions together. This question is not only for jobless people or for that, what some people say, "extension of human capital". A terrible term. We act, or the most of us, for a telecommunication that can interconnect all people on our planet. And we do it mostly, because we have the experience, how strong was this system to help us in our own development and activity. But we have also another layer. We say, all this terrible destruction of nature, culture, history, knowledge and so on, what we see in the last decades, centuries and so on, we can stop, if the people are interconnected. And, in a positive direction, all our understanding of the laws of the nature, the basic for our technology, the materialisation of the law of the nature, we can strong accelerate, if we cooperate globally in an free and open space for all people. A fantastic perspective. Then we never will have any problem with the development and distribution of our Internet. For that we can say: the inter-connection of any device or the inter-connection of all local networks with her devices. Physically, of course, all devices. And the people use the devices for her communication and information exchange. We know, knowledge is a common resource. We know it from ourself, we know it from other people. All our knowledge is based on that, what other people before and today created and published. Never any person alone can work. The patent rights suggest, we as a individual person can create something alone. This is a big nonsense, a religion. But we, with our experience and understanding, can say, we ignore all this nonsense. We never use it, we never recognize it. It is more a decision for us self, like with all religions. They are depend, that the people believe. And we have the experience, that if nobody follow, nothing exist of that. Only a paper maybe. I speak here consciously to a group of enlightened people. And i speak here to activist for a free and open interconnection of all people on our planet. I am atheist and i go only in a church to see the used technology in our history. Therefore, i am not interested for dogmatic propaganda. In my concentration to the internet the technology to realize stay always in the foreground. The first part, the theoretical discussion about structures and methodologies, is for me clear. We have it, if we want. The transport of the digital data in packetform over any geografical distances is the most important part, what we have to organice. And not with Kb, Mb, or little Gb. No, with Tb. But i know, that in this lists the most people people don't like to work with experimental and theoretical physic. They like more to repeat all this Governance rethoric. Papers for papaers, texts for texts. Endless without a clear perspective. We know, our Internet we can only create in a global cooperation in the technical sphere. The people in the regions have to be able to organize the internet in his region. And only the IP header we need for our interoperability. That we understand the elements in this language. And how we transport the data is not important. Only the non-alteration is important. The result for me is the free technology. Free for participate, free for using the result, for all people on our planet. The principles: "global thinking, local doing" and "knowledge is always worldheritage". many thanks and greetings, willi Manaus, Brasil -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: [governance] management of technology patents, licenses and royalty agreements focus group on impacts for labour / jobs, not just IT skills Datum: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 04:09:36 +0000 (UTC) Von: amalidesilva at yahoo.com An: Internet Governance Just a thought.... Civil society should build a focus group in the area of patents, licensing and technologies as it impacts labour supply not just skills, as it is a key to the allocation of wealth and the management of labour (job loss, is not just skills related it is actual displacement ) in to the future, if global birth rates are sustained at current levels...this is about access to technology. In the past WSIS stakeholders have really promoted sharing of technological knowledge...so we have already have an early interest in this area of work and the monitoring of it.... Simple example. If the recipe for making cakes had not been shared but patented , there would be one global baker using a robot cake machine and not a cake baker in every city as now...so lots of cake making jobs were sustained...Even the most complex of technology developments may have to take this route for evolution at a certain level , whatever that level may be, to minimize net job loss in the interim / short term for social stability....this may also provide enhanced creative opportunities for the future... Job losses of the future must be managed by society as the numbers will be too large to be easily assimilated by the general job market place plus..to address the current IT skills gap , civil society should actively support the IT education of the 40 to 65 year olds ...in to the future we will need less technically qualified people as AI develops sophistication....this is the real issue then...and we need to start planning now as the current global talk suggests.... Amali De Silva - Mitchell... From ayden at ferdeline.com Sat Jul 16 07:20:25 2016 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_Fabien_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 11:20:25 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IGF retreat starts In-Reply-To: References: <5788DFEF.2080502@apc.org> <479417098.5797903.1468594740251.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1468668025574-ae901fe2-78124419-b3c2103d@mixmax.com> Not many tweets came out of the IGF retreat yesterday. It would be helpful if there might be some more today, so that those of us who are not in the room can have some idea as to what is being discussed. Thanks! - Ayden P.S. This is not a comment directed at you, Anriette, as you were actively tweeting, but it would be great if others could tweet too. I fully appreciate how difficult it it is to tweet and engage in discussions at the same time — but for those of us not in the room, this is our only window. On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 4:13 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro raquino at gmail.com wrote: Dear Anriette It is great to know that you and CS folks are there and to know more, thanks! Also would be great if you could mention CSCG new WG efforts. It is an amazing team and the CSCG processes will only improve. Best, Renata Em 15 de jul de 2016 10:59, "Arsene TUNGALI (Yahoo)" < arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr > escreveu: Dear Anriette, Thanks for reporting about the start of the research. Thanks also for offering to give updates whenever you can especially sharing the link whenever something is announced for the public. We will follow using Twitter. Good luck to all our representatives :) Regards, A --------------------- Arsene Tungali, IGC Co-coordinator @arsenebaguma +243 993810967 (DRCongo) Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone (excuse typos and brievity) On Friday, July 15, 2016, 3:06 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen < anriette at apc.org > wrote: Dear all The UNDESA convened retreat on the IGF is starting. Some people will tweet, and the secretariat will share summaries of discussion. Follow at #igfretreat Chatham House rule is being applied. So no attribution - we can write about what was said but not by whem. The agenda, information about participants and submissions in response to the open call are all here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat Here is how the process is described on the site: “Against that backdrop, a two-day working retreat is proposed by UN Secretariat as part of the process of continual improvement of the IGF. A strategic dialogue will be held among experts, policymakers and practitioners in enriching IGF as the global forum for facilitating multistakeholder policy discussion and exchange on public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance, in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet (in line with its mandate as established by the Tunis Agenda para 72).” [snip] Expected outcomes of the retreat include (but are not limited to): (i) ways to improve the overall preparatory process of the IGF, the structure and nomination process for the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), and ways to strengthen the IGF Secretariat; (ii) measures to engage those stakeholders who are currently unengaged, with a view to expand and diversify physical and virtual participation; (iii) finding ways to better capture the outputs of the IGF and increasing their visibility and impact; (iv) ideas to support the work of national and regional IGF initiatives, and leverage the synergies between them as well as synergies with the IGF; and (v) modalities to ensure sustained funding to support the IGF and the IGF Secretariat. Thanks to CSCG for nominating me to be part of this process. Thanks to to those of you who sent in submissions. There is rich content - and a good mix of concrete and broader more analytical input among the submission. Doing justice to all these ideas in a 2-day process will be hard. We have been reassured that this process is one of an longer and ongoing process of facilitating debate about the IGF. Anriette -- ----------------------------------------- Anriette Esterhuysen Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org www.apc.org IM: ae_apc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nadira.araj at gmail.com Sat Jul 16 13:41:06 2016 From: nadira.araj at gmail.com (Nadira Alaraj) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 20:41:06 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] Retreat from the IGF? by Avri Doria Message-ID: https://www.apc.org/en/node/21821/ "On the other hand, the retreat could result in the empowerment of the IGF and of the MAG to do the work of improving the IGF as envisaged by the multistakeholder group of the CSTD Working Group on IGF improvements. The hold that has been put on bottom-up innovation by this retreat could be removed, and though time has been lost, the IGF and MAG could get back to work on building efforts that span from meeting to meeting without interruption. One of the more disruptive elements of the current IGF, other than this retreat, is that most of the effort is reserved for annual preparation for the yearly meeting, with most everything going into hibernation each year after that meeting, only to be reawakened once the new appointments to the MAG were made by UNDESA many months later. An organization that starts and halts, sleeping a third of each year, can never develop to its full potential. For the IGF to succeed in reaching its potential it needs to be unfettered and to be allowed to develop as a bottom-up organization." -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Sat Jul 16 15:08:32 2016 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 21:08:32 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Retreat from the IGF? by Avri Doria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <578A8630.7020407@apc.org> Thanks for posting this Nadira. Avri for writing it. Agree completely with this. And it is certainly a common thread here at the retreat. Anriette On 16/07/2016 19:41, Nadira Alaraj wrote: > https://www.apc.org/en/node/21821/ > > "On the other hand, the retreat could result in the empowerment of the > IGF and of the MAG to do the work of improving the IGF as envisaged by > the multistakeholder group of the CSTD Working Group on IGF > improvements. The hold that has been put on bottom-up innovation by this > retreat could be removed, and though time has been lost, the IGF and MAG > could get back to work on building efforts that span from meeting to > meeting without interruption. One of the more disruptive elements of the > current IGF, other than this retreat, is that most of the effort is > reserved for annual preparation for the yearly meeting, with most > everything going into hibernation each year after that meeting, only to > be reawakened once the new appointments to the MAG were made by UNDESA > many months later. An organization that starts and halts, sleeping a > third of each year, can never develop to its full potential. For the IGF > to succeed in reaching its potential it needs to be unfettered and to be > allowed to develop as a bottom-up organization." > > > -- > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- ----------------------------------------- Anriette Esterhuysen Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org www.apc.org IM: ae_apc From lea at gp-digital.org Sun Jul 17 21:03:01 2016 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 21:03:01 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] Retreat References: Message-ID: Dear all, Find below a factual update about the status of the official report on the IGF retreat that took place this weekend in Glen Cove. Warmly, Lea Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: "Lynn St.Amour" > Date: 17 July 2016 at 13:54:55 GMT-4 > To: IGF Maglist > Subject: [IGFmaglist] Retreat > > Dear MAG members, > > the retreat concluded last night after a couple of very very full days. It was agreed by the retreat participants that we would post a document on the IGF website this coming Tuesday, covering the entire retreat (after retreat participants had reviewed it). We will also set up a community consultation, using the Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s) platform (also used for the NetMundial document) in the following days. > > There will be much more information and discussion coming shortly, and everyone is working hard to get it all out ASAP, but I wanted to get a short update out now. > > Thank you, > Lynn > _______________________________________________ > Igfmaglist mailing list > Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca Mon Jul 18 09:01:08 2016 From: roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 09:01:08 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Defining media freedom in international policy debates Message-ID: This might be of interest to some in the BB communityŠ > Defining media freedom in international policy debates > > Andrei Richter The current debate in intergovernmental organizations about the object of freedom of the media has its origins in recent history. Conventions and other international legal and political documents provide, in retrospect, an insight into the relevant ideas shared by many, while accord on their meaning is usually reached by agreement that results from intense negotiations by both experts and diplomats. I argue that notions and concepts of what exactly should be protected under the umbrella of media freedom have been transformed during three distinct periods in post-war history. The related definitions are placed in the hierarchy of universal human rights. The contemporary international debate is illustrated with an example of the latest challenges to the scope of freedom of the media. The document analysis leads to a possible solution to the current intergovernmental argument. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Mon Jul 18 15:01:27 2016 From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:01:27 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Call for input to President's Commission on Enhancing Cybersecurity - bridging the trust gap between the IT community and the US government In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear friends and especially in the USA, this Call for Input i have received on the hackerspaces discussion list. But Herb Lin from the Stanford University is interested for distribution. Clear, i think, this is first directed to the people from the USA. But the result, and the theme, is for the people from our planet. I don't understand this strategy for this Input. But i hope, many people from USA start to do it. many greetings, willi, german Manaus, Brasil -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: [hackerspaces] Fwd: Call for input to President's Commission on Enhancing Cybersecurity - bridging the trust gap between the IT community and the US government Datum: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 21:56:39 -0300 Von: Cecilia Tanaka An: liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu Kopie (CC): Hackerspaces General Discussion List - - - Begin forwarded message - - - Date: July 15, 2016 at 3:21:32 PM EDT From: Herb Lin To: "'David Farber (dave at farber.net)'" , ip Subject: Call for input to President's Commission on Enhancing Cybersecurity - bridging the trust gap between the IT community and the US government Dear IPers - You may know that President Obama has established a commission to consider how to strengthen cybersecurity in both the public and private sectors while protecting privacy, ensuring public safety and economic and national security, fostering discovery and development of new technical solutions, and bolstering partnerships between Federal, State, and local government and the private sector in the development, promotion, and use of cybersecurity technologies, policies, and best practices. (See https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/09/executive-order-commission-enhancing-national-cybersecurity .) I am one of the 12 designated commissioners. Recognizing that trust is hard to build and easy to destroy (and a variety of things have happened over the last 20 years have occurred to do the latter), one issue that has come up is the enormous gap of trust between the U.S. government and the information technology (IT) community, from which many IPers are drawn. This rift is not helpful to either side, and I'd like to solicit input from the IP community about what you think the government can do or refrain from doing to help bridge that gap. It would be most helpful if you could three things in your response: 1 - Your best examples of things the government (and what part of the US government) has done to alienate the IT community specifically. (Or, at the very least, show how the examples you provide connect to the interests of the IT community.) 2 - Things that the U.S. government could realistically do in the short and medium term (i.e., 0-10 year time frame) that would help bridge the trust gap. If your answer is "Don't do dumb things!", it would be better and more useful to provide *examples* of what not to do. 3 - Things that the U.S. government could realistically do in the longer term to do the same. Please send your responses to CENCinput1 at gmail.com. (I set up this email address, but I'd like to keep the traffic separate from my non-Commission work email.) I promise to read as many as I can individually and share what I learn with the commission membership. Also, feel free to circulate this call for input to anyone else you feel would want to comment. Thanks much Herb ======================================================================= Herb Lin Senior Research Scholar, Center for International Security and Cooperation Research Fellow, Hoover Institution Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 USA herblin at stanford.edu 650-497-8600 office || 202-841-0525 cell || 202-540-9878 fax AIM herblin (any time you see me) Skype herbert_lin (usually by appointment) Twitter @HerbLinCyber This message was sent to the list address and trashed, but can be found online. - - - End forwarded message - - - From steve at openmedia.ca Tue Jul 19 13:23:01 2016 From: steve at openmedia.ca (Steve Anderson) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:23:01 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Introducing OpenMedia's new Executive Director, Laura Tribe Message-ID: Hello everyone, I wanted to drop you a quick note to let you know that OpenMedia is pleased to announce *Laura Tribe *(Laura at OpenMedia.org) as our new Executive Director, effective immediately. Laura takes over from Alexa Pitoulis, who has served as our Interim Executive Director for the past six months. Many of you may be familiar with Laura’s name, as she has worked with us for over a year as our lead campaigner on privacy issues. We’ve set out these changes in a Letter to our Community from our Board Chair Phillip Djwa that’s available on our website . Alexa is now moving on from OpenMedia, and you may also be interested in reading her reflections on her time with us . Finally, we’re in the process of hiring a new campaigner to take over from Laura in steering our Canadian privacy work. (please keep sharing our job description far and wide!) In the meantime, feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the above. I founded OpenMedia and don't worry I'm not disappearing. I will continue on in a Senior Strategist role and you can feel free to reach out to me at any time. So far I'm enjoying spending more of my time on digital rights advocacy and less on organizational development! onward! -- *Steve Anderson* Founder, Senior Strategist and Internet Governance Analyst OpenMedia.org | *The Internet Needs You -->>* http://openmedia.org 604-837-5730 Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook **You have the right to link to content and services of your choice online -->> Save The Link * *Confidentiality Warning:* * This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Thank you.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca Mon Jul 4 18:55:00 2016 From: roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 18:55:00 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] The UN says no more internet shutdowns! In-Reply-To: <1986043855.25521841467563798137.JavaMail.root@server9849> References: <1986043855.25521841467563798137.JavaMail.root@server9849> Message-ID: Dear BB colleagues with HR legal expertiseŠ Just wondering what enforcement teeth this kind of resolution has? What steps are possible if/when another shutdown happens? What¹s the first/next step if/when that happens please? Thanks, B. ---------------------- Becky Lentz, PhD Associate Professor of Communication Studies McGill University Faculty of Arts 853 Sherbrooke Street West, Arts Building, W-265 Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 0G5 Phone 514.398.4995 Fax 514.398.8557 Email: becky.lentz at mcgill.ca http://www.mcgill.ca/ahcs From: "Deji Olukotun, Access Now" Reply-To: "Deji Olukotun, Access Now" Date: Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 12:36 PM To: Subject: The UN says no more internet shutdowns! > > > Hi , Good news! On Friday, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a > resolution > .id=648944&ea.campaigner.email=kcGOb7dSS%2FUM2VG5zWPfkyI35sBDF31e&ea.campaigne > r.id=PUHLa0Jj%2ByqZkArzVWMSmA==&ea_broadcast_target_id=0> condemning internet > shutdowns. This is a huge step toward protecting human rights online and a > MAJOR milestone for the movement to #KeepItOn. > .id=648945&ea.campaigner.email=kcGOb7dSS%2FUM2VG5zWPfkyI35sBDF31e&ea.campaigne > r.id=PUHLa0Jj%2ByqZkArzVWMSmA==&ea_broadcast_target_id=0> With help from > people like you, we¹re spreading the word about internet shutdowns ‹ and how > deeply they impact people¹s lives. Now, the world¹s leading international > human rights body has unanimously spoken: when governments shut down the > internet, they abuse our rights and violate international law. This is a > moment for celebration, but it¹s also a moment for reflection. The same week > we saw this amazing victory, we also saw shutdowns in Turkey, Bahrain, and > Algeria. We need your help to seize this moment at the UN and put an end to > internet shutdowns for good. > .id=648946&ea.campaigner.email=kcGOb7dSS%2FUM2VG5zWPfkyI35sBDF31e&ea.campaigne > r.id=PUHLa0Jj%2ByqZkArzVWMSmA==&ea_broadcast_target_id=0> First, you can make > a donation > .id=648947&ea.campaigner.email=kcGOb7dSS%2FUM2VG5zWPfkyI35sBDF31e&ea.campaigne > r.id=PUHLa0Jj%2ByqZkArzVWMSmA==&ea_broadcast_target_id=0> to support the > #KeepItOn campaign. From working with UN delegates on this resolution to > providing direct technical assistance to victims of internet shutdowns around > the world, Access Now is fighting at all levels to stop internet shutdowns, > and your support makes all the difference. > .id=648948&ea.campaigner.email=kcGOb7dSS%2FUM2VG5zWPfkyI35sBDF31e&ea.campaigne > r.id=PUHLa0Jj%2ByqZkArzVWMSmA==&ea_broadcast_target_id=0> Next, if you haven¹t > already, join the community of activists committed to fighting internet > shutdowns by taking the #KeepItOn pledge. > .id=648949&ea.campaigner.email=kcGOb7dSS%2FUM2VG5zWPfkyI35sBDF31e&ea.campaigne > r.id=PUHLa0Jj%2ByqZkArzVWMSmA==&ea_broadcast_target_id=0> It¹s going to take > all of us standing together to make this happen. > > .id=648950&ea.campaigner.email=kcGOb7dSS%2FUM2VG5zWPfkyI35sBDF31e&ea.campaigne > r.id=PUHLa0Jj%2ByqZkArzVWMSmA==&ea_broadcast_target_id=0> > > Share the image on Twitter > .id=648951&ea.campaigner.email=kcGOb7dSS%2FUM2VG5zWPfkyI35sBDF31e&ea.campaigne > r.id=PUHLa0Jj%2ByqZkArzVWMSmA==&ea_broadcast_target_id=0> > > Share the image on Facebook > .id=648952&ea.campaigner.email=kcGOb7dSS%2FUM2VG5zWPfkyI35sBDF31e&ea.campaigne > r.id=PUHLa0Jj%2ByqZkArzVWMSmA==&ea_broadcast_target_id=0> > Now, tell everyone you know about this awesome victory and encourage them to > join you in the fight to #KeepItOn! Click here to share the pledge on Facebook > .id=648953&ea.campaigner.email=kcGOb7dSS%2FUM2VG5zWPfkyI35sBDF31e&ea.campaigne > r.id=PUHLa0Jj%2ByqZkArzVWMSmA==&ea_broadcast_target_id=0> and Twitter > .id=648954&ea.campaigner.email=kcGOb7dSS%2FUM2VG5zWPfkyI35sBDF31e&ea.campaigne > r.id=PUHLa0Jj%2ByqZkArzVWMSmA==&ea_broadcast_target_id=0> . (Even Edward > Snowden supported the fight! Check out his tweet here > .id=648955&ea.campaigner.email=kcGOb7dSS%2FUM2VG5zWPfkyI35sBDF31e&ea.campaigne > r.id=PUHLa0Jj%2ByqZkArzVWMSmA==&ea_broadcast_target_id=0> .) > Thanks for everything you¹ve done and will do to help move us closer to a > world free of internet shutdowns. We couldn¹t do it without you. > Together in the fight, > Deji Olukotun > Access Now > P.S. Your donation > .id=648956&ea.campaigner.email=kcGOb7dSS%2FUM2VG5zWPfkyI35sBDF31e&ea.campaigne > r.id=PUHLa0Jj%2ByqZkArzVWMSmA==&ea_broadcast_target_id=0> will help us keep > the fight in the halls of the UN, on the ground providing direct technical > assistance, and beyond. Thanks for your support. > > .id=648957&ea.campaigner.email=kcGOb7dSS%2FUM2VG5zWPfkyI35sBDF31e&ea.campaigne > r.id=PUHLa0Jj%2ByqZkArzVWMSmA==&ea_broadcast_target_id=0> > .id=648958&ea.campaigner.email=kcGOb7dSS%2FUM2VG5zWPfkyI35sBDF31e&ea.campaigne > r.id=PUHLa0Jj%2ByqZkArzVWMSmA==&ea_broadcast_target_id=0> > .id=648959&ea.campaigner.email=kcGOb7dSS%2FUM2VG5zWPfkyI35sBDF31e&ea.campaigne > r.id=PUHLa0Jj%2ByqZkArzVWMSmA==&ea_broadcast_target_id=0> > id=648960&ea.campaigner.email=kcGOb7dSS%2FUM2VG5zWPfkyI35sBDF31e&ea.campaigner > .id=PUHLa0Jj%2ByqZkArzVWMSmA==&ea_broadcast_target_id=0> > .id=648961&ea.campaigner.email=kcGOb7dSS%2FUM2VG5zWPfkyI35sBDF31e&ea.campaigne > r.id=PUHLa0Jj%2ByqZkArzVWMSmA==&ea_broadcast_target_id=0> > Spread the word! Forward this action alert to a friend. > You are receiving this email because you are subscribed to receive Access Now > action alerts. Click here to unsubscribe or adjust your subscription > preferences. > .id=648962&ea.campaigner.email=kcGOb7dSS%2FUM2VG5zWPfkyI35sBDF31e&ea.campaigne > r.id=PUHLa0Jj%2ByqZkArzVWMSmA==&ea_broadcast_target_id=0> Access Now defends > and extends the digital rights of users at risk around the world. Your support > makes a difference. Donate here. > .id=648963&ea.campaigner.email=kcGOb7dSS%2FUM2VG5zWPfkyI35sBDF31e&ea.campaigne > r.id=PUHLa0Jj%2ByqZkArzVWMSmA==&ea_broadcast_target_id=0> Contact us at > info at accessnow.org or PO Box 115, New York, NY > 10113. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Thu Jul 21 10:57:03 2016 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:57:03 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [AfricanInternetRights] Call for contributions on the internet and human rights in Africa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *[with apologies for cross-posting]*, this may be of interest to some... Call for contributions on the internet and human rights in Africa: https://www.apc.org/en/news/call-contributions-internet-and-human-rights-afric -- *Sheetal Kumar* Programme Manager | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258 0337| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca Fri Jul 22 11:24:43 2016 From: roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 11:24:43 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] WEBINAR: Social Justice Philanthropy (SJP): Theory, Practice, and Impact Message-ID: Dear colleagues, This may be of interest to some: http://nncg.org/events/social-justice-philanthropy-sjp-theory-practice-impac t/ WEBINAR: Social Justice Philanthropy (SJP): Theory, Practice, and Impact September 8, 2016 ‹ 12:00 - 1:00 PM Eastern This webinar considers the challenges and opportunities that arise when social justice aspirations meet philanthropic practice. According to the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) in the US, social justice philanthropy has a transformational agenda; its aim is to reform institutions in order to create a more equitable distribution of power, thus eliminating the need for ongoing charity. This tall order is the entry point for this 3-part webinar that considers 1) theories of philanthropy (TOP) related to theories of change (TOC) in social justice grant making, 2) evaluation of SJP, and 3) approaches to advancing SJP practice within the field of philanthropy. Led by NNCG member Dr. Becky Lentz (Associate Professor of Communication Studies at McGill University in Canada and Faculty Fellow at the RGK Center for Philanthropy and Community Service at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin), the webinar will include guest grantmakers, evaluators, and capacity building professionals who will discuss these three topics and respond to questions. https://nncgsocialjustice.eventbrite.com NNCG Members: FREE Non-Members: $55.00 2-webinar package*: $100.00 3-webinar package*: $135.00 *Purchase of a 2 or 3 webinar package allows the buyer to attend this plus additional NNCG webinar(s) for up to 1 year from purchase date. Please email lori.jane at nncg.orgwith your additional selections. ---------------------- Becky Lentz, PhD Associate Professor of Communication Studies McGill University Faculty of Arts 853 Sherbrooke Street West, Arts Building, W-265 Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 0G5 Phone 514.398.4995 Fax 514.398.8557 Email: becky.lentz at mcgill.ca http://www.mcgill.ca/ahcs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Fri Jul 22 14:34:28 2016 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 18:34:28 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [Igfretparts] IGF Retreat Proceedings In-Reply-To: <4014F608-7319-4EFB-B513-56CF341B573C@unog.ch> References: <4014F608-7319-4EFB-B513-56CF341B573C@unog.ch> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Chengetai Masango Date: Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 6:29 PM Subject: [Igfretparts] IGF Retreat Proceedings To: IGF Maglist Cc: igfretparts at intgovforum.org, Igfregionals at intgovforum.org Dear All, The document summarizing the proceedings of the IGF Retreat is now online on the IGF website : To download PDF of the proceedings: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/documents/igf-meeting/igf-2016/812-igf-retreat-proceedings-22july To comment on the proceedings (blog style) : http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2016-06-23-15-15-52/igf-retreat-proceedings Many thanks to all who worked bringing the document together. Best regards, Chengetai _______________________________________________ Igfretparts mailing list Igfretparts at intgovforum.org http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfretparts_intgovforum.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wisdom.dk at gmail.com Fri Jul 22 16:18:45 2016 From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 20:18:45 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Proceedings In-Reply-To: <4014F608-7319-4EFB-B513-56CF341B573C@unog.ch> References: <4014F608-7319-4EFB-B513-56CF341B573C@unog.ch> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Chengetai Masango Date: Friday, July 22, 2016 Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Proceedings To: IGF Maglist Cc: igfretparts at intgovforum.org, Igfregionals at intgovforum.org Dear All, The document summarizing the proceedings of the IGF Retreat is now online on the IGF website : To download PDF of the proceedings: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/documents/igf-meeting/igf-2016/812-igf-retreat-proceedings-22july To comment on the proceedings (blog style) : http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2016-06-23-15-15-52/igf-retreat-proceedings Many thanks to all who worked bringing the document together. Best regards, Chengetai _______________________________________________ Igfmaglist mailing list Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org -- *WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)* E-government and Open Government Data Platforms Specialist National Information Technology Agency (NITA)/ Ghana Open Data Initiative Project. ICANN Fellow / Member, UN IGF MAG Member, ISOC Member, Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) Member, Diplo Foundation Member, OGP Open Data WG Member, GODAN Memember, ITAG Member Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh wisdom.dk at gmail.com Skype: wisdom_dk facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Jul 25 09:41:37 2016 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 09:41:37 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] ITU releases 2016 ICT figures Message-ID: sorry for cross-posting (SENT ON A bcc basis to the Digital Development Community of Practice and WDR 2016 leads) Dear Colleagues: FYI - Today, ITU released the latest 2016 Facts and Figures for the Information Communication technologies (ICT) sector: http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/facts/default.aspx *ITU releases 2016 ICT figures* *ICT services getting more affordable – but more than half the world’s population still not using the Internet* *Geneva, 22 July 2016 *– New data released today by ITU, the UN specialized agency for information and communication technology (ICT), show that 3.9 billion people remain cut-off from the vast resources available on the Internet, despite falling prices for ICT services. *ICT Facts & Figures 2016* shows that developing countries now account for the vast majority of Internet users, with 2.5 billion users compared with one billion in developed countries. But Internet penetration rates tell a different story, with 81% in developed countries, compared with 40% in developing countries and 15% in the Least Developed Countries. “Access to information and communication technologies, particularly broadband, has the potential to serve as a major accelerator of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Global interconnectedness is rapidly expanding, however more needs to be done to bridge the digital divide and bring the more than half of the global population not using the Internet into the digital economy,” said ITU Secretary-General Houlin Zhao. “2016 marks the year when the international community is embarking on the implementation of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their 169 targets. ITU, given the tremendous development of ICTs, has a key role to play in facilitating their attainment,” says Brahima Sanou, the Director of the ITU’s Telecommunication Development Bureau. “ITU statistics inform public and private-sector decision makers, and help us accomplish our mission: to make use of the full potential of ICTs for the timely achievement of the SDGs.” *Mobile broadband growth slowing* The new edition of ITU’s *ICT Facts & Figures* reveals that mobile phone coverage is now near-ubiquitous, with an estimated 95% of the global population – or some seven billion people – living in an area covered by a basic 2G mobile-cellular network. Advanced mobile-broadband networks (LTE) have spread quickly over the last three years and reach almost four billion people today – corresponding to 53% of the global population. But while the number of mobile-broadband subscriptions continues to grow at double digit rates in developing countries to reach a penetration rate of close to 41%, mobile-broadband penetration growth has slowed overall. Globally, the total number of mobile-broadband subscriptions is expected to reach 3.6 billion by end 2016, compared with 3.2 billion at end 2015. *Fixed broadband growth strongest in developed countries* Global fixed-broadband subscriptions are expected to reach around 12 per 100 inhabitants in 2016, with Europe, the Americas and the Commonwealth of Independent States regions having the highest rates of penetration. Strong growth in China is driving fixed-broadband in Asia and the Pacific, where penetration is expected to surpass 10% by end of 2016. *ICT prices continue to fall* Mobile-broadband services have now become more affordable than fixed-broadband services, with the average price for a basic fixed-broadband plan more than twice as high as the average price of a comparable mobile-broadband plan. By the end of 2015, 83 developing countries had achieved the *Broadband Commission’s affordability target* . *Digital divide means half the world is still offline* By the end of 2016, more than half of the world’s population – 3.9 billion people – will not yet be using the Internet. While almost one billion households in the world now have Internet access (of which 230 million are in China, 60 million in India and 20 million in the world’s 48 Least Developed Countries), figures for household access reveal the extent of the digital divide, with 84% of households connected in Europe, compared with 15.4% in the African region. *Global online gender gap widens* Internet penetration rates are higher for men than for women in all regions of the world. The global Internet user gender gap grew from 11% in 2013 to 12% in 2016. The regional gender gap is largest in Africa, at 23%, and smallest in the Americas, at 2%. *Internet bandwidth* By early 2016, international Internet bandwidth had reached 185,000 gigabits per second, up from a low of 30,000 gigabits in 2008. However, bandwidth is unequally distributed globally, and lack of bandwidth remains a major bottleneck to improved Internet connectivity in many developing and Least Developed Countries. *Read the full ICT Facts & Figures 2016 report* *About ITU statistics* ITU statistics are widely recognized as the world’s most reliable and impartial global data on the state of the global ICT industry. They are used extensively by leading intergovernmental agencies, financial institutions and private sector analysts worldwide. The latest ITU statistics are available at *www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/statistics* *Follow ITU on Facebook*: *www.itu.int/facebook* *For more information, please contact:* *Sarah Parkes or Susan Teltsher* -- # # # # • # # # # *Carolina Rossini * Vice President, International Policy and Strategy + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini PGP ID: 0xEC81015C *PublicKnowledge* | @publicknowledge | www.publicknowledge.org 1818 N St. NW, Suite 410 | Washington, DC 20036 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From yannis at registry.asia Tue Jul 26 04:10:37 2016 From: yannis at registry.asia (Yannis Li) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:10:37 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] APrIGF Taipei 2016 is now on set - Join us tomorrow! References: Message-ID: <761F779F-F56D-4AA1-902B-55AE1DB09844@registry.asia> Dear All, Apology if cross-posting. APrIGF is starting tomorrow and remote participation is available. Please do join us and contribute your ideas especially to our Synthesis Document. Kindly refer to below for more details. Thanks. Yannis ---------------------------- Dear APrIGF Community, APrIGF Taipei 2016 is now on set - Join us tomorrow! After months of preparations, we are excited to announce that 2016 APrIGF Taipei is finally happening tomorrow at NTUH International Convention Center! With 500+ online registered participants and speakers from over 20 countries , we are expecting a fruitful discussion on Internet Governance and intricate outcomes of different issues and topics during this 3-day forum. Please check out the Program Agenda (https://2016.aprigf.asia/program/agenda/ ) and Speakers’ Profiles (https://2016.aprigf.asia/program/speakerprofile/ ) of all sessions for the following days online. Latest updates and news can also be found on the event website. Also, remote participation including AdobeConnect and Livescribe will be available for all sessions. For details, please check out https://2016.aprigf.asia/program/agenda/ . The Draft 1 of Synthesis Document 2016 is also ready for comment now throughout the 3-day conference during the Townhall Sessions and online. More details at https://2016.aprigf.asia/synthesis/ . Alongside the workshop sessions during day-time, there will also be social events co-organized with our supporting organizations. On-site participants may share with others your wonderful experience in Taipei by using the hashtag: #APrIGF on different social media platforms! Last but not least, we would like to thank everyone for your support as always and we are thrilled to meet you all in the coming days! Best regards, Secretariat of APrIGF DotAsia Organisation Ltd. http://aprigf.asia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APrIGF Logo.png Type: image/png Size: 18486 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lists at digitaldissidents.org Tue Jul 26 06:39:44 2016 From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 12:39:44 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [offtopic] vacancy: Digital Programme Assistant at Article19 Message-ID: Hi all, Announcing a position for Digital Programme Assistant at Article19. More information here: https://article.peoplehr.net/Pages/JobBoard/Opening.aspx?v=c8104a59-6e63-45a4-b0b8-ae4040c76ea4 and summary below. If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me at any time. All the best, Niels Responsible to: Head of Digital Key relationships: Digital team, Law and Policy programme, Projects team and Finance team, Communications and Campaigns team. Contract: 1 year – Fixed Term Working hours: Full time (37.5 hours per week) Special Conditions: Travel required, occasionally extended Application deadline: 07 Aug 2016 ROLE PURPOSE The Internet is shaping our societies, but who is shaping the development of the Internet? And based on what standards should this be done? At ARTICLE19 we firmly believe that the Internet should be an instrument for freedom of expression and access to information. Help us to protect and strengthen the Internet as a rights enabling environment! The Programme Assistant (PA) supports ARTICLE 19’s work on freedom of expression and information on the Internet. The PA will oversee project management for our core digital rights grants, and engage in day to day implementation of activities in ARTICLE 19’s Digital projects on Internet governance, specifically ICANN, the IETF/IRTF, IEEE, ITU as well as work on mainstreaming the usage of HTTP status code 451. You would be part of a growing, dynamic team in which there is a space for creativity, reflection and professional growth. We're looking for someone who is a self-starter that is highly motivated and structured who works independently but plays well in a team. -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 From Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org Wed Jul 27 10:58:36 2016 From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org (Stuart Hamilton) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 14:58:36 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Thanks! (and short observations on the IGF Retreat) Message-ID: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948E0840737F@MFP02.IFLA.lan> Dear Colleagues I just wanted to send a short note thanking you for supporting my participation in the recent IGF retreat, and alerting you to some next steps. In the next day or so a compilation (organized by topic) of the ideas and suggestions that emerged from the retreat will be made available in a format that permits paragraph by paragraph commenting. This public consultation will be open for two months until 26 September, 2016. It's now time for everyone not at the retreat to get involved and make comments - I'm sure it will be posted to these lists as soon as it is up on the IGF website. While I'm here, I'd also like to offer a couple of limited observations of the retreat. Fundamentally, I felt that for those of us there it was a very open wide-ranging discussion that the outcome documents summarise very well. I don't have much to add in that regard. The one area that was extremely interesting to me though was the idea of the MAG as this gigantic conference organising committee, and what a waste of expertise that seems to be. Speaking from the perspective of a staff member at an international organisation that arranges an annual conference for 3000-4000 people, moving from different region to region each year, there seemed to be a number of areas where a more focused approach to conference planning could produce a better outcome. At the MAG meeting before the retreat I was struck by the amount of MAG members I spoke with who were exhausted and exasperated at having to review >200 workshop proposals. Maybe I was being naïve, but going into the retreat I had assumed some degree of organisation on the MAG that would allow for workshop assessment by area of expertise i.e. proposals would be divided up across groups of individuals, sharing the workload, and playing to each individual's strength in terms of subject knowledge. Not the case apparently, and in my opinion clearly an area that should be addressed. I suddenly realised that my own organisation's annual conference, which features hundreds of sessions and meetings over five days, and has a core conference organising committee of around 10 people, was massively more efficient than that of the IGF. We never really got into discussion about the MAG's effectiveness in the retreat - we did talk about how to better deal with the MAG's nomination process, but we didn't go deep into MAG re-organisation. However, it doesn't seem to me that changing working practices would go anywhere near the MAG mandate, and shouldn't be controversial. At the same time as addressing the workshop review process, there could also be better organisation into sub-groups/working groups on engagement and outreach, information dissemination etc. In side-discussions at the retreat I did discover that there have been/perhaps still are working groups on engagement, but I was not able to ascertain if this is something that get set up each time a new MAG is formed, or if there really is a structure in place to tackle different topics, and utilise individuals' expertise. I'm still left with this as a bit of a grey area I'd like to understand more. Anyway, just some observations as I said. I encourage you all to take a look at the document that will shortly go online, and participate in the public consultation. Cheers, Stuart Dr. Stuart Hamilton Deputy Secretary General International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) P.O. Box 95312 2509 CH The Hague Netherlands 00 31 70 314 0884 Twitter: @ifladpa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wisdom.dk at gmail.com Wed Jul 27 13:35:32 2016 From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 17:35:32 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] Join and contribute to the work and awareness/outreach of the IGF BPFs! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Brian Clarke GUTTERMAN Date: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 Subject: [IGFmaglist] Join and contribute to the work and awareness/outreach of the IGF BPFs! To: IGF Maglist Cc: "Lynn St.Amour" , "sumon at fiberathome.net" < sumon at fiberathome.net> Dear All, The work of the 2016 IGF Best Practice Forum’s is well underway and is helping pave the way to IGF 2016 in December this year. The Secretariat would like to take this opportunity to encourage and invite all stakeholders to participate in these diverse activities. A brief summary of how you can participate in the BPF processes follows below. Please also feel free to contact the Secretariat directly and/or the co-facilitators of the BPFs (cc'd here) for further information about how you can get involved and ways in which your respective stakeholders can join the work if they are not already. (Cybersecurity- Markus; IPv6- Izumi and Sumon; Gender and Access-Jac and Renata; IXPs-Sala and Douglas; Anti-Corruption-Mike N.) BPF Gender and Access: Following its work on online abuse and gender-based violence against women in 2015, the BPF Gender is currently investigating ways to ensure equal and meaningful access to the Internet regardless of gender. To plan and further its work, the BPF holds meetings every two weeks, but also offers other simple ways for stakeholders to get involved: Complete the BPF’s survey, aimed at mapping existing initiatives and research in the field of gender and meaningful Internet access. Join an in-person or virtual webinar, hosted at various national and regional IGF meetings. To learn more about the webinars and other ongoing work, join the BPF’s mailing list. BPF on IPv6: Understanding the commercial and economic incentives beneath a successful IPv6 deployment “Why adopt IPv6?” and how IPv6 Task Forces and capacity building initiatives play in encouraging IPv6 adoption was at length discussed by the 2015 BPF on IPv6. However, the decision to adopt IPv6 is not only a technical one. Building upon last year’s work, this year’s BPF IPv6 will focus on the economic incentives and commercial drivers behind the decision to adopt IPv6. The BPF wants to reach out to organisations which have commercially deployed IPv6 and willing to share their experiences. If you want to contribute, assist in reaching out to the commercial and business community, take part in the brainstorming and help to shape the 2016 BPF outcome document you can join the “bp_ipv6” mailing list and participate in the regular virtual meetings. Subscribe to the BPF IPv6 mailing list and keep track of the BPF’s progress at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/best-practice-forums/bpf-ipv6 BPF on Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) The 2016 BPF on IXPs is currently finetuning its scope and goals and wants to target relevant decision makers in the policy, business and regulatory environments. It was felt that after last year’s focus on creating and setting up IXPs and identifying an IXP’s stakeholders, it would be natural for this year’s BPF to focus on growing and further developing an IXP. IXPs can play a substantive role in achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals by in enabling access and contributing to an inclusive and sustainable growth in their geographic area. The BPF on IXPs is seeking to widen its group of contributors and obtain best practices and lessons learned from different stakeholders and organisations, different geographic regions and form individual IXPs. To join the discussions and to contribute one should subscribe to the mailing list and take part in BPF’s virtual meetings. All information on the BPF on IXPs can be found at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/best-practice-forums/bpf-ixps BPF on Cybersecurity: Reviewing the outcomes of both the IGF Spam and CSIRT Best Practices Forums over the last two years, there was an emerging consensus from the community that the 2016 cybersecurity BPF would most benefit from addressing cooperation and collaboration between stakeholder groups as a topic. The community has expressed that all stakeholders may benefit from having a multi-stakeholder discussion, including each of the major IGF stakeholder groups, on how to engage and communicate with each other on cybersecurity issues. There is also a feeling that this would be uniquely fit for an IGF BPF. Currently, the BPF on Cybersecurity is conducting an open call for inputs/contributions to gather initial inputs from the community which will subsequently form the basis for the group’s output documentation. All are invited to contribute to this call for contributions. Sign-Up to Participate in the 2016 BPF on Cybersecurity and Contribute on the Mailing List: https://www.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_cybersec_2016_intgovforum.org BPF on Anti-Corruption Work on the new IGF BPF on Anti-Corruption is underway, to learn more, sign up to the dedicated mailing list: http://www.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_anticorruption_intgovforum.org Regards, IGF Secretariat -- *WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)* E-government and Open Government Data Platforms Specialist National Information Technology Agency (NITA)/ Ghana Open Data Initiative Project. ICANN Fellow / Member, UN IGF MAG Member, ISOC Member, Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) Member, Diplo Foundation Member, OGP Open Data WG Member, GODAN Memember, ITAG Member Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh wisdom.dk at gmail.com Skype: wisdom_dk facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From raquino at gmail.com Wed Jul 27 21:22:24 2016 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 01:22:24 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] #IGF2016 #LACIGF9 #APrIGF Same day 29th July #BPGender sessions!Participate online and onsite Message-ID: <1469668944431-86469972-122e1a94-88b57d43@mixmax.com> https://twitter.com/renataaquino/status/758441026344382464 #IGF2016 #LACIGF9 #APrIGF Same day 29th July #BPGender sessions! Participate online and onsite (apologies for cross-posting) This 29th July 2016 you’ll have the opportunity to participate on sessions talking about BPF Gender and Access of #IGF2016 both onsite and online. APrIGF session Session on Gender and Access with Jac Sm Kee 29 July, (Friday), 9.00-10.30am (Taiwan time, UTC +8.00) Remote participation link: http://connect.iportal.tw/aprigf402ab/ More about APrIGF: https://2016.aprigf.asia/program/agenda/ More about the session: https://apps.2016.rigf.asia/submission/proposaldetail?id=111 Other times: 7pm in Costa Rica #LACIGF9; 10pm in Brazil; 1am GMT See others http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?iso=20160729T09&p1=241&p2=211&p3=225&p4=45 LACIGF Session 29th July (Friday), 09:00 – 10:30 (Costa Rica GMT-6) Sesión 7 – Los desafíos persistentes y emergentes para el acceso a Internet – Conectando el próximo Billón con Renata Aquino Ribeiro Remote participation link: http://www.lacigf.org/en/lacigf9/webcasting.html More about #LACIGF9: http://www.lacigf.org/en/lacigf9/index.html More about the session http://www.lacigf.org/en/lacigf9/agenda.html#sesion7 Other times: 23pm Taiwan http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?iso=20160729T09&p1=225&p2=241 More about BPF Gender and Access Complete the BPF’s survey, aimed at mapping existing initiatives and research in the field of gender and meaningful Internet access. http://bit.ly/surveybpgen Join an in-person or virtual webinar, hosted at various national and regional IGF meetings. To learn more about the webinars and other ongoing work, join the BPF’s mailing list. http://bit.ly/bpgenlist -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthias.kettemann at gmail.com Tue Jul 5 03:23:47 2016 From: matthias.kettemann at gmail.com (Matthias C. Kettemann) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:23:47 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] The UN says no more internet shutdowns! Message-ID: Dear Becky, dear colleagues, HRC member states, in para. 10 of the Resolution, "*condemn **unequivocally *measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online in violation of international human rights law and calls on all States to refrain from and cease such measures;" HRC resolutions, unlike some Chapter VII-based SC Resolutions, do not come with clear sanctions. A shutdown will formally not have any different consequences after the resolution than before. However, it is an important statement which can be used for advocacy, and as evidence before courts and by academia of an emerging international consensus on the subject, a crystallization of a customary international law right to access and perhaps as a normative step towards the recognition of an shared international responsibility for the integrity of the Internet. That Internet shutdowns are illegal because they are, almost without exception, not based in law, in pursuance of a legitimate aim, and proporiationate to the aim pursued, is pretty clear. But it's very good I see the HRC embrace this approach so publicly. Teh resolution is a also a step in the direction of shared responsibility for the integrity of the Internet. But formally, Internet shutdowns just as other HR violations do not provide the international community (except in responsibilty to protect-situation of mass atrocities of which Internet shutdowns might be an early sign) with a title to intervene. On a related note, the European Yearbook on Human Rights 2016 , which I co-edited together with (i.a.) Wolfgang Benedek, is out now. Kind regards Matthias On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Becky Lentz wrote: > Dear BB colleagues with HR legal expertise… > > Just wondering what enforcement teeth this kind of resolution has? What > steps are possible if/when another shutdown happens? What’s the first/next > step if/when that happens please? > > Thanks, > B. > > ---------------------- > Becky Lentz, PhD > Associate Professor of Communication Studies > McGill University Faculty of Arts > 853 Sherbrooke Street West, Arts Building, W-265 > Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 0G5 > Phone 514.398.4995 > Fax 514.398.8557 > Email: becky.lentz at mcgill.ca > http://www.mcgill.ca/ahcs > > > From: "Deji Olukotun, Access Now" > Reply-To: "Deji Olukotun, Access Now" > Date: Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 12:36 PM > To: > Subject: The UN says no more internet shutdowns! > > > > [image: Access Now] > > > Hi , > > Good news! On Friday,* the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a > resolution > > condemning internet shutdowns*. This is a huge step toward protecting > human rights online and a MAJOR milestone for the movement to #KeepItOn. > > > With help from people like you, we’re spreading the word about internet > shutdowns — and how deeply they impact people’s lives. Now, the world’s > leading international human rights body has unanimously spoken: when > governments shut down the internet, they abuse our rights and violate > international law. > > This is a moment for celebration, but it’s also a moment for reflection. > The same week we saw this amazing victory, we also saw shutdowns in Turkey, > Bahrain, and Algeria. *We need your help to seize this moment at the UN > and put an end to internet shutdowns for good.* > > [image: Donate] > > > *First, you can make a donation > ** to > support the #KeepItOn campaign.* From working with UN delegates on this > resolution to providing direct technical assistance to victims of internet > shutdowns around the world, Access Now is fighting at all levels to stop > internet shutdowns, and your support makes all the difference. > > [image: Take the pledge] > > > Next, if you haven’t already, join the community of activists committed to > fighting internet shutdowns by *taking the #KeepItOn pledge.* > > It’s going to take all of us standing together to make this happen. > > > > > Share the image on Twitter > > Share the image on Facebook > > > Now, *tell everyone you know about this awesome victory* and encourage > them to join you in the fight to #KeepItOn! Click here to share the pledge > on Facebook > > and Twitter > . > (Even Edward Snowden supported the fight! Check out his tweet here > > .) > > Thanks for everything you’ve done and will do to help move us closer to a > world free of internet shutdowns. We couldn’t do it without you. > > Together in the fight, > > Deji Olukotun > Access Now > > P.S. Your donation > > will help us keep the fight in the halls of the UN, on the ground providing > direct technical assistance, and beyond. Thanks for your support. > > [image: Facebook] > [image: > twitter] > [image: > g+] > [image: > Tumblr] > [image: > YouTube] > > > Spread the word! Forward this action alert to a friend. > > You are receiving this email because you are subscribed to receive Access > Now action alerts. Click here to unsubscribe or adjust your subscription > preferences. > > > Access Now defends and extends the digital rights of users at risk around > the world. Your support makes a difference. Donate here. > > > Contact us at info at accessnow.org or PO Box 115, New York, NY 10113. > > [image: supporter] > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) Post-Doc Fellow | Cluster of Excellence „ Normative Orders , University of Frankfurt am Main Lecturer | Institute of International Law andInternational Relations , University of Graz Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Exzellenzcluster „Normative Ordnungen“ Max-Horkheimer-Straße 2, 60629 Frankfurt am Main / Germany E | matthias.kettemann at gmail.com Blog | Google Scholar | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ European Yearbook on Human Rights 2016 (2016) Völkerrecht in Zeiten des Netzes (2015) Freedom of Expression and the Internet (2014, co-author) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amelia at andersdotter.cc Thu Jul 28 17:38:27 2016 From: amelia at andersdotter.cc (Amelia Andersdotter) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 23:38:27 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] EDRi is looking for a Fundraiser! Message-ID: <6b4fcb15-db88-c0e0-343f-5b8e2c140380@andersdotter.cc> Dear all, This just came in today: ***** European Digital Rights (EDRi) is a not-for-profit association of 31 digital rights organisations from across Europe. EDRi is the only European NGO specialising in the protection of digital rights. Our objectives are to promote, protect and uphold civil rights in the field of information and communication technology, such the rights to privacy, freedom of expression, communication, and access to information. You will be responsible for a wide range of fundraising activities, to create and maintain a reliable, efficient and ethical funding base to meet the needs of European Digital Rights’ work as a fast-growing and dynamic network! You will raise funds from foundations, companies, individuals and NGOs in close liaison with the Management and staff responsible for communications. You will lead on the development of funding streams for both restricted and unrestricted funds carrying out prospect research and harnessing opportunities for new income. As a strong communicator, you will demonstrate excellent interpersonal and negotiation skills, proven leadership skills. You will be enthusiastic and creative in your approach as you use your expertise to engage, motivate and inspire our supporters and develop lasting relationships with a range of partners. *Responsibilities* * Develop the targeting and solicitation of new foundation and corporate donation prospects, researching and identifying opportunities, developing the approach plan, briefings to move solicitation forward * Develop and implement the current fundraising strategy, together with the Managing Director. * Develop and implement individual giving, project funding e.g. via crowd-funding. * Development of individual contacts to identify potential major donors and a roster of potential ambassadors for the organisation. * Compile and maintain the database of existing and potential donors. * Contribute to the conceptualisation and messaging of grant proposals, together with the Communications Manager. * Development of a project portfolio for EDRi’s work. * Coordinate, facilitate and sometimes lead periodic meetings with donors. * Review draft activity reports. * Represent the organisation at events and meetings to establish contacts with potential donors. *The successful candidate should possess the following:* * At least 3 years’ experience in fundraising. * A relevant degree or certificate in fundraising. * Demonstrable personal experience of generating income from a range of sources. * Experience working for an international organisation. * Penchant for exploring new ways and avenues to increase supporter base and fundraising income. * Ability to reach fundraising targets and motivate others to achieve targets. * Excellent communication skills to inspire, enthuse and motivate current and potential donors. * Experience in fundraising techniques, especially analysis of fundraising and marketing data. * Strong management skills. * Ability to be innovative and creative. * Outstanding networking skills and highly developed interpersonal skills. * Fluent English, other languages are a plus. *Location:* Flexible, preferably Brussels-based or within an easy distance from Brussels *What we offer:* The role offers a challenging and diverse full-time role in a fast-growing NGO, with a competitive salary and flexible work hours. We offer the exciting opportunity to help defend the civil rights of people across Europe and beyond. The team in Brussels is a blend of languages, cultures and professional backgrounds that makes it an attractive place to work. A remuneration package will be offered and discussed at interview stage. Applications should be by email in the format of *CV with a covering letter* to: Michela Petruzzo, Senior Office Manager, via email: michela.petruzzo(at)edri.org *Closing date for applications is Friday 23 September 2016.* From amelia.andersdotter at dataskydd.net Thu Jul 28 17:48:55 2016 From: amelia.andersdotter at dataskydd.net (Amelia Andersdotter) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 23:48:55 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Thanks! (and short observations on the IGF Retreat) In-Reply-To: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948E0840737F@MFP02.IFLA.lan> References: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948E0840737F@MFP02.IFLA.lan> Message-ID: <5b850ccf-0331-9f3d-86f8-ddbd53f458af@dataskydd.net> Dear Stuart, After some time on the MAG, and with participating in the IGF and other places of conferences and shared experiences, the MAG functions the way it does because there are so many different interests and voices that are looking to be heard. At a limited interest organisation, like IFLA, it is possible to subdivide tasks in a way that doesn't cause anyone to feel left out. At the IGF this would inevitably cause someone to feel misrepresented or shut out. best regards, Amelia On 07/27/16 16:58, Stuart Hamilton wrote: > Dear Colleagues > > I just wanted to send a short note thanking you for supporting my participation in the recent IGF retreat, and alerting you to some next steps. In the next day or so a compilation (organized by topic) of the ideas and suggestions that emerged from the retreat will be made available in a format that permits paragraph by paragraph commenting. This public consultation will be open for two months until 26 September, 2016. It's now time for everyone not at the retreat to get involved and make comments - I'm sure it will be posted to these lists as soon as it is up on the IGF website. > > While I'm here, I'd also like to offer a couple of limited observations of the retreat. Fundamentally, I felt that for those of us there it was a very open wide-ranging discussion that the outcome documents summarise very well. I don't have much to add in that regard. The one area that was extremely interesting to me though was the idea of the MAG as this gigantic conference organising committee, and what a waste of expertise that seems to be. Speaking from the perspective of a staff member at an international organisation that arranges an annual conference for 3000-4000 people, moving from different region to region each year, there seemed to be a number of areas where a more focused approach to conference planning could produce a better outcome. At the MAG meeting before the retreat I was struck by the amount of MAG members I spoke with who were exhausted and exasperated at having to review >200 workshop proposals. Maybe I was being naïve, but going into the retreat I had assumed some degree of organisation on the MAG that would allow for workshop assessment by area of expertise i.e. proposals would be divided up across groups of individuals, sharing the workload, and playing to each individual's strength in terms of subject knowledge. Not the case apparently, and in my opinion clearly an area that should be addressed. > > I suddenly realised that my own organisation's annual conference, which features hundreds of sessions and meetings over five days, and has a core conference organising committee of around 10 people, was massively more efficient than that of the IGF. We never really got into discussion about the MAG's effectiveness in the retreat - we did talk about how to better deal with the MAG's nomination process, but we didn't go deep into MAG re-organisation. However, it doesn't seem to me that changing working practices would go anywhere near the MAG mandate, and shouldn't be controversial. At the same time as addressing the workshop review process, there could also be better organisation into sub-groups/working groups on engagement and outreach, information dissemination etc. In side-discussions at the retreat I did discover that there have been/perhaps still are working groups on engagement, but I was not able to ascertain if this is something that get set up each time a new MAG is formed, or if there really is a structure in place to tackle different topics, and utilise individuals' expertise. I'm still left with this as a bit of a grey area I'd like to understand more. > > Anyway, just some observations as I said. I encourage you all to take a look at the document that will shortly go online, and participate in the public consultation. > > Cheers, > > Stuart > > > Dr. Stuart Hamilton > Deputy Secretary General > International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) > P.O. Box 95312 > 2509 CH The Hague > Netherlands > > 00 31 70 314 0884 > > Twitter: @ifladpa > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -- Amelia Andersdotter Ordförande, Dataskydd.net Telefon: 0764266862 E-post: amelia.andersdotter at dataskydd.net "Rätten till privatliv är rätten att själva kunna överblicka vilka vi är och hur vi blir sådana." From wisdom.dk at gmail.com Thu Jul 28 18:38:10 2016 From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 22:38:10 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Thanks! (and short observations on the IGF Retreat) In-Reply-To: <5b850ccf-0331-9f3d-86f8-ddbd53f458af@dataskydd.net> References: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948E0840737F@MFP02.IFLA.lan> <5b850ccf-0331-9f3d-86f8-ddbd53f458af@dataskydd.net> Message-ID: Agree with Amalia On Thursday, July 28, 2016, Amelia Andersdotter < amelia.andersdotter at dataskydd.net> wrote: > Dear Stuart, > > After some time on the MAG, and with participating in the IGF and other > places of conferences and shared experiences, the MAG functions the way > it does because there are so many different interests and voices that > are looking to be heard. > > At a limited interest organisation, like IFLA, it is possible to > subdivide tasks in a way that doesn't cause anyone to feel left out. At > the IGF this would inevitably cause someone to feel misrepresented or > shut out. > > best regards, > > Amelia > > On 07/27/16 16:58, Stuart Hamilton wrote: >> Dear Colleagues >> >> I just wanted to send a short note thanking you for supporting my participation in the recent IGF retreat, and alerting you to some next steps. In the next day or so a compilation (organized by topic) of the ideas and suggestions that emerged from the retreat will be made available in a format that permits paragraph by paragraph commenting. This public consultation will be open for two months until 26 September, 2016. It's now time for everyone not at the retreat to get involved and make comments - I'm sure it will be posted to these lists as soon as it is up on the IGF website. >> >> While I'm here, I'd also like to offer a couple of limited observations of the retreat. Fundamentally, I felt that for those of us there it was a very open wide-ranging discussion that the outcome documents summarise very well. I don't have much to add in that regard. The one area that was extremely interesting to me though was the idea of the MAG as this gigantic conference organising committee, and what a waste of expertise that seems to be. Speaking from the perspective of a staff member at an international organisation that arranges an annual conference for 3000-4000 people, moving from different region to region each year, there seemed to be a number of areas where a more focused approach to conference planning could produce a better outcome. At the MAG meeting before the retreat I was struck by the amount of MAG members I spoke with who were exhausted and exasperated at having to review >200 workshop proposals. Maybe I was being naïve, but going into the retreat I had assumed some degree of organisation on the MAG that would allow for workshop assessment by area of expertise i.e. proposals would be divided up across groups of individuals, sharing the workload, and playing to each individual's strength in terms of subject knowledge. Not the case apparently, and in my opinion clearly an area that should be addressed. >> >> I suddenly realised that my own organisation's annual conference, which features hundreds of sessions and meetings over five days, and has a core conference organising committee of around 10 people, was massively more efficient than that of the IGF. We never really got into discussion about the MAG's effectiveness in the retreat - we did talk about how to better deal with the MAG's nomination process, but we didn't go deep into MAG re-organisation. However, it doesn't seem to me that changing working practices would go anywhere near the MAG mandate, and shouldn't be controversial. At the same time as addressing the workshop review process, there could also be better organisation into sub-groups/working groups on engagement and outreach, information dissemination etc. In side-discussions at the retreat I did discover that there have been/perhaps still are working groups on engagement, but I was not able to ascertain if this is something that get set up each time a new MAG is formed, or if there really is a structure in place to tackle different topics, and utilise individuals' expertise. I'm still left with this as a bit of a grey area I'd like to understand more. >> >> Anyway, just some observations as I said. I encourage you all to take a look at the document that will shortly go online, and participate in the public consultation. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Stuart >> >> >> Dr. Stuart Hamilton >> Deputy Secretary General >> International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) >> P.O. Box 95312 >> 2509 CH The Hague >> Netherlands >> >> 00 31 70 314 0884 >> >> Twitter: @ifladpa >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > -- > Amelia Andersdotter > Ordförande, Dataskydd.net > Telefon: 0764266862 > E-post: amelia.andersdotter at dataskydd.net > > "Rätten till privatliv är rätten att själva kunna överblicka vilka vi är och hur vi blir sådana." > > > -- *WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)* E-government and Open Government Data Platforms Specialist National Information Technology Agency (NITA)/ Ghana Open Data Initiative Project. ICANN Fellow / Member, UN IGF MAG Member, ISOC Member, Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) Member, Diplo Foundation Member, OGP Open Data WG Member, GODAN Memember, ITAG Member Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh wisdom.dk at gmail.com Skype: wisdom_dk facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jul 28 19:50:16 2016 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 01:50:16 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] IGF MAG efficiency and fairness (was Re: Thanks! (and short observations on the IGF Retreat)) In-Reply-To: <5b850ccf-0331-9f3d-86f8-ddbd53f458af@dataskydd.net> References: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948E0840737F@MFP02.IFLA.lan> <5b850ccf-0331-9f3d-86f8-ddbd53f458af@dataskydd.net> Message-ID: <20160729015016.5dce3760@quill> The current situation regarding IGF is that there are people who justifiably feel that they are systematically misrepresented and/or shut out, and at the same time the efficiency of the MAG processes is low. I believe that there is no fundamental impossibility to effectively address the problems of lack of effective representation and exclusion while at the same time improving the efficiency of MAG's "program committee" type tasks relative to today's practices. Of course, optimal efficiency while also ensuring fairness and good governance will be lower in a context with strong (even while it is sometimes not quite obvious) political contention like Internet governance than in a context like IFLA's. But there is no justification for organizing things so that they are much less efficient than that optimum while at the same time failing to achieve the crucial objectives of fairness. Fundamentally this is a problem of organizational systems engineering and it should be treated as such, keeping in mind the realities of political contentions, and the corresponding need for trustworthy fairness as a chief design goal. Greetings, Norbert On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 23:48:55 +0200 Amelia Andersdotter wrote: > Dear Stuart, > > After some time on the MAG, and with participating in the IGF and > other places of conferences and shared experiences, the MAG functions > the way it does because there are so many different interests and > voices that are looking to be heard. > > At a limited interest organisation, like IFLA, it is possible to > subdivide tasks in a way that doesn't cause anyone to feel left out. > At the IGF this would inevitably cause someone to feel misrepresented > or shut out. > > best regards, > > Amelia > > On 07/27/16 16:58, Stuart Hamilton wrote: > > Dear Colleagues > > > > I just wanted to send a short note thanking you for supporting my > > participation in the recent IGF retreat, and alerting you to some > > next steps. In the next day or so a compilation (organized by > > topic) of the ideas and suggestions that emerged from the retreat > > will be made available in a format that permits paragraph by > > paragraph commenting. This public consultation will be open for > > two months until 26 September, 2016. It's now time for everyone not > > at the retreat to get involved and make comments - I'm sure it will > > be posted to these lists as soon as it is up on the IGF website. > > > > While I'm here, I'd also like to offer a couple of limited > > observations of the retreat. Fundamentally, I felt that for those > > of us there it was a very open wide-ranging discussion that the > > outcome documents summarise very well. I don't have much to add in > > that regard. The one area that was extremely interesting to me > > though was the idea of the MAG as this gigantic conference > > organising committee, and what a waste of expertise that seems to > > be. Speaking from the perspective of a staff member at an > > international organisation that arranges an annual conference for > > 3000-4000 people, moving from different region to region each year, > > there seemed to be a number of areas where a more focused approach > > to conference planning could produce a better outcome. At the MAG > > meeting before the retreat I was struck by the amount of MAG > > members I spoke with who were exhausted and exasperated at having > > to review >200 workshop proposals. Maybe I was being naïve, but > > going into the retreat I had assumed some degree of organisation on > > the MAG that would allow for workshop assessment by area of > > expertise i.e. proposals would be divided up across groups of > > individuals, sharing the workload, and playing to each individual's > > strength in terms of subject knowledge. Not the case apparently, > > and in my opinion clearly an area that should be addressed. > > > > I suddenly realised that my own organisation's annual conference, > > which features hundreds of sessions and meetings over five days, > > and has a core conference organising committee of around 10 people, > > was massively more efficient than that of the IGF. We never really > > got into discussion about the MAG's effectiveness in the retreat - > > we did talk about how to better deal with the MAG's nomination > > process, but we didn't go deep into MAG re-organisation. However, > > it doesn't seem to me that changing working practices would go > > anywhere near the MAG mandate, and shouldn't be controversial. At > > the same time as addressing the workshop review process, there > > could also be better organisation into sub-groups/working groups on > > engagement and outreach, information dissemination etc. In > > side-discussions at the retreat I did discover that there have > > been/perhaps still are working groups on engagement, but I was not > > able to ascertain if this is something that get set up each time a > > new MAG is formed, or if there really is a structure in place to > > tackle different topics, and utilise individuals' expertise. I'm > > still left with this as a bit of a grey area I'd like to understand > > more. > > > > Anyway, just some observations as I said. I encourage you all to > > take a look at the document that will shortly go online, and > > participate in the public consultation. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Stuart > > > > > > Dr. Stuart Hamilton > > Deputy Secretary General > > International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions > > (IFLA) P.O. Box 95312 > > 2509 CH The Hague > > Netherlands > > > > 00 31 70 314 0884 > > > > Twitter: @ifladpa > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org Fri Jul 29 03:18:39 2016 From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org (Stuart Hamilton) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 07:18:39 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Thanks! (and short observations on the IGF Retreat) In-Reply-To: References: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948E0840737F@MFP02.IFLA.lan> <5b850ccf-0331-9f3d-86f8-ddbd53f458af@dataskydd.net> Message-ID: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948E0841D7CF@MFP02.IFLA.lan> Hi Amelia I can see your point about IFLA Amelia, but I can assure you that there are many many different points of view across the library community, and across an organisation with members in 150 countries, at varying levels of development with vastly varying levels of resources, there is much competition for ideas to be heard and positions to be taken accordingly, incorporating different worldviews. We even have members from different stakeholder groups – governments, academic/research/technical/, commercial, public, and NGO – fighting to be heard and favoured. I think the responses of my colleagues would be fun to listen to if I put it to them that IFLA is a limited interest organisation, when you consider that we deal with literally every facet of information and data - its organisation, its dissemination, and its preservation, not to mention the skills, education and training that go together with that – for information professionals, and for users. If information is a limited field, with uniform viewpoints on what to do with it I’d say ok, you’re right – but I can’t say that ☺ If I read you correctly, you are saying that it is impossible to subdivide tasks in the MAG in such a way that people wouldn’t feel left out. All I can say to that is wow – that’s really not good. When considering the success of expert organisations, in whatever form, I’m looking for a group that is able to self-organise, work together, recognise shared and individual expertise and allocate resources accordingly. If the MAG is so dysfunctional that it contains people who are unable to play this way then that’s a waste of a lot of talent – conjures up the image of people flying thousands of miles to sit in a room with each other and not get along. Shame! (I’m practising my Donald Trump tweet/paragraph endings ;) I’m not naive, I realise that there are politics involved in all of this. But reading your email it sounds to me that from the point of view of an effective organisation the MAG is broken. Rip it up and start again? :) What would you do? Cheers, Stuart From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Wisdom Donkor Sent: 29 July 2016 00:38 To: amelia.andersdotter at dataskydd.net Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Thanks! (and short observations on the IGF Retreat) Agree with Amalia On Thursday, July 28, 2016, Amelia Andersdotter > wrote: > Dear Stuart, > > After some time on the MAG, and with participating in the IGF and other > places of conferences and shared experiences, the MAG functions the way > it does because there are so many different interests and voices that > are looking to be heard. > > At a limited interest organisation, like IFLA, it is possible to > subdivide tasks in a way that doesn't cause anyone to feel left out. At > the IGF this would inevitably cause someone to feel misrepresented or > shut out. > > best regards, > > Amelia > > On 07/27/16 16:58, Stuart Hamilton wrote: >> Dear Colleagues >> >> I just wanted to send a short note thanking you for supporting my participation in the recent IGF retreat, and alerting you to some next steps. In the next day or so a compilation (organized by topic) of the ideas and suggestions that emerged from the retreat will be made available in a format that permits paragraph by paragraph commenting. This public consultation will be open for two months until 26 September, 2016. It's now time for everyone not at the retreat to get involved and make comments - I'm sure it will be posted to these lists as soon as it is up on the IGF website. >> >> While I'm here, I'd also like to offer a couple of limited observations of the retreat. Fundamentally, I felt that for those of us there it was a very open wide-ranging discussion that the outcome documents summarise very well. I don't have much to add in that regard. The one area that was extremely interesting to me though was the idea of the MAG as this gigantic conference organising committee, and what a waste of expertise that seems to be. Speaking from the perspective of a staff member at an international organisation that arranges an annual conference for 3000-4000 people, moving from different region to region each year, there seemed to be a number of areas where a more focused approach to conference planning could produce a better outcome. At the MAG meeting before the retreat I was struck by the amount of MAG members I spoke with who were exhausted and exasperated at having to review >200 workshop proposals. Maybe I was being naïve, but going into the retreat I had assumed some degree of organisation on the MAG that would allow for workshop assessment by area of expertise i.e. proposals would be divided up across groups of individuals, sharing the workload, and playing to each individual's strength in terms of subject knowledge. Not the case apparently, and in my opinion clearly an area that should be addressed. >> >> I suddenly realised that my own organisation's annual conference, which features hundreds of sessions and meetings over five days, and has a core conference organising committee of around 10 people, was massively more efficient than that of the IGF. We never really got into discussion about the MAG's effectiveness in the retreat - we did talk about how to better deal with the MAG's nomination process, but we didn't go deep into MAG re-organisation. However, it doesn't seem to me that changing working practices would go anywhere near the MAG mandate, and shouldn't be controversial. At the same time as addressing the workshop review process, there could also be better organisation into sub-groups/working groups on engagement and outreach, information dissemination etc. In side-discussions at the retreat I did discover that there have been/perhaps still are working groups on engagement, but I was not able to ascertain if this is something that get set up each time a new MAG is formed, or if there really is a structure in place to tackle different topics, and utilise individuals' expertise. I'm still left with this as a bit of a grey area I'd like to understand more. >> >> Anyway, just some observations as I said. I encourage you all to take a look at the document that will shortly go online, and participate in the public consultation. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Stuart >> >> >> Dr. Stuart Hamilton >> Deputy Secretary General >> International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) >> P.O. Box 95312 >> 2509 CH The Hague >> Netherlands >> >> 00 31 70 314 0884 >> >> Twitter: @ifladpa >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > -- > Amelia Andersdotter > Ordförande, Dataskydd.net > Telefon: 0764266862 > E-post: amelia.andersdotter at dataskydd.net > > "Rätten till privatliv är rätten att själva kunna överblicka vilka vi är och hur vi blir sådana." > > > -- WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.) E-government and Open Government Data Platforms Specialist National Information Technology Agency (NITA)/ Ghana Open Data Initiative Project. ICANN Fellow / Member, UN IGF MAG Member, ISOC Member, Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) Member, Diplo Foundation Member, OGP Open Data WG Member, GODAN Memember, ITAG Member Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh wisdom.dk at gmail.com Skype: wisdom_dk facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james at cyberinvasion.net Fri Jul 29 03:34:41 2016 From: james at cyberinvasion.net (James Gannon) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 07:34:41 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Thanks! (and short observations on the IGF Retreat) In-Reply-To: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948E0841D7CF@MFP02.IFLA.lan> References: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948E0840737F@MFP02.IFLA.lan> <5b850ccf-0331-9f3d-86f8-ddbd53f458af@dataskydd.net> <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948E0841D7CF@MFP02.IFLA.lan> Message-ID: <616FCF2C-B6C5-47D4-8C37-D9BA47516696@cyberinvasion.net> So I am really liking this, as I like the perspective, so playing devils advocate and slightly putting you on the spot, with the high level understanding and taking into account that I don’t expect it to be a detailed response, what would your suggestions or ideas or inputs be to those who are selecting people for the MAG, and for the MAG itself on how it should start looking at itself? In short taking the hypothetical of ripping it up and starting again, what would the first set of review questions be to do a ‘lessons learned and inputs into starting again’? Thanks for taking the time for this, -James From: > on behalf of Stuart Hamilton > Reply-To: Stuart Hamilton > Date: Friday 29 July 2016 at 08:18 To: 'Wisdom Donkor' >, "amelia.andersdotter at dataskydd.net" > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > Subject: RE: [bestbits] Thanks! (and short observations on the IGF Retreat) I’m not naive, I realise that there are politics involved in all of this. But reading your email it sounds to me that from the point of view of an effective organisation the MAG is broken. Rip it up and start again? :) What would you do? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wisdom.dk at gmail.com Fri Jul 29 03:59:36 2016 From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 07:59:36 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Thanks! (and short observations on the IGF Retreat) In-Reply-To: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948E0840737F@MFP02.IFLA.lan> References: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948E0840737F@MFP02.IFLA.lan> Message-ID: I agree with your criticisms but will like to no what you will have done differently that MAG is not doing. On Wednesday, July 27, 2016, Stuart Hamilton wrote: > Dear Colleagues > > > > I just wanted to send a short note thanking you for supporting my participation in the recent IGF retreat, and alerting you to some next steps. In the next day or so a compilation (organized by topic) of the ideas and suggestions that emerged from the retreat will be made available in a format that permits paragraph by paragraph commenting. This public consultation will be open for two months until 26 September, 2016. It’s now time for everyone not at the retreat to get involved and make comments – I’m sure it will be posted to these lists as soon as it is up on the IGF website. > > > > While I’m here, I’d also like to offer a couple of limited observations of the retreat. Fundamentally, I felt that for those of us there it was a very open wide-ranging discussion that the outcome documents summarise very well. I don’t have much to add in that regard. The one area that was extremely interesting to me though was the idea of the MAG as this gigantic conference organising committee, and what a waste of expertise that seems to be. Speaking from the perspective of a staff member at an international organisation that arranges an annual conference for 3000-4000 people, moving from different region to region each year, there seemed to be a number of areas where a more focused approach to conference planning could produce a better outcome. At the MAG meeting before the retreat I was struck by the amount of MAG members I spoke with who were exhausted and exasperated at having to review >200 workshop proposals. Maybe I was being naïve, but going into the retreat I had assumed some degree of organisation on the MAG that would allow for workshop assessment by area of expertise i.e. proposals would be divided up across groups of individuals, sharing the workload, and playing to each individual’s strength in terms of subject knowledge. Not the case apparently, and in my opinion clearly an area that should be addressed. > > > > I suddenly realised that my own organisation’s annual conference, which features hundreds of sessions and meetings over five days, and has a core conference organising committee of around 10 people, was massively more efficient than that of the IGF. We never really got into discussion about the MAG’s effectiveness in the retreat - we did talk about how to better deal with the MAG’s nomination process, but we didn’t go deep into MAG re-organisation. However, it doesn’t seem to me that changing working practices would go anywhere near the MAG mandate, and shouldn’t be controversial. At the same time as addressing the workshop review process, there could also be better organisation into sub-groups/working groups on engagement and outreach, information dissemination etc. In side-discussions at the retreat I did discover that there have been/perhaps still are working groups on engagement, but I was not able to ascertain if this is something that get set up each time a new MAG is formed, or if there really is a structure in place to tackle different topics, and utilise individuals’ expertise. I’m still left with this as a bit of a grey area I’d like to understand more. > > > > Anyway, just some observations as I said. I encourage you all to take a look at the document that will shortly go online, and participate in the public consultation. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Stuart > > > > > > Dr. Stuart Hamilton > > Deputy Secretary General > > International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) > > P.O. Box 95312 > 2509 CH The Hague > Netherlands > > > > 00 31 70 314 0884 > > > > Twitter: @ifladpa > > -- *WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)* E-government and Open Government Data Platforms Specialist National Information Technology Agency (NITA)/ Ghana Open Data Initiative Project. ICANN Fellow / Member, UN IGF MAG Member, ISOC Member, Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) Member, Diplo Foundation Member, OGP Open Data WG Member, GODAN Memember, ITAG Member Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh wisdom.dk at gmail.com Skype: wisdom_dk facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org Fri Jul 29 04:14:52 2016 From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org (Stuart Hamilton) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 08:14:52 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Thanks! (and short observations on the IGF Retreat) In-Reply-To: References: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948E0840737F@MFP02.IFLA.lan> Message-ID: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948E0841F076@MFP02.IFLA.lan> Hi Wisdom As far as I can see, the MAG is fulfilling its obligations and I think we all benefit from the event that is created for us every year (or at least we all come back to these lists to talk about it in detail ;). But whether or not it is doing its work in an efficient way that makes the most of everyone’s time and expertise is another matter. For example, I am not convinced that having 50-odd people review every single workshop proposal is a great use of the MAG members’ time. One idea: if the IGF had different conference tracks (as you know we have looked at different themes for each IGF, so this is already to a certain extent done/has been done) then MAG members could divide themselves up across each track according to interest and expertise, and review workshop proposals that relate to each track. If you have five tracks, and 200 proposals, then in theory you immediately substantially reduce the number of proposals that each MAG member would have to look at. Maybe - ! – this would free MAG members’ valuable volunteered time up to look at other issues of interest to the IGF, like fundraising, or outreach. So, just a thought I had when listening to some annoyed people in New York discussing the amount of time they had to spend reading workshop proposals. Stuart From: Wisdom Donkor [mailto:wisdom.dk at gmail.com] Sent: 29 July 2016 10:00 To: Stuart Hamilton Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Thanks! (and short observations on the IGF Retreat) I agree with your criticisms but will like to no what you will have done differently that MAG is not doing. On Wednesday, July 27, 2016, Stuart Hamilton > wrote: > Dear Colleagues > > > > I just wanted to send a short note thanking you for supporting my participation in the recent IGF retreat, and alerting you to some next steps. In the next day or so a compilation (organized by topic) of the ideas and suggestions that emerged from the retreat will be made available in a format that permits paragraph by paragraph commenting. This public consultation will be open for two months until 26 September, 2016. It’s now time for everyone not at the retreat to get involved and make comments – I’m sure it will be posted to these lists as soon as it is up on the IGF website. > > > > While I’m here, I’d also like to offer a couple of limited observations of the retreat. Fundamentally, I felt that for those of us there it was a very open wide-ranging discussion that the outcome documents summarise very well. I don’t have much to add in that regard. The one area that was extremely interesting to me though was the idea of the MAG as this gigantic conference organising committee, and what a waste of expertise that seems to be. Speaking from the perspective of a staff member at an international organisation that arranges an annual conference for 3000-4000 people, moving from different region to region each year, there seemed to be a number of areas where a more focused approach to conference planning could produce a better outcome. At the MAG meeting before the retreat I was struck by the amount of MAG members I spoke with who were exhausted and exasperated at having to review >200 workshop proposals. Maybe I was being naïve, but going into the retreat I had assumed some degree of organisation on the MAG that would allow for workshop assessment by area of expertise i.e. proposals would be divided up across groups of individuals, sharing the workload, and playing to each individual’s strength in terms of subject knowledge. Not the case apparently, and in my opinion clearly an area that should be addressed. > > > > I suddenly realised that my own organisation’s annual conference, which features hundreds of sessions and meetings over five days, and has a core conference organising committee of around 10 people, was massively more efficient than that of the IGF. We never really got into discussion about the MAG’s effectiveness in the retreat - we did talk about how to better deal with the MAG’s nomination process, but we didn’t go deep into MAG re-organisation. However, it doesn’t seem to me that changing working practices would go anywhere near the MAG mandate, and shouldn’t be controversial. At the same time as addressing the workshop review process, there could also be better organisation into sub-groups/working groups on engagement and outreach, information dissemination etc. In side-discussions at the retreat I did discover that there have been/perhaps still are working groups on engagement, but I was not able to ascertain if this is something that get set up each time a new MAG is formed, or if there really is a structure in place to tackle different topics, and utilise individuals’ expertise. I’m still left with this as a bit of a grey area I’d like to understand more. > > > > Anyway, just some observations as I said. I encourage you all to take a look at the document that will shortly go online, and participate in the public consultation. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Stuart > > > > > > Dr. Stuart Hamilton > > Deputy Secretary General > > International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) > > P.O. Box 95312 > 2509 CH The Hague > Netherlands > > > > 00 31 70 314 0884 > > > > Twitter: @ifladpa > > -- WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.) E-government and Open Government Data Platforms Specialist National Information Technology Agency (NITA)/ Ghana Open Data Initiative Project. ICANN Fellow / Member, UN IGF MAG Member, ISOC Member, Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) Member, Diplo Foundation Member, OGP Open Data WG Member, GODAN Memember, ITAG Member Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh wisdom.dk at gmail.com Skype: wisdom_dk facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daniela at gp-digital.org Fri Jul 29 14:25:54 2016 From: daniela at gp-digital.org (Daniela Schnidrig) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 19:25:54 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Cyber policy training programme - launch of online training series Message-ID: Dear all, (Apologies for cross-posting) I’m delighted to share with you our new online training series “How to engage in cyber policy: tools for human rights defenders”, which aims to help human rights defenders develop the tools, skills and knowledge they need to engage effectively in cyber policy debates. You can watch the introductory video and first module - Human Rights - on the online training YouTube channel . And you’ll be able to pose questions to experts in the field on issues raised in this module at an online Q&A on Thursday 4 August, 13:00 UTC. To join, follow this link on the day, and go through the on-screen prompts. See below for more information, and check here for regular updates on subsequent modules and the dates of upcoming Q&A sessions. Please feel free to share with anyone who might be interested. Best wishes, Daniela ---------------------- Watch our new online series on cyber policy for human rights defenders We’re delighted to unveil our new online training series “How to engage in cyber policy: tools for human rights defenders”. The series is a core part of the training component of GPD’s cyber capacity building programme (CCB) , and aims to help human rights defenders develop the tools, skills and knowledge they need to engage effectively in cyber policy debates. Developed in collaboration with the CCB Advisory Board , the series is structured around five modules. The first four each focus on a different aspect of cyber policy - human rights, cybersecurity, regulatory frameworks and cyber capacity building - with a final regional module highlighting how these apply in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Each module consists of several videos, which take participants through a key cyber issue or concept - explaining how it relates to human rights, who the key actors are, and how and where to engage. The videos in each module are complemented by a live Q&A session (see below), allowing viewers to pose questions to experts in the field and debate issues raised in the module. The series has been designed as a public resource and will be open to everyone interested. The introductory video and first module - Human Rights - is already live on the online training YouTube channel: watch them here. Subsequent modules will be uploaded to the channel on a week by week basis throughout August. We’ll be updating this page as the modules go up - and you can also follow @GlobalPartnersD for updates. See below for the schedule of the live Q&A sessions. Q&As schedule Live Q&A sessions will be hosted on Webex. To join, please click on the link and follow the on-screen prompts. - Q&A Session #1: Human rights - Thursday 4 August, 13:00 UTC. Join here . - Q&A Session #2: Cybersecurity - Wednesday 10 August, 13:00 UTC. Join here . - Q&A Session #3: Regulatory frameworks - Week commencing 15 August, date TBC - Q&A Session #4: Cyber capacity building - Wednesday 24 August, 13:00 UTC - Join here. - Q&A Session #5: Africa - Tuesday 30 August, time TBC. - Q&A Session #6: Asia - Wednesday 31 August, time TBC. - Q&A Session #7: Latin America - Thursday 9 September, time TBC. -- *Daniela Schnidrig* Project Coordinator | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)203 818 3258 | Skype: daniela.globalpartners gp-digital.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From puneeth.nagaraj at nludelhi.ac.in Wed Jul 6 08:17:57 2016 From: puneeth.nagaraj at nludelhi.ac.in (Puneeth Nagaraj) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 17:47:57 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Call for Applications- Centre for Communication Governance Cybersecurity Team Message-ID: *Apologies for cross-posting* Dear All, The Centre for Communication Governance at the National Law University, Delhi is inviting applications to our new cybersecurity team. We are looking for 3-4 researchers across different positions. Please circulate the call below within your networks. The deadline for applications in 10th July, 2016. http://ccgdelhi.org/doc/Updated%20Cyber%20Security%20Call%20for%20Applications.pdf 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 marta.skotnicka at nowoczesnapolska.org.pl Wed Jul 6 11:25:10 2016 From: marta.skotnicka at nowoczesnapolska.org.pl (Marta Skotnicka) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 17:25:10 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Open Call for Speakers at CopyCamp 2016 In-Reply-To: <558AD19B.2030602@nowoczesnapolska.org.pl> References: <558AD19B.2030602@nowoczesnapolska.org.pl> Message-ID: <577D22D6.4010906@nowoczesnapolska.org.pl> Dear All, The Modern Poland Foundation is pleased to launch an *Open Call for Speakers*at the *5th International CopyCamp Conference (October 27-28, 2016 in Warsaw)*. For the last 5 years, CopyCamp has been the place for a balanced and multi-sided debate about copyright. We have provided a forum for a remarkable number of representatives of cultural institutions and the media, creative sectors, academic, legal, political and non-governmental circles. Usually, we host over 50 speakers and few hundred participants. From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jul 7 10:04:06 2016 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 10:04:06 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] NEW - WEF Report on Digital Divide and ICT Readyness Message-ID: http://reports.weforum.org/global-information-technology-report-2016/press-releases/ Seven Countries Emerging as Frontrunners in the Fourth IndustrialRevolution - The World Economic Forum’s *Global Information Technology Report 2016* finds seven countries are excelling when it comes to economically benefiting from investments in information and communications technologies - Worldwide, the report finds nations’ capacity to innovate is increasing across the board, although few have been successful so far in translating these investments into meaningful economic or social impact - Singapore leads the report’s Networked Readiness Index, followed by Finland, Sweden, Norway and the United States - Download the report here Geneva, 6 July 2016 – Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, Israel, Singapore, the Netherlands and the United States are leading the world when it comes to generating economic impact from investments in information and communications technologies (ICT), according to the World Economic Forum’s *Global Information Technology Report* *2016,* which is published today. On average, this group of high-achieving economies at the pinnacle of the report’s Networked Readiness Index (NRI)* economic impact* pillar scores 33% higher than other advanced economies and 100% more than emerging and developing economies. The seven are all known for being early and enthusiastic adopters of ICT and their emergence is significant as it demonstrates that adoption of ICTs – coupled with a supportive enabling environment characterized by sound regulation, quality infrastructure and ready skills supply among other factors – can pave the way to wider benefits. The breakaway of these seven economies is significant for other nations given the role that networked readiness is likely to play as the world transitions to the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The *Global Information Technology Report**2016* finds high levels of confidence among business leaders that capacity to innovate is increasing, which suggests that other nations, too, could start to see more economic and social impact from ICT. However, on a cautionary note, the NRI data also suggest that individuals are driving ICT adoption much more enthusiastically than either governments or business, where no clear trends are discernible across regions since 2012. *Who leads the Networked Readiness Index in 2016?* The 2016 edition of the NRI finds Singapore as the highest-placed country in the world when it comes to networked readiness. Finland, which topped the ranking in 2014, remains in second place for a second year in a row, followed by Sweden (3rd), Norway (4th) and the United States (5th), which climbed two places. Making up the rest of the top 10 are the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg and Japan. While the upper echelons of the NRI continue to reflect a strong correlation between networked readiness and per capita income, roughly 75% of the countries included in this year’s index show a score improvement in 2016. However, convergence both at the global and regional level remains elusive, with four regions – Eurasia, Emerging Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and Pakistan (MENAP) group, and sub-Saharan Africa – having widened the gap between the most and least networked-ready since 2012. Elsewhere in the NRI, of the large emerging markets, Russia remains unchanged at 41st position. China comes next, moving up 3 places to 59th. South Africa improves markedly, climbing 10 places to 65th, while Brazil partially recovers from a previous downward trend to 72nd this year and India drops two places to 91st. Europe remains at the technology frontier; seven of the top 10 NRI countries are European. Yet the performance range is wide, with Greece dropping four places to 70th position and Bosnia and Herzegovina closing the group at 97. Several Eastern European countries, notably the Slovak Republic, Poland and the Czech Republic, are making big strides, landing spots in the NRI top 50. Better affordability and large improvements in economic and social impacts are making major contributions to this success. Italy is another notable mover this year, improving 10 places to 45th position as the economic and social impacts of ICT are starting to be realized (up 18 in the global impact ranking). The Eurasia region continues its upward trajectory, with the average NRI for the region increasing significantly since 2012. In particular, it is notable that the improvement is observed across all four elements that make up the index: environment, readiness, usage and impact. The region is led by Kazakhstan, which continues on its positive trajectory of recent years to land in 39th position. Malaysia leads the Emerging Asian economies in 2016 and moves up one spot to 31st position overall. The country continues to perform strongly, supported by a government which is fully committed to the digital agenda. The top five in the region in terms of overall ICT readiness remain Malaysia, Mongolia, Thailand, China and Sri Lanka as in 2015. The group of Emerging Asian countries has been moving up and converging since 2012. Individual usage in the region is still one of the lowest in the world, but has been growing strongly in recent years. The performance range by countries in the Latin America and Caribbean region remains widely dispersed with almost 100 places between Chile (38th) and Haiti (137th). There was no clear trend from 2015 to 2016 in terms of relative performance, with Chile and Haiti staying put and, of the remaining group, half of the countries improving their ranking and the other half dropping. Considering the absolute NRI score, however, the region has been moving up and converging since 2012. In order to foster the innovation forces that are key for thriving in the digitized world and the emerging Fourth Industrial Revolution, many governments in the region will urgently need to reinforce efforts to improve their regulatory and innovation environments. The United Arab Emirates (26th) and Qatar (27th) continue to lead the Arab world in networked-readiness. In addition, the MENAP region (Middle East, North Africa and Pakistan) is home to two of the biggest movers in this year’s ranking: Kuwait (61st, up 11) and Lebanon (88th, up 11). In both cases, individuals are leading the charge, with the business sector catching up and strongly contributing to the successful performance. While governments are lagging behind in terms of digital adoption (Kuwait, 81st; Lebanon, 124th), the business community in both countries is registering an increased weight on ICT in government vision and efforts to improve the regulatory environment. The NRI also sees several sub-Saharan African countries among the top upward movers, including South Africa (65th, up 10), Ethiopia (120th, up 10) and Côte d’Ivoire (106th, up 9). Leadership, in terms of digital adoption, is coming from different groups of stakeholders. While efforts are very much government-driven in Ethiopia and Côte d’Ivoire, the business sector is providing the most momentum in South Africa. The largest barriers to tackle for Côte d’Ivoire will be infrastructure and affordability; reversing the trend of a deteriorating business and innovation environment for South Africa; and boosting individual usage and skills for Ethiopia. “The digital economy is an essential part of the architecture of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. In order for digital technology to continue contributing economic and social impact, societies need to anticipate its effects on markets and to ensure a fair deal for workers in digitized market environments. New models of governance will be key in this,” said Richard Samans, Head of the Centre for the Global Agenda, Member of the Managing Board, World Economic Forum Geneva. “Cross-border data flows drive innovation and growth,” says Pastora Valero, Vice President of Government Affairs, Cisco. “The countries and companies innovating most prominently know that it is the free flow of ideas and information, which leads to improvements in processes and products. Initiatives to foster the free flow of data are crucial to supporting the global nature of the data economy.” “Measuring the economic and social impact of the digital economy is important for making appropriate policy decisions in both developed and developing economies. The Networked Readiness Index is a valuable tool for helping public and private sector leaders in leveraging the potential of technology.” – Soumitra Dutta, Cornell University. ‘ “Digital” is not just about technology. It is a state of mind, and the source of new business models, new consumption patterns, new ways for business and individuals to organize, produce, trade and innovate. In the global game of digital innovation, the performance and progress made by emerging economies such as Singapore, the United Arab Emirates or South Africa for example are remarkable: they may hold the promise of even more spectacular improvements in the ways digital technologies will be harnessed to competitiveness, growth and social progress in the coming years.’ – Bruno Lanvin, INSEAD. “Going forward, it will be important to reinforce data gathering efforts in order to more closely track the distributional impacts of the current transformations. This will make it possible to shape the digital economy in a way that delivers broad-based gains.” – Silja Baller, World Economic Forum. What does the *Global Information Technology Report 2016* tell us about the Fourth Industrial Revolution? In addition to providing insights into countries’ performance in the unfolding digital revolution, the report notes a number of trends across ICT adoption in 2016: - How much innovation is “digital”? As the global economy becomes increasingly digitized so, it would seem, innovation is becoming much less defined in a narrow technological sense. For example, while the report finds business model innovation on the rise in more than 100 countries, it also finds stagnation in the *Business Usage* pillar. This would suggest that while innovation is a top priority for many businesses, they are still missing out on opportunities for greater impact through ICT adoption. - Patents are declining as a measure of innovative capacity: While the minds of business executives around the world are increasingly focused on innovation, traditional measures for innovation such as the number of patents registered are telling a smaller and smaller part of the story. This may be related to the fact that the current transformation is nurtured by a different type of innovation, increasingly based on digital technologies and on the new business models it allows. - The ICT infrastructure gap remains a chronic challenge and is getting wider: Of the 12 pillars of the report, infrastructure is the one where improvement is least pronounced. Worse, since 2012 the lowest-ranked countries have been reporting a deterioration in their infrastructure in absolute terms. Infrastructure is a key determinant of a nation’s ICT-readiness alongside affordability and skills, acting as a gateway to increased usage and ultimately economic and social impact. - Social impact needs new momentum in important areas but is picking up overall: While the social impact pillar of the NRI has seen positive change overall since 2012, most regions register a decline in one of its important components, the *impact of ICT on government efficiency*. Another important social impact indicator, *ICTs and access to basic services, *is starting to recover in 2016 after years of decline. This suggests that more people are feeling the benefits of online access to healthcare, finance, insurance and other services. Social impacts on the whole rose most strongly in the group of high-income countries over the year. Notes to Editors Read the report here: http://wef.ch/gitr16 Read the latest thought leadership: http://agenda.weforum.org View the best Forum Flickr photos at http://wef.ch/pix Become a fan of the Forum on Facebook at http://wef.ch/facebook Follow the Forum on Twitter at http://wef.ch/twitter Subscribe to Forum news releases at http://wef.ch/news # # # # • # # # # *Carolina Rossini * Vice President, International Policy and Strategy + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini PGP ID: 0xEC81015C *PublicKnowledge* | @publicknowledge | www.publicknowledge.org 1818 N St. NW, Suite 410 | Washington, DC 20036 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From raquino at gmail.com Thu Jul 7 13:33:30 2016 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 17:33:30 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] NETMundial Initiative Declaration Message-ID: <1467912810408-b84e3ad3-9116ffda-8e28b198@mixmax.com> https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-declaration NETMUNDIAL INITIATIVE DECLARATION The Inaugural Coordination Council of the NETmundial Initiative (NMI) was established in December 2014 . It was mandated for 18 months with the mission of developing an operational framework for addressing Internet Governance issues and advancing the implementation of the NETmundial Principles and Roadmap. The Inaugural Coordination Council shares its findings and presents its proposal for the future. Findings, Achievements and Lessons Learned 1. Since their approval in April 2014, the NETmundial Principles and Roadmap have received broad recognition, and have been acknowledged in numerous international documents adopted by governmental and non-governmental actors, including the BRICS Declaration in Fortaleza (link is external) in July 2014, WSIS 10+ Outcome Document (link is external) in December 2015, Takamatsu G7 Declaration (link is external) in April 2016, OECD Ministerial Declaration (link is external) in Cancun in June 2016, as well as in several European Commission documents, Council of the European Union Conclusions, European Parliament Resolutions and Council of Europe Declarations. 2. The NETmundial Initiative was established to help catalyze practical cooperation between all stakeholders in order to address Internet governance issues and advance the implementation of the NETmundial Principles and Roadmap. The initiative was designed and implemented under the supervision of the Inaugural Coordination Council, a global and diverse multistakeholder group covering four sectors (Academia, Technical Community and Foundations, Private Sector, Governments and Intergovernmental Organizations and Civil Society) and five geographies. The Coordination Council operated in accordance with the NETmundial process principle of equal representation. 3. The NETmundial Initiative developed the NETmundial Collaboration Platform , a collaborative space aimed at helping catalyze practical cooperation between stakeholders around Internet governance projects and ideas, and the NETmundial Solutions Map , the first crowdsourced Internet governance mapping effort, where anyone can share and access information about internet governance, connecting issues, actors, responses, and resources. 4. The NETmundial Initiative raised awareness among stakeholders of the NETmundial principles and built on the positive multistakeholder outcomes of the conference. 5. The ongoing shared priority will be to monitor progress and implementation of the NETmundial Principles and Roadmap. Next Steps 6. Beginning July 2016, CGI.br will coordinate the NETmundial Collaboration Platform. CGI.br is committed to providing the administrative and operational structures needed for it to achieve the goals envisioned by the Inaugural Council. CGI.br will not be involved in funding the projects showcased through the NETmundial Platform. CGI.br will provide further details on such structure and will work in close partnership with stakeholders from across the world in the development and operation of the Platform, following the collaborative model that guided the NETmundial Meeting in 2014. 7. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) will ensure until 31 December 2016, that the NETmundial Solutions Map remains open and available for public access while exploring options with interested parties and relevant actors to secure a permanent caretaker for the map’s long-term sustainability and its collaborative and open nature. The scope of ICANN’s contribution will be limited to the dates and activity outlined in this paragraph. 8. The development of a “NETmundial Follow-up Track”, within the scope of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) will be explored through preparation of a high level session on NETmundial progress at the forthcoming IGF in Guadalajara, Mexico, in December 2016. The objective is to consider the preparation of a NETmundial +5 in 2019 or a NETmundial +10 conference in 2024, to review the progress achieved in the implementation of the NETmundial Principles. This may serve as input into parallel processes taking place around the same time. 9. Moving forward, the activities outlined above will be developed and facilitated separately and under the responsibility of different entities. The NETmundial Inaugural Coordination Council thanks the organizing partners of the NETmundial Initiative, CGI.br, ICANN and World Economic Forum (WEF) and the NMI secretariat for their participation and their contributions through 30 June 2016. The full list of Inaugural Coordination Council members can be found here . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kichango at gmail.com Fri Jul 8 00:24:14 2016 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 04:24:14 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE ATTRIBUTIONS AND MULTISTAKEHOLDER NATURE OF CGI.BR In-Reply-To: <576D6F11.2060902@cafonso.ca> References: <576D6F11.2060902@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Dear Carlos, Thank you for keeping us informed about this. I understand the topic here is to harness support for this letter but I have two questions, if you don't mind. I'm assuming there's an ISOC chapter in Brazil and wanted to inquire: Beyond the allocation of IP addresses and name registration in the ".br" domain (coordinated by CGI.br), how is their work distinct from, and how does it overlap with, the work of CGI.br? What is the scope and content of your relationship? My second question is just a detail. Among the signatories I see "Barão de Itararé". Is it really that or a typo for Barão de Itacaré? Thanks again, and best regards. Mawaki On Friday, June 24, 2016, Carlos Afonso wrote: > [sorry for possible duplicates] > > Note: given the recent transition in the Brazilian federal government > and the political uncertainties involved, a group of civil society and > academic organizations has produced this public declaration in defense > of the multistakeholder nature of CGI.br and its attributions. > > LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE ATTRIBUTIONS AND MULTISTAKEHOLDER NATURE OF > CGI.BR > > 24-6-2016 > > The Internet Steering Committe of Brazil, CGI.br, a multistakeholder > commission, has a crucial mission in the development of the Internet in > Brazil. In particular, CGI.br supervises the actions of NIC.br - a > non-profit private civil society organizationm in charge of carrying out > the management of all activities derived from policies defined by the > Committee. Decree Number 4829, of September, 2003, describes > attributions of CGI.br, which include: > > - proposing policies and procedures regarding the regulation of Internet > activities; > > - recommending standards for technical and operational procedures for > the Internet in Brazil; > > - establishing strategic directives related to the use and development > of the Internet in Brazil; > > - promoting studies and technical standards for network and service > security in the country; > > - coordinating the allocation of Internet addresses (IPs) in Brazil and > registration in the ".br" domain; > > - collecting, organizing and disseminating information on Internet > services, including indicators and statistics; > > - be represented in national and international technical forums related > to the Internet; > > - to adopt administrative and operational procedures so that Internet > governance in Brazil follows internationally accepted standards, > enabling it to celebrate agreements and partnerships. > > These activities, fully funded by private income derived from > distribution of domain names and IP numbers, are essential for the > operation and development of the Internet in Brazil. These attributions > are being carried out in a multistakeholder approach, with participation > of civil society, academia, technical community, private sector and > government. > > This pluralist feature has been the basis for the charter of principles > which is at the origin of the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the > Internet ("Marco Civil da Internet"). The success of this pluralist > practice has turned CGI.br into a worldwide reference on Internet > governance, considering that since its creation in 1995, and even in the > preparation of the Decree of 2003, any change in its structure and > operation has been preceded by broad consultations with society, > including significant participation of civil society and academic > organizations. > > In order to protect the stability, security and quality of the work > which has been and continues to be carried out and developed by the > Committee, the undersigned organizations affirm the centrality of CGI.br > to develop activities absolutely vital for the Internet of today and > tomorrow in the country, stressing the importance of preserving the > above attributions, as well as the pluralist, multissectorial nature of > CGI.br. > > Actantes > Artigo 19 > Barão de Itararé > Coding Rights > Colab-USP > Coletivo Digital > CTS-FGV > GPoPAI/USP > Ibase > Ibidem > InternetLab > Instituto Bem Estar Brasil > Intervozes > ITSRio > Lavits > Medialab.UFRJ > Nupef > ProTeste > Safernet Brasil > ULEPICC-BR > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] > [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] > > Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br > CGI.br - http://cgi.br > ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br > > GPG 0x9EE8F8E3 > > -- ============================================ Mawaki Chango, PhD ​Founder & Managing Director DigiLexis Consulting http://www.digilexis.com Skype: digilexis | Slack: @digilexis | Twitter: @prodigilexis Mob. +228 92 14 22 22 | ​ +225 57 55 57 53 | +233 264 070 555 ============================================= -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: