From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jun 1 08:42:52 2016 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 08:42:52 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: GCIG Working Papers - Now Online In-Reply-To: <11B36D7ECEED33469D4D17AAC0370BAD3C963FE6@Dogwood.ciginet.pvt> References: <11B36D7ECEED33469D4D17AAC0370BAD3C963FE6@Dogwood.ciginet.pvt> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Sean Zohar* Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 Subject: GCIG Working Papers - Now Online To: RAN Members , GCIG Commissioners and Observers < commissioners at cigionline.org> Dear Commissioners, The GCIG Secretariat has issued several new working papers. Please find a complete listing below of the papers and brief descriptions of their content. A Pragmatic Approach to the Right to Be Forgotten By: Kieron O'hara, Nigel Shadbolt, Wendy Hall *This paper considers the shape that a “right to be forgotten” is taking in the online world, in the aftermath of the Google Spain decision, in which the Court of Justice of the European Union found (against Google) that European data subjects had the right to request that search engines de-index webpages that feature in searches on their names. This work further discusses whether individuals might manage their personal data with flexible architectures that could act as points of contact for those wishing to use the data. In such a technological ecosystem, many issues could be addressed within a system that respected the autonomy of the data subject in providing limited abilities to control self-presentation. * https://ourinternet.org/publication/a-pragmatic-approach-to-the-right-to-be-forgotten/ Education 3.0 and Internet Governance: A New Global Alliance for Children and Young People’s Sustainable Digital Development By: Divina Frau-Meigs, Lee Hibbard *This paper examines education and its digital transition, mindful of the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations. It discusses a variety of perspectives and trends, arguing that the future of education should be part of the global debate on Internet governance. It posits that Internet governance offers a new form of legitimacy for children and young people to go beyond their current “protected” status. Ten recommendations are put forward, including the creation of the position of UN Special Rapporteur on education 3.0 for children and young people’s sustainable digital development, which could help to coordinate and promote coherent and dynamic engagement of all stakeholders.* https://ourinternet.org/publication/education-30-and-internet-governance-a-new-global-alliance-for-children-and-young-peoples-sustainable-digital-development/ Jurisdiction on the Internet By: Bertrand De La Chapelle, Paul Fehlinger *The cross-border Internet and its online spaces span a fragmented patchwork of national jurisdictions. As connectivity and Internet penetration increase, so do the conflicts between jurisdictions. Twenty-first century digital realities challenge traditional modes of international legal cooperation, revealing an institutional gap in Internet governance that may be solved by drawing lessons from the technical governance of the Internet. In order to properly address jurisdictional tensions such as cross-border access to user data, content takedowns, or domain seizures, this paper recommends the creation of issue-based multistakeholder policy networks to develop scalable solutions.* https://ourinternet.org/publication/jurisdiction-on-the-internet/ Patents and Internet Standards By: Jorge L. Contreras *In recent years, high-profile lawsuits involving standards essential patents (SEPs) have made headlines in the United States, Europe and Asia, leading to a heated public debate regarding the role and impact of patents covering key interoperability standards. Enforcement agencies around the world have investigated and prosecuted alleged violations of competition law and private licensing commitments in connection with SEPs. Yet, while the debate has focused broadly on standardization and patents in the information and communications technology (ICT) sector, commentators have paid little attention to differences among technology layers within ICT. This paper helps establish recent discussions of patenting and standards within the broader context of openness in network technologies and urges both industry participants and policy makers to look to the success of Internet standardization in a patent-light environment when considering the adoption of future rules and policies.* https://ourinternet.org/publication/patents-and-internet-standards/ Looking Back on the First Round of New gTLD Applications: Implications for Trademarks and Freedom of Expression By: Jacqueline Lipton *The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the body that, among other things, administers the domain name system with respect to generic top-level domains (gTLDs) –– that is, the string of characters to the right of the “dot.”* *This paper brings forward some reflections on what has been learned from both traditional second-level domain name disputes and oppositions to new gTLD applications, with the expectation that these lessons can be carried forward into future application processes for new gTLDs.* https://ourinternet.org/publication/looking-back-on-the-first-round-of-new-gtld-applications-implications-for-trademarks-and-freedom-of-expression/ Tracing the Economic Impact of Regulations on the Free Flow of Data and Data Localization By: Matthias Bauer, Martina F. Ferracane, Erik Van Der Marel *This paper explains how the economic costs of data localization and associated regulations on the free flow of data affect downstream economies in a group of emerging economies and the European Union. Emerging out of this analysis is an overview of recent developments in policies regarding data localization and associated data regulations for the group of countries studied. In addition, an overview of regulations on the free flow of data is provided for a number of countries that are not covered in the empirical part of this paper, but should be of concern in follow-up studies.* https://ourinternet.org/publication/tracing-the-economic-impact-of-regulations-on-the-free-flow-of-data-and-data-localization/ Governance of International Trade and the Internet: Existing and Evolving Regulatory Systems By: Harsha Vardhana Singh, Ahmed Abdel-Latif, L. Lee Tuthill *Until recently, policy makers and businesses did not adequately focus on the significant overlap between Internet and trade governance, but with a large and increasing presence of the Internet in global trade and investment, there is a growing interest in examining the synergy or conflict arising between these issues. This paper discusses these aspects as well as the new trade-related concerns that need to be addressed, including the difficulty of determining jurisdiction and rules of origin, the classification of products and relevant disciplines applicable to them, complications arising for competition policy and regulatory practices.* https://ourinternet.org/publication/governance-of-international-trade-and-the-internet-existing-and-evolving-regulatory-systems/ Market-driven Challenges to Open Internet Standards By: Patrik Fältström *The success of the Internet as a dynamic foundation for building an enormous variety of interactive services depends on interoperability, open standards and the ability to innovate freely and provide services without permission, all of which arise from its edge-oriented architecture. This paper establishes some of the basic Internet principles that have enabled innovation and interoperability, such as globally unique identifiers and open technical standards. The paper makes recommendations for reversing the trend toward fragmentation through the use of open-standard protocols, the development of application programming interfaces as if they were protocols, the use of open standards processes and the use of public procurement to encourage openness.* https://ourinternet.org/publication/market-driven-challenges-to-open-internet-standards/ Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. All the best, *Sean Zohar* *Communications Specialist, Global Security & Politics *Centre for International Governance Innovation Centre pour l’innovation dans la gouvernance internationale 67 Erb Street West, Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2L 6C2 tel +1.519.885.2444 ext. 7265 | fax +1.519.885.5450 *www.cigionline.org* *[image: cid:image001.png at 01CE9829.A79BA6C0]* -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2231 bytes Desc: not available URL: From melanie at publicknowledge.org Fri Jun 3 17:01:30 2016 From: melanie at publicknowledge.org (Melanie Penagos) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 17:01:30 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] PK Open Internet Course - Call for Applications Message-ID: Dear All, Public Knowledge is happy to announce that the second round of our Open Internet Course is set to launch on June 27, 2016. You can check out our description page here . Last summer, our course hosted 30 participants, including advocates, judges, and journalists from various countries throughout Latin America. The second round will include new resources and updated training materials, including a new module on spectrum management, featuring original videos with spectrum experts, as well as an updated cybersecurity module with the latest on U.S. cybersecurity policies and practices. The call for applications is now open and we will continue to accept applications for participants until June 10. *Those of you who are interested are encouraged to apply as soon as possible! *Please help us spread the word by sharing the English/Spanish version of the call for applicants, which can be found here . You can also help us reach the broadest possible audience by tweeting this or the following suggestions: . at PublicKnowledge 's Open Internet Course for #DigitalRights Advocates is accepting applications from now - June 10 http://bit.ly/1QVY4Dz The next @publicknowledge #OpenInternet Course is starting on 6/27. Apply today! Applications accepted until June 10 http://bit.ly/1XUFcIL La convocatoria para el próximo curso de Internet Libre y Abierto por @publicknowledge ya empezó, apliquen hoy! http://bit.ly/1XUFcIL El curso Internet Libre y Abierto esta aceptando aplicaciones para la clase del 2016 hasta 10 de junio. Aplique aquí http://bit.ly/1TXcYHv The final online version of the course is currently only available in Spanish and requires approximately 5-7 hours per week/module. Participants can take longer if they wish to go deeper, since every module has additional suggested readings and assignments. The course is targeted towards new activists, advocates, young professionals, young policy makers, and others who are interested in learning the basics of topics related to the intersection of advocacy and internet-related issues. Topics to be covered in the course include, among others, strategic planning, campaigning, internet governance, human rights online, and net neutrality. The primary goal of the course is to help train a new generation of advocates to work on creating and maintaining an Open Internet for all. Help us spread the word with our blog post and press release . The direct link to the course registration form can be accessed here . Please send questions to opencourse at publicknowledge.org. Thank you for your applications and support! Kind regards, Carolina and Melanie -- *Melanie Penagos* *International Policy Associate* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * +1 (202) 861-0020 ext. 122 | skype: melanie.penagos | @ampenagos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 29 06:01:55 2016 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:31:55 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Sign on for UN HRC on Internet resolution In-Reply-To: <413135e5-8e1d-83ff-a26a-ad2fed000382@digitaldissidents.org> References: <6ba29ae5-d97f-8794-9b8d-51d8bf611624@article19.org> <413135e5-8e1d-83ff-a26a-ad2fed000382@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: <57739C93.1030204@itforchange.net> Neil/ Others Can someone share the draft as it stands...thanks, parminder On Wednesday 29 June 2016 02:54 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote: > Dear all, > > Please find attached a joint open letter to the Member and Observer > States of the UN Human Rights Council. We're looking for organizational > sign ons. > > Unfortunatly we only have four hours (14:00 UTC) until we have to send > the letter, but maybe we can keep it open for extra sign ons (perhaps > even on the Best Bits site)? > > If you would like to sign on, please email Andrew Smits (cc (and > andrew at article19.org)). > > Best, > > Niels > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 29 06:34:26 2016 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 16:04:26 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Sign on for UN HRC on Internet resolution In-Reply-To: <57739C93.1030204@itforchange.net> References: <6ba29ae5-d97f-8794-9b8d-51d8bf611624@article19.org> <413135e5-8e1d-83ff-a26a-ad2fed000382@digitaldissidents.org> <57739C93.1030204@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5773A432.8090307@itforchange.net> Pl add IT for Change, India for those who want to see the current draft it is at https://www.article19.org/data/files/medialibrary/38422/English-(22).pdf On Wednesday 29 June 2016 03:31 PM, parminder wrote: > Neil/ Others > > Can someone share the draft as it stands...thanks, parminder > > On Wednesday 29 June 2016 02:54 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Please find attached a joint open letter to the Member and Observer >> States of the UN Human Rights Council. We're looking for organizational >> sign ons. >> >> Unfortunatly we only have four hours (14:00 UTC) until we have to send >> the letter, but maybe we can keep it open for extra sign ons (perhaps >> even on the Best Bits site)? >> >> If you would like to sign on, please email Andrew Smits (cc (and >> andrew at article19.org)). >> >> Best, >> >> Niels >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From raquino at gmail.com Wed Jun 29 06:44:47 2016 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 07:44:47 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Two new statements (was: Re: [governance] [JNC - Forum] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants) In-Reply-To: <0597a857-0d4a-eb78-f10c-df1090d7cd0d@eff.org> References: <733C506E-6192-49B6-A46E-BEFA3BC7BEF9@unog.ch>

<928e41da-ab8d-c9cd-275d-f9418104bdd2@cdt.org>

<86FD3079-1615-4EB5-BBE1-65391F77CF76@cyberinvasion.net> <1466531691287-8fcfd79d-887134d9-ae1e36a2@mixmax.com> <5B62971D6682417CB963D9B25944EC64@Toshiba> <1466557079070-db6a5596-5a4cecbc-d1050963@mixmax.com> <20160624123714.4c3a9f7d@quill> <1466766537490-94f5769d-04795f44-2af995cd@mixmax.com> <4d107041-c9e3-6b4b-ea81-4733b3ff42fb@eff.org> <0597a857-0d4a-eb78-f10c-df1090d7cd0d@eff.org> Message-ID: Hi An update on online participation on retreat was shared by one of the participants in a CS group yesterday. Participants received a document which guided them on how to participate and unattributed tweets are the only way to send information out. However, they will be the ones participating on the activities and tweeting at the same time, if they wish to do so. Therefore, since the call for inputs to retreat is 1 July and there are other issues there, it is important that civil society groups participants also send in their input to have their say on retreat discussions. Best, Renata On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Many thanks Marilia and Renata. Since time is short and since we already > have several expressions of support for the current letter, with no > concerns expressed, I'm taking the initiative to place it online in its > current form: > http://bestbits.net/igf-retreat/ > > There is a short deadline for endorsements so that the document can be > submitted by the IGF Secretariat's deadline of July 1. > > With agreement from Carlos Afonso I've also put online the "Letter in > support of the attributions and multistakeholder nature of CGI.br" that > already had endorsements of 20 Brazilian organizations, and is now gaining > support from international allies: > > http://bestbits.net/cgi-br/ > > Please endorse either or both of these statements if you agree with them. > Thank you! > > On 27/06/2016 1:12 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Excellent suggestions, Jeremy. I made some too. I think the letter is > really good, raising the issue of transparency and accountability not only > from the angle of the actual discussions in NY but also the time for > implementation that will come thereafter. I hope we are able to move > forward and submit it on the 1st of July. > Best wishes, > Marilia > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 24/06/2016 4:08 AM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote: >> >> Dear all >> >> On May 26, I drafted this letter asking for remote participation and >> shared with MAG CS >> As retreat nomination period followed, some MAG CS made this ask to >> Secretariat directly >> >> Perhaps it is time to revisit the idea >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M3L90bHNv1QzCboqadwd13Qwcxyd2hv5VamBeAUghL8/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> Thanks Renata, the letter would need a little work if it were resent from >> broader civil society, but if some of us can do that, we could then put it >> up on bestbits.net for endorsement, sending it by the 1 July deadline >> for written inputs to the retreat. I'm going to make a few amendments >> myself, so let's see if we can get it into shape together over the next few >> days. >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Global Policy Analyst >> Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm at eff.org >> >> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 >> >> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: >> >> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt >> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220 >> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Global Policy Analyst > Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm at eff.org > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > > Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt > PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220 > OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From l.jaume-palasi at irights-lab.de Wed Jun 29 07:09:44 2016 From: l.jaume-palasi at irights-lab.de (l.jaume-palasi at irights-lab.de) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 13:09:44 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [bestbits] Sign on for UN HRC on Internet resolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160629110944.5BF886D00470@dd29502.kasserver.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Wed Jun 29 07:21:03 2016 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 07:21:03 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Sign on for UN HRC on Internet resolution In-Reply-To: References: <6ba29ae5-d97f-8794-9b8d-51d8bf611624@article19.org> <413135e5-8e1d-83ff-a26a-ad2fed000382@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: Please add public knowledge > On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:30 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > Add us in - Global Partners Digital > > Andrew Puddephatt > Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home 68 Hanbury Street, London E1 5JL > T: office +44 (0) 203 818 3258 mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > gp-digital.org > > >> On 29 June 2016 at 10:24, Niels ten Oever wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Please find attached a joint open letter to the Member and Observer >> States of the UN Human Rights Council. We're looking for organizational >> sign ons. >> >> Unfortunatly we only have four hours (14:00 UTC) until we have to send >> the letter, but maybe we can keep it open for extra sign ons (perhaps >> even on the Best Bits site)? >> >> If you would like to sign on, please email Andrew Smits (cc (and >> andrew at article19.org)). >> >> Best, >> >> Niels >> >> -- >> Niels ten Oever >> Head of Digital >> >> Article 19 >> www.article19.org >> >> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 >> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andersj at elon.edu Wed Jun 29 07:37:31 2016 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 11:37:31 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Sign on for UN HRC on Internet resolution In-Reply-To: <413135e5-8e1d-83ff-a26a-ad2fed000382@digitaldissidents.org> References: <6ba29ae5-d97f-8794-9b8d-51d8bf611624@article19.org> <413135e5-8e1d-83ff-a26a-ad2fed000382@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: Please add the Imagining the Internet Center. http://www.imaginingtheinternet.org Janna -- Janna Anderson Director of Elon University's Imagining the Internet Center http://www.imaginingtheinternet.org Professor of Communications, Senior Faculty Research Fellow On 6/29/16, 5:24 AM, "Niels ten Oever" wrote: >Dear all, > >Please find attached a joint open letter to the Member and Observer >States of the UN Human Rights Council. We're looking for organizational >sign ons. > >Unfortunatly we only have four hours (14:00 UTC) until we have to send >the letter, but maybe we can keep it open for extra sign ons (perhaps >even on the Best Bits site)? > >If you would like to sign on, please email Andrew Smits (cc (and >andrew at article19.org)). > >Best, > >Niels > >-- >Niels ten Oever >Head of Digital > >Article 19 >www.article19.org > >PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Jun 29 07:57:47 2016 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:57:47 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] ICANN and Jurisdiction In-Reply-To: <57739114.8050106@cis-india.org> References: <57739114.8050106@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <5773B7BB.4060107@cafonso.ca> Hi Pranesh, although I am no lawyer, I am *very* interested in this. Will read your piece ASAP and get back with some ideas. frt rgds --c.a. On 29-06-16 12:12, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > Dear all, > I'd posted about the need for civil society to raise the issue of > jurisdiction (as civil society actors did in the 2000s) earlier on this > list, but it didn't get many responses. I've written a longer piece > about this to explain why I feel it is important. I believe this topic > merits a longer discussion within civil society. > > My piece can be accessed here: > http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/jurisdiction-the-taboo-topic-at-icann > > > Regards, > Pranesh > > > > Jurisdiction: The Taboo Topic at ICANN > ====================================== > > In March 2014, the [US government announced] that they were going to end > the contract they have with ICANN to run the [Internet Assigned Numbers > Authority] (IANA), and hand over control to the “global multistakeholder > community”. They insisted that the plan for transition had to come > through a multistakeholder process and have stakeholders “across the > global Internet community”. > > Why is the U.S. government removing the NTIA contract? > ------------------------------------------------------ > > The main reason for the U.S. government’s action is that it will get rid > of a political thorn in the U.S. government’s side: keeping the contract > allows them to be called out as having a special role in Internet > governance (with the Affirmation of Commitments between the U.S. > Department of Commerce and ICANN, the IANA contract, and the cooperative > agreement with Verisign), and engaging in unilateralism with regard to > the operation of the root servers of the Internet naming system, while > repeatedly declaring that they support a multistakeholder model of > Internet governance. > > This contradiction is what they are hoping to address. Doing away with > the NTIA contract will also increase — ever so marginally — ICANN’s > global legitimacy: this is something that world governments, civil > society organizations, and some American academics have been asking for > nearly since ICANN’s inception in 1998. For instance, here are some > demands made [in a declaration by the Civil Society Internet Governance > Caucus at WSIS, in 2005]: > >> “ICANN will negotiate an appropriate host country agreement to replace >> its California Incorporation, being careful to retain those aspects of >> its California Incorporation that enhance its accountability to the >> global Internet user community.”ICANN’s decisions, and any host >> country agreement, must be required to comply with public policy >> requirements negotiated through international treaties in regard to, >> inter alia, human rights treaties, privacy rights, gender agreements >> and trade rules. … “It is also expected that the multi-stakeholder >> community will observe and comment on the progress made in this >> process through the proposed \[Internet Governance\] Forum.” > > In short: the objective of the transition is political, [not technical]. > In an ideal world, we *should* aim at reducing U.S. state control over > the core of the Internet’s domain name system.[^1] > > It is our contention that **U.S. state control over the core of the > Internet’s domain name system is *not* being removed** by the transition > that is currently underway. > > Why is the Transition Happening Now? > ------------------------------------ > > Despite the U.S. government having given commitments in the past that > were going to finish the IANA transition by “September 30, 2000”, (the > [White Paper on Management of Internet Names and Addresses] states: “The > U.S. Government would prefer that this transition be complete before the > year 2000. To the extent that the new corporation is established and > operationally stable, September 30, 2000 is intended to be, and remains, > an ‘outside’ date.”) and later by “fall of 2006”,[^2] those turned out > to be empty promises. However, this time, the transition seems to be > going through, unless the U.S. Congress manages to halt it. > > However, in order to answer the question of “why now?” fully, one has to > look a bit at the past. > > In 1998, through the [White Paper on Management of Internet Names and > Addresses] the U.S. government [asserted it’s control over the root], > and asserted — some would say arrogated to itself — the power to put out > contracts for both the IANA functions as well as the ‘A’ Root (i.e., the > Root Zone Maintainer function that Network Solutions Inc. then > performed, and continues to perform to date in its current avatar as > Verisign). The IANA functions contract — a periodically renewable > contract — was awarded to ICANN, a California-based non-profit > corporation that was set up exclusively for this purpose, but which > evolved around the existing IANA (to placate the Internet Society). > > Meanwhile, of course, there were criticisms of ICANN from multiple > foreign governments and civil society organizations. Further, despite it > being a California-based non-profit on contract with the government, > domestically within the U.S., there was pushback from constituencies > that felt that more direct U.S. control of the DNS was important. > > As Goldsmith and Wu summarize: > >> “Milton Mueller and others have shown that ICANN’s spirit of >> “self-regulation” was an appealing label for a process that could be >> more accurately described as the U.S. government brokering a >> behind-the-scenes deal that best suited its policy preferences … the >> United States wanted to ensure the stability of the Internet, to fend >> off the regulatory efforts of foreign governments and international >> organizations, and to maintain ultimate control. The easiest way to do >> that was to maintain formal control while turning over day-to-day >> control of the root to ICANN and the Internet Society, which had close >> ties to the regulation-shy American technology industry.” \[footnotes >> omitted\] > > And that brings us to the first reason that the NTIA announced the > transition in 2014, rather than earlier. > > ### ICANN Adjudged Mature Enough > > The NTIA now sees ICANN as being mature enough: the final transition was > announced 16 years after ICANN’s creation, and complaints about ICANN > and its legitimacy had largely died down in the international arena in > that while. Nowadays, governments across the world send their > representatives to ICANN, thus legitimizing ICANN. States have largely > been satisfied by participating in the Government Advisory Council, > which, as its name suggests, only has advisory powers. Further, unlike > in the early days, there is [no serious push for states assuming control > of ICANN]. Of course they grumble about the ICANN Board not following > their advice, but no government, as far as I am aware, has walked out or > refused to participate. > > ### L’affaire Snowden > > Many within the United States, and some without, believe that the United > States not only plays an exceptional role to play in the running of the > Internet — by dint of historical development and dominance of American > companies — but that *it ought to* have an exceptional role because it > is the best country to exercise ‘oversight’ over ‘the Internet’ (often > coming from [clueless commentators]), and from dinosaurs of the Internet > era, like [American IP lawyers] and [American ‘homeland’ security > hawks], Jones Day, who are ICANN’s lawyers, and other [jingoists] and > those policymakers who are controlled by these narrow-minded interests. > > The Snowden revelations were, in that way, a godsend for the NTIA, as it > allowed them a fig-leaf of [international][] [criticism][] [with which] > to counter these domestic critics and carry on with a transition that > they have been seeking to put into motion for a while. The Snowden > revelations led Dilma Rousseff, President of Brazil, to state in > September 2013, at the 68th U.N. General Assembly, that Brazil would > “present proposals for the establishment of a [civilian multilateral > framework for the governance and use of the Internet]”, and as [Diego > Canabarro] points out this catalysed the U.S. government and the > technical community into taking action. > > Given this context, a few months after the Snowden revelations, the > so-called [I\* organizations] met — seemingly with the blessing of the > U.S. government[^3] — in Montevideo, and put out a [‘Statement on the > Future of Internet Governance’] that sought to link the Snowden > revelations on pervasive surveillance with the need to urgently > transition the IANA stewardship role away from the U.S. government. Of > course, the signatories to that statement knew fully well, as did most > of the readers of that statement, that there is no linkage between the > Snowden revelations about pervasive surveillance and the operations of > the DNS root, but still they, and others, linked them together. > Specifically, the I\* organizations called for “accelerating the > globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in > which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an > equal footing.” > > One could posit the existence of two other contributing factors as well. > > Given political realities in the United States, a transition of this > sort is probably best done before an ultra-jingoistic President steps > into office. > > Lastly, the ten-yearly review of the World Summit on Information Society > was currently underway. At the original WSIS (as seen from the civil > society quoted above) the issue of US control over the root was a major > issue of contention. At that point (and during where the 2006 date for > globalization of ICANN was emphasized by the US government). > > Why Jurisdiction is Important > ----------------------------- > > Jurisdiction has a great many aspects. *Inter alia*, these are: > > - Legal sanctions applicable to changes in the root zone (for > instance, what happens if a country under US sanctions requests a change > to the root zone file?) > - Law applicable to resolution of contractual disputes with > registries, registrars, etc. > - Law applicable to labour disputes. > - Law applicable to competition / antitrust law that applies to ICANN > policies and regulations. > - Law applicable to disputes regarding ICANN decisions, such as > allocation of gTLDs, or non-renewal of a contract. > - Law applicable to consumer protection concerns. > - Law applicable to financial transparency of the organization. > - Law applicable to corporate condition of the organization, including > membership rights. > - Law applicable to data protection-related policies & regulations. > - Law applicable to trademark and other speech-related policies & > regulations. > - Law applicable to legal sanctions imposed by a country against another. > > Some of these, but not all, depend on where bodies like ICANN (the > policy-making body), the IANA functions operator (the proposed > “Post-Transition IANA”, insofar as the names function is concerned), and > the root zone maintainer are incorporated or maintain their primary > office, while others depend on the location of the office \[for > instance, Turkish labour law applies for the ICANN office in Istanbul\], > while yet others depend on what’s decided by ICANN in contracts (for > instance, the resolution of contractual disputes with ICANN, filing of > suits with regard to disputes over new generic TLDs, etc.). > > However, an issue like sanctions, for instance, depends on where > ICANN/PTI/RMZ are incorporated and maintain their primary office. > > As [Milton Mueller notes], the current IANA contract “requires ICANN to > be incorporated in, maintain a physical address in, and perform the IANA > functions in the U.S. This makes IANA subject to U.S. law and provides > America with greater political influence over ICANN.” > > He further notes that: > >> While it is common to assert that the U.S. has never abused its >> authority and has always taken the role of a neutral steward, this is >> not quite true. During the controversy over the .xxx domain, the Bush >> administration caved in to domestic political pressure and threatened >> to block entry of the domain into the root if ICANN approved it >> (Declaration of the Independent Review Panel, 2010). It took five >> years, an independent review challenge and the threat of litigation >> from a businessman willing to spend millions to get the .xxx domain >> into the root. > > Thus it is clear that even if the NTIA’s role in the IANA contract goes > away, jurisdiction remains an important issue. > > U.S. Doublespeak on Jurisdiction > -------------------------------- > > In March 2014, when NTIA finally announced that they would hand over the > reins to “the global multistakeholder community”. They’ve laid down two > procedural condition: that it be developed by stakeholders across the > global Internet community and have broad community consensus, and they > have proposed 5 substantive conditions that any proposal must meet: > > - Support and enhance the multistakeholder model; > - Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS; > - Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners > of the IANA services; and, > - Maintain the openness of the Internet. > - Must not replace the NTIA role with a solution that is > government-led or an inter-governmental organization. > > In that announcement there is no explicit restriction on the > jurisdiction of ICANN (whether it relate to its incorporation, the > resolution of contractual disputes, resolution of labour disputes, > antitrust/competition law, tort law, consumer protection law, privacy > law, or speech law, and more, all of which impact ICANN and many, but > not all, of which are predicated on the jurisdiction of ICANN’s > incorporation), the jurisdiction(s) of the IANA Functions Operator(s) > (i.e., which executive, court, or legislature’s orders would it need to > obey), and the jurisdiction of the Root Zone Maintainer (i.e., which > executive, court, or legislature’s orders would it need to obey). > > However, Mr. Larry Strickling, the head of the NTIA, in his [testimony > before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology], > made it clear that, > >> “Frankly, if \[shifting ICANN or IANA jurisdiction\] were being >> proposed, I don’t think that such a proposal would satisfy our >> criteria, specifically the one that requires that security and >> stability be maintained.” > > Possibly, that argument made sense in 1998, due to the significant > concentration of DNS expertise in the United States. However, in 2015, > that argument is hardly convincing, and is frankly laughable.[^4] > > Targetting that remark, in ICANN 54 at Dublin, we asked Mr. Strickling: > >> “So as we understand it, the technical stability of the DNS doesn’t >> necessarily depend on ICANN’s jurisdiction being in the United States. >> So I wanted to ask would the US Congress support a multistakeholder >> and continuing in the event that it’s shifting jurisdiction.” > > Mr. Strickling’s response was: > >> “No. I think Congress has made it very clear and at every hearing they >> have extracted from Fadi a commitment that ICANN will remain >> incorporated in the United States. Now the jurisdictional question >> though, as I understand it having been raised from some other >> countries, is not so much jurisdiction in terms of where ICANN is >> located. It’s much more jurisdiction over the resolution of disputes. >> >> “And that I think is an open issue, and that’s an appropriate one to >> be discussed. And it’s one I think where ICANN has made some movement >> over time anyway. >> >> “So I think you have to … when people use the word jurisdiction, we >> need to be very precise about over what issues because where disputes >> are resolved and under what law they’re resolved, those are separate >> questions from where the corporation may have a physical headquarters.” > > As we have shown above, jurisdiction is not only about the jurisdiction > of “resolution of disputes”, but also, as Mueller reminds us, about the > requirement that ICANN (and now, the PTI) be “incorporated in, maintain > a physical address in, and perform the IANA functions in the U.S. This > makes IANA subject to U.S. law and provides America with greater > political influence over ICANN.” > > In essence, the U.S. government has essentially said that they would > veto the transition if the jurisdiction of ICANN or PTI’s incorporation > were to move out of the U.S., and they can prevent that from happening > *after* the transition, since as things stand ICANN and PTI will still > come within the U.S. Congress’s jurisdiction. > > Why Has the ICG Failed to Consider Jurisdiction? > ------------------------------------------------ > > Will the ICG proposal or the proposed new ICANN by-laws reduce existing > U.S. control? No, they won’t. (In fact, as we will argue below, the > proposed new ICANN by-laws make this problem even worse.) The proposal > by the names community (“the CWG proposal”) still has a requirement (in > Annex S) that the Post-Transition IANA (PTI) be incorporated in the > United States, and a similar suggestion hidden away as a footnote. > Further, the proposed by-laws for ICANN include the requirement that PTI > be a California corporation. There was no discussion specifically on > this issue, nor any documented community agreement on the specific issue > of jurisdiction of PTI’s incorporation. > > Why wasn’t there greater discussion and consideration of this issue? > Because of two reasons: First, there were many that argued that the > transition would be vetoed by the U.S. government and the U.S. Congress > if ICANN and PTI were not to remain in the U.S. Secondly, the > ICANN-formed ICG saw the US government’s actions very narrowly, as > though the government were acting in isolation, ignoring the rich > dialogue and debate that’s gone on earlier about the transition since > the incorporation of ICANN itself. > > While it would be no one’s case that political considerations should be > given greater weightage than technical considerations such as security, > stability, and resilience of the domain name system, it is shocking that > political considerations have been completely absent in the discussions > in the number and protocol parameters communities, and have been > extremely limited in the discussions in the names community. This is > even more shocking considering that the main reason for this transition > is, as has been argued above, political. > > It can be also argued that the certain IANA functions such as Root Zone > Management function have a considerable political implication. It is > imperative that the political nature of the function is duly > acknowledged and dealt with, in accordance with the wishes of the global > community. In the current process the political aspects of the IANA > function has been completely overlooked and sidelined. It is important > to note that this transition has not been a necessitated by any > technical considerations. It is primarily motivated by political and > legal considerations. However, the questions that the ICG asked the > customer communities to consider were solely technical. Indeed, the > communities could have chosen to overlook that, but they did not choose > to do so. For instance, while the IANA customer community proposals > reflected on existing jurisdictional arrangements, they did not reflect > on how the jurisdictional arrangements should be post-transition , while > this is one of the questions at the heart of the entire transition. > There were no discussions and decisions as to the jurisdiction of the > Post-Transition IANA: the Accountability CCWG’s lawyers, Sidley Austin, > recommended that the PTI ought to be a California non-profit > corporation, and this finds mention in a footnote without even having > been debated by the “global multistakeholder community”, and > subsequently in the proposed new by-laws for ICANN. > > Why the By-Laws Make Things Worse & Why “Work Stream 2” Can’t Address > Most Jurisdiction Issues > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > The by-laws could have chosen to simply stayed silent on the matter of > what law PTI would be incorporated under, but instead the by-law make > the requirement of PTI being a California non-profit public benefit > corporation part of the *fundamental by-laws*, which are close to > impossible to amend. > > While “Work Stream 2” (the post-transition work related to improving > ICANN’s accountability) has jurisdiction as a topic of consideration, > the scope of that must necessarily discount any consideration of > shifting the jurisdiction of incorporation of ICANN, since all of the > work done as part of CCWG Accountability’s “Work Stream 1”, which are > now reflected in the proposed new by-laws, assume Californian > jurisdiction (including the legal model of the “Empowered Community”). > Is ICANN prepared to re-do all the work done in WS1 in WS2 as well? If > the answer is yes, then the issue of jurisdiction can actually be > addressed in WS2. If the answer is no — and realistically it is — then, > the issue of jurisdiction can only be very partially addressed in WS2. > > Keeping this in mind, we recommended specific changes in the by-laws, > all of which were rejected by CCWG’s lawyers. > > The Transition Plan Fails the NETmundial Statement > -------------------------------------------------- > > The [NETmundial Multistakeholder Document], which was an outcome of the > NETmundial process, states: > >> In the follow up to the recent and welcomed announcement of US >> Government with regard to its intent to transition the stewardship of >> IANA functions, the discussion about mechanisms for guaranteeing the >> transparency and accountability of those functions after the US >> Government role ends, has to take place through an open process with >> the participation of all stakeholders extending beyond the ICANN >> community >> >> \[…\] >> >> It is expected that the process of globalization of ICANN speeds up >> leading to a truly international and global organization serving the >> public interest with clearly implementable and verifiable >> accountability and transparency mechanisms that satisfy requirements >> from both internal stakeholders and the global community. >> >> The active representation from all stakeholders in the ICANN structure >> from all regions is a key issue in the process of a successful >> globalization. > > As our past analysis has shown, the IANA transition process and the > discussions on the mailing lists that shaped it [were neither global nor > multistakeholder]. The DNS industry represented in ICANN is largely > US-based. 3 in 5 registrars are from the United States of America, > whereas less than 1% of ICANN-registered registrars are from Africa. > Two-thirds of the Business Constituency in ICANN is from the USA. While > ICANN-the-corporation has sought to become more global, the ICANN > community has remained insular, and this will not change until the > commercial interests involved in ICANN can become more diverse, > reflecting the diversity of users of the Internet, and a TLD like .COM > can be owned by a non-American corporation and the PTI can be a > non-American entity. > > What We Need: Jurisdictional Resilience > --------------------------------------- > > It is no one’s case that the United States is less fit than any other > country as a base for ICANN, PTI, or the Root Zone Maintainer, or even > as the headquarters for 9 of the world’s 12 root zone operators > (Verisign runs both the A and J root servers). However, just as having > multiplicity of root servers is important for ensuring technical > resilience of the DNS system (and this is shown in the uptake of Anycast > by root server operators), it is equally important to have immunity of > core DNS functioning from political pressures of the country or > countries where core DNS infrastructure is legally situated and to > ensure that we have diversity in terms of legal jurisdiction. > > Towards this end, we at CIS have pushed for the concept of > “jurisdictional resilience”, encompassing three crucial points: > > - Legal immunity for core technical operators of Internet functions > (as opposed to policymaking venues) from legal sanctions or orders from > the state in which they are legally situated. > - Division of core Internet operators among multiple jurisdictions > - Jurisdictional division of policymaking functions from technical > implementation functions > > Of these, the most important is the limited legal immunity (akin to a > greatly limited form of the immunity that UN organizations get from the > laws of their host countries). This kind of immunity could be provided > through a variety of different means: a host-country agreement; a law > passed by the legislature; a U.N. General Assembly Resolution; a > U.N.-backed treaty; and other such options exist. We are currently > investigating which of these options would be the best option. > > And apart from limited legal immunity, distribution of jurisdictional > control is also valuable. As we noted in our submission to the ICG in > September 2015: > >> Following the above precepts would, for instance, mean that the entity >> that performs the role of the Root Zone Maintainer should not be >> situated in the same legal jurisdiction as the entity that functions >> as the policymaking venue. This would in turn mean that either the >> Root Zone Maintainer function be taken up Netnod >> (Sweden-headquartered) or the WIDE Project (Japan-headquartered) \[or >> RIPE-NCC, headquartered in the Netherlands\], or that if the IANA >> Functions Operator(s) is to be merged with the RZM, then the IFO be >> relocated to a jurisdiction other than those of ISOC and ICANN. This, >> as has been stated earlier, has been a demand of the Civil Society >> Internet Governance Caucus. Further, it would also mean that root zone >> servers operators be spread across multiple jurisdictions (which the >> creation of mirror servers in multiple jurisdictions will not address). > > However, the issue of jurisdiction seems to be dead-on-arrival, having > been killed by the United States government. > > Unfortunately, despite the primary motivation for demands for the IANA > transition being those of removing the power the U.S. government > exercises over the core of the Internet’s operations in the form of the > DNS, what has ended up happening through the IANA transition is that > these powers have not only not been removed, but in some ways they have > been entrenched further! While earlier, the U.S. had to specify that the > IANA functions operator had to be located in the U.S., now ICANN’s > by-laws themselves will state that the post-transition IANA will be a > California corporation. Notably, while the Montevideo Declaration speaks > of “globalization” of ICANN and of the IANA functions, as does the > NETmundial statement, the NTIA announcement on their acceptance of the > transition proposals speaks of “privatization” of ICANN, and not > “globalization”. > > All in all, the “independence” that IANA is gaining from the U.S. is > akin to the “independence” that Brazil gained from Portugal in 1822. Dom > Pedro of Brazil was then ruling Brazil as the Prince Regent since his > father Dom João VI, the King of United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and > the Algarves had returned to Portugal. In 1822, Brazil declared > independence from Portugal (which was formally recognized through a > treaty in 1825). Even after this “independence”, Dom Pedro continued to > rule Portugal just as he had before indepedence, and Dom João VI was > provided the title of “Emperor of Brazil”, aside from being King of the > United Kingdom of Portugal and the Algarves. The “indepedence” didn’t > make a whit of a difference to the self-sufficiency of Brazil: Portugal > continued to be its largest trading partner. The “independence” didn’t > change anything for the nearly 1 million slaves in Brazil, or to the lot > of the indigenous peoples of Brazil, none of whom were recognized as > “free”. It had very little consequence not just in terms of ground > conditions of day-to-day living, but even in political terms. > > Such is the case with the IANA Transition: U.S. power over the core > functioning of the Domain Name System do not stand diminished after the > transition, and they can even arguably be said to have become even more > entrenched. Meet the new boss: same as the old boss. > > [^1]: It is an allied but logically distinct issue that U.S. businesses > — registries and registrars — dominate the global DNS industry, and as a > result hold the reins at ICANN. > > [^2]: As Goldsmith & Wu note in their book *Who Controls the Internet*: > “Back in 1998 the U.S. Department of Commerce promised to relinquish > root authority by the fall of 2006, but in June 2005, the United States > reversed course. “The United States Government intends to preserve the > security and stability of the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing > System (DNS),” announced Michael D. Gallagher, a Department of Commerce > official. “The United States” he announced, will “maintain its historic > role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root > zone file.” > > [^3]: Mr. Fadi Chehadé revealed in an interaction with Indian > participants at ICANN 54 that he had a meeting “at the White House” > about the U.S. plans for transition of the IANA contract before he spoke > about that when [he visited India in October 2013] making the timing of > his White House visit around the time of the Montevideo Statement. > > [^4]: As an example, [NSD], software that is used on multiple root > servers, is funded by a Dutch foundation and a Dutch corporation, and > written mostly by European coders. > > [US government announced]: > https://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions > > [Internet Assigned Numbers Authority]: https://www.iana.org/ > [in a declaration by the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus at > WSIS, in 2005]: > https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs2/pc3/contributions/sca/hbf-29.doc > [not technical]: > [White Paper on Management of Internet Names and Addresses]: > https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/white-paper-2012-02-25-en > [asserted it’s control over the root]: > http://www.icannwatch.org/archive/mueller_icann_and_internet_governance.pdf > [no serious push for states assuming control of ICANN]: > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/05/24/threat-analysis-of-itus-wcit-part-1-historical-context/ > > [clueless commentators]: > http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303563304579447362610955656 > [American IP lawyers]: > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140316_if_the_stakeholders_already_control_the_internet_netmundial_iana/ > > [American ‘homeland’ security hawks]: > http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/03/who-controls-the-internet-address-book-icann-ntia-and-iana/ > > [jingoists]: > http://homepages.wmich.edu/~cooneys/poems/cummings.nextto.html > [international]: > http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4529516c-c713-11e3-889e-00144feabdc0.html > [criticism]: > https://www.rt.com/usa/nsa-fallout-relinquish-internet-oversight-002/ > [with which]: https://twitter.com/carolinegreer/status/454253411576598528 > [civilian multilateral framework for the governance and use of the > Internet]: > https://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/68/BR_en.pdf > [Diego Canabarro]: https://icannwiki.com/Diego_Canabarro > [I\* organizations]: https://www.apnic.net/community/ecosystem/i*orgs > [‘Statement on the Future of Internet Governance’]: > https://www.apnic.net/publications/news/2013/montevideo-statement-on-future-of-internet-cooperation > > [Milton Mueller notes]: > http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-globalizing-iana-four-principles-and-a-proposal-for-reform-a-submission-to-the-global-multistakeholder-meeting-on-the-future-of-internet-governance/96 > > [testimony before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Communications and > Technology]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v-yWye5I0w&feature=youtu.be > [NETmundial Multistakeholder Document]: > http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf > > [were neither global nor multistakeholder]: > cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-multistakeholder-community-neither-global-nor-multistakeholder > > [he visited India in October 2013]: > http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-10-22/news/43288531_1_icann-internet-corporation-us-centric-internet > > [NSD]: https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/projects/nsd/ > > -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From wisdom.dk at gmail.com Wed Jun 29 08:43:55 2016 From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 12:43:55 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Sign on for UN HRC on Internet resolution In-Reply-To: <413135e5-8e1d-83ff-a26a-ad2fed000382@digitaldissidents.org> References: <6ba29ae5-d97f-8794-9b8d-51d8bf611624@article19.org> <413135e5-8e1d-83ff-a26a-ad2fed000382@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: endorse by African Internet Governance and Open Government Data Research Foundation Institute *WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)* E-government and Open Government Data Platforms Specialist 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 On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Niels ten Oever < lists at digitaldissidents.org> wrote: > Dear all, > > Please find attached a joint open letter to the Member and Observer > States of the UN Human Rights Council. We're looking for organizational > sign ons. > > Unfortunatly we only have four hours (14:00 UTC) until we have to send > the letter, but maybe we can keep it open for extra sign ons (perhaps > even on the Best Bits site)? > > If you would like to sign on, please email Andrew Smits (cc (and > andrew at article19.org)). > > Best, > > Niels > > -- > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From laura at openmedia.org Wed Jun 29 09:29:42 2016 From: laura at openmedia.org (Laura Tribe) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 06:29:42 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Sign on for UN HRC on Internet resolution In-Reply-To: <413135e5-8e1d-83ff-a26a-ad2fed000382@digitaldissidents.org> References: <6ba29ae5-d97f-8794-9b8d-51d8bf611624@article19.org> <413135e5-8e1d-83ff-a26a-ad2fed000382@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: Please include OpenMedia, if it isn't too late. Best, Laura On Wednesday, 29 June 2016, Niels ten Oever wrote: > Dear all, > > Please find attached a joint open letter to the Member and Observer > States of the UN Human Rights Council. We're looking for organizational > sign ons. > > Unfortunatly we only have four hours (14:00 UTC) until we have to send > the letter, but maybe we can keep it open for extra sign ons (perhaps > even on the Best Bits site)? > > If you would like to sign on, please email Andrew Smits (cc (and > andrew at article19.org )). > > Best, > > Niels > > -- > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > -- *Laura Tribe* Digital Rights Specialist, OpenMedia laura at openmedia.org | 1-888-441-2640 ext. 2 PGP: 5975 A7D9 D2B8 61A1 6A5F F3A9 D468 6275 8475 1BAF -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From antiropy at gmail.com Wed Jun 29 10:36:34 2016 From: antiropy at gmail.com (Byoung-il Oh) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 23:36:34 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Sign on for UN HRC on Internet resolution In-Reply-To: References: <6ba29ae5-d97f-8794-9b8d-51d8bf611624@article19.org> <413135e5-8e1d-83ff-a26a-ad2fed000382@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet sign on. Best, Byoung-il Oh 2016-06-29 22:29 GMT+09:00 Laura Tribe : > Please include OpenMedia, if it isn't too late. > Best, > Laura > > > On Wednesday, 29 June 2016, Niels ten Oever > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Please find attached a joint open letter to the Member and Observer >> States of the UN Human Rights Council. We're looking for organizational >> sign ons. >> >> Unfortunatly we only have four hours (14:00 UTC) until we have to send >> the letter, but maybe we can keep it open for extra sign ons (perhaps >> even on the Best Bits site)? >> >> If you would like to sign on, please email Andrew Smits (cc (and >> andrew at article19.org)). >> >> Best, >> >> Niels >> >> -- >> Niels ten Oever >> Head of Digital >> >> Article 19 >> www.article19.org >> >> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 >> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >> >> > > -- > > *Laura Tribe* > Digital Rights Specialist, OpenMedia > laura at openmedia.org | 1-888-441-2640 ext. 2 > PGP: 5975 A7D9 D2B8 61A1 6A5F F3A9 D468 6275 8475 1BAF > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bzs at theworld.com Fri Jun 3 17:11:49 2016 From: bzs at theworld.com (bzs at theworld.com) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 17:11:49 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Brief update on MAG meeting on IGF retreat In-Reply-To: <6d4fa95d-3f53-4d42-de1e-77a165c06a96@apc.org> References: <337c8fa3-1159-f0b2-cdb8-f43aa6981145@apcwomen.org> <574FEF32.1010108@itforchange.net> <6d4fa95d-3f53-4d42-de1e-77a165c06a96@apc.org> Message-ID: <22353.62101.315312.5244@pcls8.std.com> On June 3, 2016 at 14:04 deborah at apc.org (Deborah Brown) wrote: > I also think it's a UN DESA event. I've heard of Glen Cove being used as a > place for UN retreats in the past, but always good to clarify. Possibly a non-sequitar but one of the original, pre-Manhattan, temporary locations of the UN was in Lake Success, NY (later the location of Sperry-Gyroscope) just a few minutes drive even on side roads from Glen Cove. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* From imran at IGFPak.org Wed Jun 29 11:59:11 2016 From: imran at IGFPak.org (Imran Ahmad Shah) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:59:11 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Sign on for UN HRC on Internet resolution In-Reply-To: <413135e5-8e1d-83ff-a26a-ad2fed000382@digitaldissidents.org> References: <6ba29ae5-d97f-8794-9b8d-51d8bf611624@article19.org> <413135e5-8e1d-83ff-a26a-ad2fed000382@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: <1fdae25d33a2bec418b2cb9618eb38e3.squirrel@carrera.websitewelcome.com> Dear Niels, On behalf of Urdu Internet Society & Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan, the Open Letter to the Member and Observer States of the UN Human Rights Council is being singed. Thanks and Regards Imran Ahmed Shah Founder & Executive Member Linguistic Internet Council, Urdu Internet Society Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan On Wed, June 29, 2016 4:24 am, Niels ten Oever wrote: > Dear all, > > > Please find attached a joint open letter to the Member and Observer > States of the UN Human Rights Council. We're looking for organizational > sign ons. > > Unfortunatly we only have four hours (14:00 UTC) until we have to send > the letter, but maybe we can keep it open for extra sign ons (perhaps even > on the Best Bits site)? > > If you would like to sign on, please email Andrew Smits (cc (and > andrew at article19.org)). > > Best, > > > Niels > > > -- > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 evangreer at gmail.com Wed Jun 29 13:47:44 2016 From: evangreer at gmail.com (Evan Greer) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 13:47:44 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Rock Against the TPP Message-ID: Hey everyone, I'm turning in my "one somewhat off-topic but important crosspost email per year" chip to reach out to you all about a major campaign Fight for the Future is organizing with Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello, actress Evangeline Lilly, hip-hop act Talib Kweli, and a bunch of great high profile performers, musicians, and celebs. *Here's the link: https://www.RockAgainstTheTPP.org * This may be the biggest thing we've ever done. It's a nationwide series of large-scale events to mobilize opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which, as I'm sure you all know, has profound implications for the future of Internet freedom, whistleblower protections, freedom of expression, privacy, and so many other important issues. *We're inviting all groups who support an open democracy and a free Internet to join us in this effort.* We're looking for more groups to come on as sponsors / partners for the tour, and also for groups to simply endorse and add their name to the effort. Most importantly, we're looking for groups to send emails and outreach to their members in the cities that we're visiting, encouraging them to attend these FREE, exciting, and high impact events. Here's the schedule: *July 23: Denver, CO *with Tom Morello, Anti-Flag, Flobots, Evangeline Lilly *July 30: San Diego, CA* with Jolie Holland, Las Cafeteras, Evangeline Lilly *August 19: Seattle, WA *with Talib Kweli, Downtown Boys, Evangeline Lilly *August 20: Portland, OR* with headliner TBA, Downtown Boys, Evangeline Lilly *September 24: Boston, MA* details TBA Please reach out to me if your organization is interested in getting involved in any way. We have a very real chance of stopping the TPP, and these events are a critical part of the strategy to help us quickly reach large groups of new people who we haven't been able to activate through traditional online activism. -- *Evan Greer* Campaign Director Fight for the Future http://fightforthefuture.org Cell: +1 978.852.6457 Email: evan at fightforthefuture.org Twitter: @fightfortheftr Pronouns: she/her/hers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steve at openmedia.ca Wed Jun 29 15:51:46 2016 From: steve at openmedia.ca (Steve Anderson) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 12:51:46 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Sign on for UN HRC on Internet resolution In-Reply-To: <413135e5-8e1d-83ff-a26a-ad2fed000382@digitaldissidents.org> References: <6ba29ae5-d97f-8794-9b8d-51d8bf611624@article19.org> <413135e5-8e1d-83ff-a26a-ad2fed000382@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: Please add OpenMedia.org On Jun 29, 2016 2:24 AM, "Niels ten Oever" wrote: > Dear all, > > Please find attached a joint open letter to the Member and Observer > States of the UN Human Rights Council. We're looking for organizational > sign ons. > > Unfortunatly we only have four hours (14:00 UTC) until we have to send > the letter, but maybe we can keep it open for extra sign ons (perhaps > even on the Best Bits site)? > > If you would like to sign on, please email Andrew Smits (cc (and > andrew at article19.org)). > > Best, > > Niels > > -- > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jun 29 20:02:55 2016 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 10:02:55 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] Two new statements (was: Re: [governance] [JNC - Forum] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants) In-Reply-To: References: <733C506E-6192-49B6-A46E-BEFA3BC7BEF9@unog.ch> <928e41da-ab8d-c9cd-275d-f9418104bdd2@cdt.org>

Message-ID: An impressive list of signatories - great work putting this together! *Andrew Puddephatt* Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL *Second Home *68 Hanbury Street, London E1 5JL T: office +44 (0) 203 818 3258 mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org On 30 June 2016 at 08:34, Niels ten Oever wrote: > > Dear friends and colleagues, > > On behalf of ARTICLE 19, I'd like to thank you for signing the joint > letter to UN states regarding the resolution on human rights on the > internet (A/HRC/32/L.20). > > Earlier, a copy of the letter was sent to all permanent missions to the > UN in Geneva with 65 signatures. The attached version has 83 signatures! > We encourage all signatories to send a copy of the letter to Ministries > of Foreign Affairs in-capitals as soon as possible, ideally before > lunchtime tomorrow Geneva time, in particular targeting those listed > below this email. > > The resolution is likely to be considered for adoption during tomorrow > afternoon (30 June), you can watch the proceedings here by clicking the > channel for the 32nd Session of the UN Human Rights Council (and > tweeting with #HRC32): http://webtv.un.org/. You will recognise the > resolution by its reference number "L.20". > > In addition to thanking you all for signing this, I wanted to give a > shout out to Deborah from APC, Peter from Access Now, and Tomaso from > Privacy International, and all my colleagues at ARTICLE 19 (Gabrielle, > Niels, Corinne, Charlotte + more), who have been engaging + advocating > on this resolution in Geneva and beyond in the last few weeks! > We'll update on the outcome tomorrow! > > > Kind regards, > > Andrew and Niels > > *Sign up to receive our newsletter here > < > http://article19.us2.list-manage2.com/subscribe?u=de9f45d125dffa47919a18815&id=c3bf82663f > >.* > > > *TARGET STATES:* > > *All UN member states are targets for the letter*, even those states > that have already cosponsored the resolution should hear what we have to > say, and know that we are following the discussions. This is > particularly for those states that have connections with the > below-listed states, and may be able to encourage them to cosponsor the > resolution. > > Our _primary targets_ are HRC members who haven't yet co-sponsored > (according to our latest list): > > *Bangladesh* > Bolivia (Plurinational State of) > Burundi > China > Congo > *Cuba* > Ecuador > Ethiopia > *India* > Kyrgyzstan > *Namibia** > **Panama** > **Paraguay** > **Philippines * > Russian Federation > Saudi Arabia > *South Africa * > *Togo* > *United Arab Emirates * > Venezuela > Viet Nam > > _We should also reach out to non-Human Rights Council states who have > not co-sponsored:_ > > Afghanistan > Andorra > Antigua and Barbuda > Armenia > Azerbaijan > Bahamas > Bahrain > Barbados > Belarus > Belize > Bhutan > Brunei Darussalam > Cabo Verde > Cambodia > Cameroon > Central African Republic > Chad > Comoros > Democratic People's Republic of Korea > Democratic Republic of the Congo* > Dominica > Dominican Republic > Egypt > Equatorial Guinea > Eritrea > Fiji > Gabon > Gambia (Islamic Republic of the) > Grenada > Guinea > Guinea Bissau > Guyana > Iran (Islamic Republic of) > Iraq > Jamaica > Kazakhstan > Kiribati > Kuwait > Lao People’s Democratic Republic > Lesotho > Liberia > Libya > Madagascar > Malawi > Malaysia > Mali > Marshall Islands > Mauritania > Mauritius > Micronesia (Federated States of) > Mozambique > Myanmar > Nauru > Nepal > Niger > Oman > Pakistan > Palau > Papua New Guinea > Saint Kitts and Nevis > Saint Lucia > Saint Vincent and the Grenadines > Samoa > San Marino > Sao Tome and Principe > Seychelles > Singapore > Solomon Islands > South Sudan > Sri Lanka > Sudan > Suriname > Swaziland > Syrian Arab Republic > Tajikistan > Thailand > Tonga > Trinidad and Tobago > Turkmenistan > Tuvalu > Uganda > United Republic of Tanzania > Uzbekistan > Vanuatu > Yemen > Zambia > Zimbabwe > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 12:03:20 2016 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 12:03:20 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Right to Information Message-ID: Dear Friends, Please excuse the deliberate cross-posting. The Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) is just finishing a selection, working to very tight deadlines, of representatives of civil society as a whole to attend a Retreat to be held in New York next month on the future of the Internet Governance Forum. When the Retreat was first proposed there was considerable debate about the involvement of civil society, and about whether CSCG should make the selection. Finally it was agreed that CSCG should go ahead. After that there was silence. Currently there is no public knowledge of whether anyone at all in fact presented themselves to CSCG for selection, nor, if anyone did, do we have any idea of who they might be. But those about to be represented, civil society as a whole, have a right to know the answers to these questions, and to know them BEFORE any selection is completed. This is a reminder to all of us, particularly in the context of the review of the CSCG, of the need to remember to "think communally" if we really want to change a hierarchical system, to be constantly aware of the obligation of information as a right, not as a favour, to all participants. Lack of engagement is a ubiquitous problem of governance. The "stakeholders" abdicate from participation in part at least because the "more equal" stakeholders turn to each other rather than to them. In this there could be one answer to Item 2 of the call for comment on the Retreat draft agenda which reads: 2) What measures can be taken to engage those stakeholders who are currently unengaged, with a view to expand and diversify physical and virtual participation? Best wishes Deirdre -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From raquino at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 14:49:27 2016 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 15:49:27 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Right to Information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Deirdre and all The deadline for CSCG selection of nominees to IGF Retreat is upcoming. This process, however, depended on other aspects: 1) The candidates would have to send an email to CSCG nomcom 2) The candidates were also requested to self-nominate or be nominated in IGF website 3) The CSCG asked CS MAG members to present the result of their selection, so as not to indicate the same CS rep the CS MAG members choose I was honored to have been one of the CSCG nominees who became part of the MAG IGF 2016 I can not speak for the whole CS at MAG of course But I can say that the majority of MAG CS is participating on a selection process. Given the solution of that aspect, I am sure CSCG will follow the best path it can in terms of appointing nominees which do fulfill all the other conditions. Best, Renata On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Dear Friends, > Please excuse the deliberate cross-posting. > > The Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) is just finishing a selection, > working to very tight deadlines, of representatives of civil society as a > whole to attend a Retreat to be held in New York next month on the future of > the Internet Governance Forum. > > When the Retreat was first proposed there was considerable debate about the > involvement of civil society, and about whether CSCG should make the > selection. Finally it was agreed that CSCG should go ahead. After that there > was silence. > > Currently there is no public knowledge of whether anyone at all in fact > presented themselves to CSCG for selection, nor, if anyone did, do we have > any idea of who they might be. > > But those about to be represented, civil society as a whole, have a right to > know the answers to these questions, and to know them BEFORE any selection > is completed. > > This is a reminder to all of us, particularly in the context of the review > of the CSCG, of the need to remember to "think communally" if we really want > to change a hierarchical system, to be constantly aware of the obligation of > information as a right, not as a favour, to all participants. > > Lack of engagement is a ubiquitous problem of governance. The "stakeholders" > abdicate from participation in part at least because the "more equal" > stakeholders turn to each other rather than to them. In this there could be > one answer to Item 2 of the call for comment on the Retreat draft agenda > which reads: > > 2) What measures can be taken to engage those stakeholders who are > currently unengaged, with a view to expand and diversify physical and > virtual participation? > > > Best wishes > > Deirdre > > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From raquino at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 15:19:11 2016 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 16:19:11 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] IGF Retreat 2016 Call for Written Inputs Message-ID: Hi Sharing this call for inputs, just in case you haven`t seen it. Apologies for cross-posting. Best, Renata http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat-2016-call IGF Retreat 2016 Call for Written Inputs All stakeholders are invited to send written inputs commenting on issues that will be discussed (agenda), with reference to the following background documentation. The guiding questions below are based on the the draft agenda: 1) What are some ways to: - Improve the overall preparatory process of the IGF, - Improve the the nomination process and make-up of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) and the appointment process for the IGF-MAG Chair, - Strengthen IGF support structures? 2) What measures can be taken to engage those stakeholders who are currently unengaged, with a view to expand and diversify physical and virtual participation? 3) What are the ways we can better capture the outputs of the IGF and increase their visibility and impact? 4) What modalities should be put in place to ensure sustained funding to support the IGF process and the IGF Secretariat. 5) How can the IGF better support the work of national and regional IGF initiatives (NRIs) and how can synergies between the IGF and NRIs and amongst NRIs be increased? 6) What are other issues, if any, that could be discussed at the Retreat? Please keep your inputs concise. The deadline for submitting contributions to igfretreat at intgovforum.org is 1 July. All written inputs received will be shared in public on the IGF website. We kindly ask that you group your inputs according to the specific agenda item if possible. Background Documentation: Tunis Agenda Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) Report of the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum Report of the IGF Secretariat to the CSTD 17th Session: Ongoing Implementation of the of the CSTD Working Group Recommendations on Improvements to the IGF Report to the CSTD on the Implementation of the Outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS): 2015 Input from the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Outcome document of the high-level meeting of the General Assembly on the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society Synthesis Paper: Taking Stock of IGF 2015 and Looking Forward to IGF 2016 Progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society at the regional and international levels: Report of the United Nations Secretary-General, February 2016 CSTD Draft ECOSOC Resolution May 2016: Assessment of the progress made in the implementation oft and follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society From wisdom.dk at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 15:32:40 2016 From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 19:32:40 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] IGF Retreat 2016 Call for Written Inputs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Renata, i believe this will help and as well serve as a guideline. Cheers, *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 On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote: > Hi > > Sharing this call for inputs, just in case you haven`t seen it. > > Apologies for cross-posting. > > Best, > > Renata > > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat-2016-call > > IGF Retreat 2016 Call for Written Inputs > > All stakeholders are invited to send written inputs commenting on > issues that will be discussed (agenda), with reference to the > following background documentation. The guiding questions below are > based on the the draft agenda: > > 1) What are some ways to: > > - Improve the overall preparatory process of the IGF, > > - Improve the the nomination process and make-up of the > Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) and the appointment process for > the IGF-MAG Chair, > > - Strengthen IGF support structures? > > 2) What measures can be taken to engage those stakeholders who are > currently unengaged, with a view to expand and diversify physical and > virtual participation? > > 3) What are the ways we can better capture the outputs of the IGF > and increase their visibility and impact? > > 4) What modalities should be put in place to ensure sustained > funding to support the IGF process and the IGF Secretariat. > > 5) How can the IGF better support the work of national and > regional IGF initiatives (NRIs) and how can synergies between the IGF > and NRIs and amongst NRIs be increased? > > 6) What are other issues, if any, that could be discussed at the > Retreat? > > Please keep your inputs concise. The deadline for submitting > contributions to igfretreat at intgovforum.org is 1 July. All written > inputs received will be shared in public on the IGF website. We kindly > ask that you group your inputs according to the specific agenda item > if possible. > > > > Background Documentation: > > Tunis Agenda > > > > Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) > > > > Report of the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the Internet > Governance Forum > > Report of the IGF Secretariat to the CSTD 17th Session: Ongoing > Implementation of the of the CSTD Working Group Recommendations on > Improvements to the IGF > > Report to the CSTD on the Implementation of the Outcomes of the World > Summit on the Information Society (WSIS): 2015 Input from the Internet > Governance Forum (IGF) > > Outcome document of the high-level meeting of the General Assembly on > the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World > Summit on the Information Society > > > > Synthesis Paper: Taking Stock of IGF 2015 and Looking Forward to IGF 2016 > > > > Progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes > of the World Summit on the Information Society at the regional and > international levels: Report of the United Nations Secretary-General, > February 2016 > > CSTD Draft ECOSOC Resolution May 2016: Assessment of the progress made > in the implementation oft and follow-up to the outcomes of the World > Summit on the Information Society > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 16:52:40 2016 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 16:52:40 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Right to Information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Renata, The instructions on the IGF website are rather complex but quite clear. The representation will be 5 for each "stakeholder group" of which Civil Society (CS) is one. For CS The CS MAG members will select 1 from among their group of 14, acknowledging that some of the 14 may not be free to attend. That is a matter for the CS MAG to arrange. CSCG will select 2 representatives from civil society generally. (If it were up to me, which it isn't, I would not consider the CS MAG in this process since their opportunity came in the CS MAG selection) CSCG will also present 3-4 additional nominations for the two additional CS slots. These nominations may or may not be used in the final selection. Since the objective of the meeting is a long term view of the 10 year renewed mandate of the IGF and the 15 year period of the Sustainable Development Goals the existing MAG with its maximum 3 year tenure is of important but limited relevance. This is the reason for my comment on the CSCG selection. That was in response to your message. My point, which was not answered, is that civil society has a right to know who is in competition to represent it. This is in respect of the CSCG selection which I see as being separate from the MAG selection. On Monday we will be having a General Election in Saint Lucia. Admittedly we will all get to choose (vote). However the final result will be the group of people who will provide governance here for the next 5 years. My argument is that we have a right to know who all of them are, just as we have a right to know who is competing to represent us at the Retreat in New York. Best wishes Deirdre It is expected there will be 5 participants from each of the 4 IGF Stakeholder communities. ... To ensure continuity and integration with current IGF and MAG efforts, current MAG members from each of the Civil Society, Technical, and Private Sector communities will appoint 1 participant each. Additionally, each community will have the option of designating 2 participants through their own processes. The stakeholder communities are also requested to submit 3 - 4 additional nominations for the remaining 2 positions while noting that participants may also be drawn from self-nominations as well as nominations from other institutions/organizations. This is to assure balanced participation and broad diversity across a number of considerations. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat On 4 June 2016 at 14:49, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote: > Dear Deirdre and all > > The deadline for CSCG selection of nominees to IGF Retreat is upcoming. > This process, however, depended on other aspects: > 1) The candidates would have to send an email to CSCG nomcom > 2) The candidates were also requested to self-nominate or be nominated > in IGF website > 3) The CSCG asked CS MAG members to present the result of their > selection, so as not to indicate the same CS rep the CS MAG members > choose > > I was honored to have been one of the CSCG nominees who became part of > the MAG IGF 2016 > I can not speak for the whole CS at MAG of course > But I can say that the majority of MAG CS is participating on a > selection process. > Given the solution of that aspect, I am sure CSCG will follow the best > path it can in terms of appointing nominees which do fulfill all the > other conditions. > > Best, > > Renata > > > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Deirdre Williams > wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > Please excuse the deliberate cross-posting. > > > > The Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) is just finishing a > selection, > > working to very tight deadlines, of representatives of civil society as a > > whole to attend a Retreat to be held in New York next month on the > future of > > the Internet Governance Forum. > > > > When the Retreat was first proposed there was considerable debate about > the > > involvement of civil society, and about whether CSCG should make the > > selection. Finally it was agreed that CSCG should go ahead. After that > there > > was silence. > > > > Currently there is no public knowledge of whether anyone at all in fact > > presented themselves to CSCG for selection, nor, if anyone did, do we > have > > any idea of who they might be. > > > > But those about to be represented, civil society as a whole, have a > right to > > know the answers to these questions, and to know them BEFORE any > selection > > is completed. > > > > This is a reminder to all of us, particularly in the context of the > review > > of the CSCG, of the need to remember to "think communally" if we really > want > > to change a hierarchical system, to be constantly aware of the > obligation of > > information as a right, not as a favour, to all participants. > > > > Lack of engagement is a ubiquitous problem of governance. The > "stakeholders" > > abdicate from participation in part at least because the "more equal" > > stakeholders turn to each other rather than to them. In this there could > be > > one answer to Item 2 of the call for comment on the Retreat draft agenda > > which reads: > > > > 2) What measures can be taken to engage those stakeholders who are > > currently unengaged, with a view to expand and diversify physical and > > virtual participation? > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > Deirdre > > > > > > > > > > -- > > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From raquino at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 17:09:49 2016 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 18:09:49 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Right to Information In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Dear Deirdre and all I understand your ask about the list of candidates competing. I`d think this is an answer CSCG only can give you. What I can update you on, which was the goal of my message, is that CS MAG is involved in a selection process for a representative. And yes, this selected candidate can not participate on CSCG selections, because he/she would have been selected already. However, as you so thoughtully re-sent the rules done by UNDESA, other MAG members non-elected can participate. Not sure if I would describe that as "another chance" but more like adding to their list another challenge. Best, Renata On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Dear Renata, > > The instructions on the IGF website are rather complex but quite clear. > The representation will be 5 for each "stakeholder group" of which Civil > Society (CS) is one. > For CS > The CS MAG members will select 1 from among their group of 14, acknowledging > that some of the 14 may not be free to attend. That is a matter for the CS > MAG to arrange. > CSCG will select 2 representatives from civil society generally. (If it were > up to me, which it isn't, I would not consider the CS MAG in this process > since their opportunity came in the CS MAG selection) > CSCG will also present 3-4 additional nominations for the two additional CS > slots. These nominations may or may not be used in the final selection. > Since the objective of the meeting is a long term view of the 10 year > renewed mandate of the IGF and the 15 year period of the Sustainable > Development Goals the existing MAG with its maximum 3 year tenure is of > important but limited relevance. This is the reason for my comment on the > CSCG selection. > > That was in response to your message. > > My point, which was not answered, is that civil society has a right to know > who is in competition to represent it. This is in respect of the CSCG > selection which I see as being separate from the MAG selection. > > On Monday we will be having a General Election in Saint Lucia. Admittedly we > will all get to choose (vote). However the final result will be the group of > people who will provide governance here for the next 5 years. My argument is > that we have a right to know who all of them are, just as we have a right to > know who is competing to represent us at the Retreat in New York. > > Best wishes > Deirdre > > It is expected there will be 5 participants from each of the 4 IGF > Stakeholder communities. ... > To ensure continuity and integration with current IGF and MAG efforts, > current MAG members from each of the Civil Society, Technical, and Private > Sector communities will appoint 1 participant each. Additionally, each > community will have the option of designating 2 participants through their > own processes. The stakeholder communities are also requested to submit 3 - > 4 additional nominations for the remaining 2 positions while noting that > participants may also be drawn from self-nominations as well as nominations > from other institutions/organizations. This is to assure balanced > participation and broad diversity across a number of considerations. > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat > > On 4 June 2016 at 14:49, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote: >> >> Dear Deirdre and all >> >> The deadline for CSCG selection of nominees to IGF Retreat is upcoming. >> This process, however, depended on other aspects: >> 1) The candidates would have to send an email to CSCG nomcom >> 2) The candidates were also requested to self-nominate or be nominated >> in IGF website >> 3) The CSCG asked CS MAG members to present the result of their >> selection, so as not to indicate the same CS rep the CS MAG members >> choose >> >> I was honored to have been one of the CSCG nominees who became part of >> the MAG IGF 2016 >> I can not speak for the whole CS at MAG of course >> But I can say that the majority of MAG CS is participating on a >> selection process. >> Given the solution of that aspect, I am sure CSCG will follow the best >> path it can in terms of appointing nominees which do fulfill all the >> other conditions. >> >> Best, >> >> Renata >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Deirdre Williams >> wrote: >> > Dear Friends, >> > Please excuse the deliberate cross-posting. >> > >> > The Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) is just finishing a >> > selection, >> > working to very tight deadlines, of representatives of civil society as >> > a >> > whole to attend a Retreat to be held in New York next month on the >> > future of >> > the Internet Governance Forum. >> > >> > When the Retreat was first proposed there was considerable debate about >> > the >> > involvement of civil society, and about whether CSCG should make the >> > selection. Finally it was agreed that CSCG should go ahead. After that >> > there >> > was silence. >> > >> > Currently there is no public knowledge of whether anyone at all in fact >> > presented themselves to CSCG for selection, nor, if anyone did, do we >> > have >> > any idea of who they might be. >> > >> > But those about to be represented, civil society as a whole, have a >> > right to >> > know the answers to these questions, and to know them BEFORE any >> > selection >> > is completed. >> > >> > This is a reminder to all of us, particularly in the context of the >> > review >> > of the CSCG, of the need to remember to "think communally" if we really >> > want >> > to change a hierarchical system, to be constantly aware of the >> > obligation of >> > information as a right, not as a favour, to all participants. >> > >> > Lack of engagement is a ubiquitous problem of governance. The >> > "stakeholders" >> > abdicate from participation in part at least because the "more equal" >> > stakeholders turn to each other rather than to them. In this there could >> > be >> > one answer to Item 2 of the call for comment on the Retreat draft agenda >> > which reads: >> > >> > 2) What measures can be taken to engage those stakeholders who are >> > currently unengaged, with a view to expand and diversify physical and >> > virtual participation? >> > >> > >> > Best wishes >> > >> > Deirdre >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >> > William >> > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 From raquino at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 20:36:25 2016 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 21:36:25 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] IGF Resource Persons list Message-ID: Hi A new database of specialists in internet governance topics in IGF website. Those interested in being part of the list can add themselves. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/resource-persons-list Resource Persons The IGF Secretariat is currently compiling a list of experts or “Resource Persons” in preparation for the IGF 2016 event in Guadalajara, Mexico. The purpose of this list of experts is to create a more successful meeting by connecting appropriate experts to workshop proposers and other IGF sessions. The role of the Resource Person will be to provide unrestricted support, from subject expertise to advice and/or underrepresented perspectives, and to act as a speaker/moderator if requested. We strongly encourage all interested individuals to register using the registration form here. If a session organizer wishes to reach out to any of the resource persons below, they should contact the IGF Secretariat at... From avri at acm.org Sun Jun 5 10:32:47 2016 From: avri at acm.org (avri doria) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 10:32:47 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [] IGF Resource Persons list In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: <8d26be3f-1d16-fa36-4d83-a63a36ec7abc@acm.org> BTW, I want to make sure people have noticed that while there is a preference for confirmed speakers, The MAG did decide that having extended an invitation (a confirmable invitation) will be enough. I understand that this has been documented in the question itself and may be noted elsewhere on the web site (not sure). avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jun 1 13:26:00 2016 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 13:26:00 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] What the G7 must do for internet growth and security Message-ID: In 2014, researchers from the World Economic Forum and McKinsey & Company projected that as much as $21 trillion in global economic value creation would depend on the robustness of cyber-security over five to seven years. That’s as big as the entire U.S. economy. To discuss the future of the Internet and its risks, IT ministers from the G7 countries and the EU gathered for the first time in 20 years. The information and communications technology (ICT) summit in Takamatsu, Japan, was held against a background of major cyber-security dangers including threats to critical infrastructure and mobile devices as well as attacks that are rapidly growing in number while using new means to conceal themselves. Keep reading at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/05/what-the-g7-must-do-for-internet-growth-and-security -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nadira.araj at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 05:21:13 2016 From: nadira.araj at gmail.com (Nadira Alaraj) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 12:21:13 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] Fw: Civil Society Nominations for IGF Planning Retreat, 14-16 July 2016 Message-ID: Dear Best Bits members, Below is an email sent to the IGF Secretariat outlining the CSCG nominations for this event. Looking forward to the final IGF Secretariat announcements. Best wishes, Nadira Alaraj ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ian Peter Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:54 AM Subject: Civil Society Nominations for IGF Planning Retreat, 14-16 July 2016 Dear Chengetai, We are pleased to forward the names of civil society representatives nominated for the IGF Retreat on Advancing the 10-Year Mandate of the Internet Governance Forum on 14-16 July 2016. Our understanding is that you want from us 2 designated participants, plus 3-4 additional nominees. This is in addition to the MAG member’s nomination of *Lea Kaspar*, which you will already be aware of. Our two designated attendees are: *1. Stuart Hamilton* – Netherlands -Deputy Secretary General, International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) *2 Anriette Esterhuysen* – South Africa – Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) Our additional nominations are: *3. Jac S M Kee* – Malaysia – Manager Women’s Rights Program, APC *4. Cisse Kane* -Senegal - Chair, African Civil Society on the Information Society (ACSIS) *5. Analia Apsis* – Argentina – Co-coordinator, Internet Governance Caucus *6. Renata Ribeiro* – Brazil - IT Professor, Federal University of Ceará, Brazil. I believe you will have biographical details of all of these nominations, as we believe they all also applied by your online system; but please contact us if you need further information on any of these applicants. These names have been selected after following as best possible in the time available our established procedures, which are outlined at http://www.internetgov-cs.org/procedures. They were chosen from 10 people who made direct contact with us seeking endorsement as civil society representatives. (Their names are included in Appendix A). We commend these excellent representatives of civil society to you. Additionally, and in the spirit of co-operation to ensure the best possible representivity for civil society stakeholders as such events, I wonder if you could take on board the following suggestions on conducting future such exercises, and circulate these to relevant colleagues? The recommendations are based on the best practice we have observed with other organisations in selecting multistakeholder representatives. We are aware that on this occasion there have been some problems with the way this event was announced, but we will keep our comments to some positive suggestions on procedures for selecting applicants. 1. The process you ran necessitated all civil society applicants applying via your advertised procedures, and then separately to us. Most organisations these days run a transparent process whereby applications details are shared with stakeholder groups. This is not a privacy problem if people are advised beforehand. We commend this method to you as one which is easier for applicants, and also allows for better sharing of information towards selecting the best possible candidates. 2. An unusual feature of the way this selection was managed is that we needed to tell you our selections at the same time as you were still receiving applications (our deadline was the same as the applicant’s deadline). This was further complicated by the MAG members selecting their representative at the same time. May we suggest that, in allocating timeframes for such processes, you allow a period of time after individual nominations have closed to receive stakeholder group nominations? This makes for a less messy process all round. 3. We understand that, in finalising stakeholder representatives, you wish to ensure that you achieve the best possible gender and geographic balance across stakeholder groups. Your process for doing this on this and other occasions has been to make final selections yourselves without further consultation with stakeholder groups. This can sometimes be problematic, as you cannot possibly be aware of the ramifications of some such choices within stakeholder groups. The way other organisations have handled this is to arrange a simultaneous phone hookup with representatives of stakeholder groups to discuss such final balance issues. You will find that we actually work quite well together in such circumstances, and we believe that the results will be more acceptable to stakeholder groups if this quick final consultation is included. This is also more aligned with the recommendation of the Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, later endorsed by the UN General Assembly, seeking self-management of stakeholder representative processes by respective stakeholder groups. Your current practices need to move further in this direction. We offer the above suggestions in the spirit of co-operation with you, as we also want to see the best possible representation of stakeholders. And again, we offer our services to work with you and other stakeholder groups to refine procedures to ensure more acceptable and more representative results. Sincerely, Ian Peter – Independent Chair, Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) (The Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) exists solely to ensure a coordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies. It comprises representatives of the coalition members of the Best Bits, Association for Progressive Communications, Internet Governance Caucus, Just Net Coalition, and Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN. Together the reach of these groups extends to many hundreds of non-governmental organisations, as well as a much greater number of individuals. ) APPENDIX ONE – APPLICANTS ASSESSED Analia Apsis * Tijani Ben Jemaa Deborah Brown Anriette Esterhuysen ** Stuart Hamilton ** Cisse Kane * Jac SM Kee * Remmy Nweke Renata Ribeiro * Klaus Stoll ____________________________________________________________ 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 deji at accessnow.org Mon Jun 6 16:44:02 2016 From: deji at accessnow.org (Deji Olukotun) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:44:02 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] New campaign on internet shutdowns launching this week - join? Message-ID: Hi to All, Apologies for cross posting. *This week*, we're launching a new campaign that aims to push back on the increasing prevalence of internet shutdowns. Shutdowns have become an early warning mechanism for human rights violations and they drastically impact human rights and local economies. Worse, they’re being used to subvert the most critical moment in the democratic process: elections. Our goal is lofty -- to fight internet shutdowns worldwide and to shift global norms so that governments stop ordering them. Here are three ways to join this effort: 1. Sign your organization on to the campaign by emailing me. (We'll manually add it to the site when it launches this week.) 2. Join the coalition mailing list, where members of the campaign can share ideas and strategies to push back. 3. Spread the word! Tell people about this campaign and please let us know if there is someone you think should join the coalition at deji at accessnow.org. (Check out this awesome t-shirt created by Sinar Project in Malaysia. https://twitter.com/szeming87/status/723491806541828096) As we build out the site, we’re planning to have embeddable code to create badges, share graphics, and more. Happy to answer any questions. All best, -- Deji Olukotun Senior Global Advocacy Manager Access Now | accessnow.org tel: +1 415-935-4572 | @dejiridoo PGP: 0x6012CDA8 Fingerprint: 3AEE 4194 F70E C806 A810 857A 6AD5 8F48 6012 CDA8 *Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter on digital rights, the Access Now Express: *https://www.accessnow.org/campaign/#sign-up -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Mon Jun 6 17:54:11 2016 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 17:54:11 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] New campaign on internet shutdowns launching this week - join? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5755F103.5050107@softwarefreedom.org> This is a great effort. SFLC.in maintains a visual tracker on Internet shutdowns in India at http://sflc.in/internet-shutdown-tracker-india-2013-2016/ and urge others to join this effort. The number of internet blackouts in India is on a rise over the last few years. Most of these orders for internet shut down are given under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which authorizes state governments to take action to curb unlawful assemblies or to prevent apprehended danger. A Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the use of this provision for restricting access to internet was filed earlier this year in the Supreme Court. However, the Apex Court dismissed the petition and upheld the power of state government under Section 144 to suspend internet services by stating that the use of such mechanisms becomes necessary for law & order situations. In view of the ongoing increase in such instances, we have documented the internet blackouts in India along with the reasons for which such action was taken. \ On 06/06/2016 04:44 PM, Deji Olukotun wrote: > Hi to All, > > Apologies for cross posting. > > _This week_, we're launching a new campaign that aims to push back on > the increasing prevalence of internet shutdowns. Shutdowns have become > an early warning mechanism for human > rights violations and they drastically impact human rights and > local economies. Worse, they’re being used to subvert the most critical > moment in the democratic process: elections. Our goal is lofty -- to > fight internet shutdowns worldwide and to shift global norms so that > governments stop ordering them. > > Here are three ways to join this effort: > > 1. Sign your organization on to the campaign by emailing me. (We'll > manually add it to the site when it launches this week.) > > 2. Join the coalition mailing list, where members of the campaign can > share ideas and strategies to push back. > > 3. Spread the word! Tell people about this campaign and please let us > know if there is someone you think should join the coalition at > deji at accessnow.org . (Check out this awesome > t-shirt created by Sinar > Project in Malaysia. > https://twitter.com/szeming87/status/723491806541828096) As we build out > the site, we’re planning to have embeddable code to create badges, share > graphics, and more. > > Happy to answer any questions. > > All best, > -- > Deji Olukotun > Senior Global Advocacy Manager > Access Now | accessnow.org > > tel: +1 415-935-4572 | @dejiridoo > PGP: 0x6012CDA8 > Fingerprint: 3AEE 4194 F70E C806 A810 857A 6AD5 8F48 6012 CDA8 > > /Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter on digital rights, the Access > Now Express: /https://www.accessnow.org/campaign/#sign-up > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17| New York, NY-10023 Direct: +1-212-461-1912| Main: +1-212-461-1901| Fax: +1-212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor, Jangpura Extn.| New Delhi-110014 Main: +91-11-43587126 | Fax: +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in From sheetal at gp-digital.org Wed Jun 8 10:05:17 2016 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 15:05:17 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Advocacy Bytes - an experience bank Message-ID: Dear all, I am writing to share with you the first case study in a new experience bank, "Advocacy Bytes", which records case studies of civil society groups engaging in internet governance processes, in order to help support more strategic and effective civil society engagement. You can find an introductory piece here: http://www.gp-digital.org/introducing-advocacy-bytes-a-resource-for-civil-society-advocacy/ The link for the database is here: http://www.gp-digital.org/series/advocacy-bytes/ The aim is both to provide a useful tool for civil society engagement and to record an alternative history of internet governance – seen from below, rather than through the narrow lens of statecraft and diplomacy and we will be adding more case studies during the course of the year. We invite submissions from civil society working in all corners of internet governance to contribute to the bank - if you'd like to get involved, in whatever way, please do get in touch. 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 gabrielle at article19.org Wed Jun 8 13:00:12 2016 From: gabrielle at article19.org (Gabrielle Guillemin) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 17:00:12 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [bestbits] Principles on privacy & freedom of expression - A19 consultation Message-ID: <134699839.8985023.1465405212030.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org> Dear all, With apologies for cross-posting, ARTICLE 19 has just launched a public consultation on principles on privacy and freedom of expression. The principles look at the ways in which privacy and freedom of expression are mutually reinforcing but also areas where they conflict (both online and offline). More details about the purpose of this iniative, process, the principles and a background paper on these issues are available from here: https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/38397/en/consultation-open:-principles-on-privacy-and-freedom-of-expression The consultation is open until end of August. Kind regards, Gabrielle -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From director at ipop.org.pk Thu Jun 9 03:33:58 2016 From: director at ipop.org.pk (Arzak Khan) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 07:33:58 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] =?WINDOWS-1256?Q?Benchmarking_Demand=3A_PAKISTAN_AND_T?= =?WINDOWS-1256?Q?HE_INTERNET_USERS=92_PERSPECTIVE=FE=FE=FE?= Message-ID: Dear All, We at Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan and Center for Global Communication Studies are happy to announce our latest report "Benchmarking Demand: Pakistan and the internet users's perspective". This report is the third in a series that examines public attitudes and preferences about Internet censorship and regulation in states in which media and Internet use are subject to increasing restrictions.In the context of Pakistan, where rapid increases in internet access and usage are accompanied by a propensity to regulate this new cyber-territory, the goal of this report is to uncover the views of Pakistani Internet users with respect to the regulation and control of online spaces.In each of these reports, we seek to provide insight into who uses the Internet in each country and the most used and trusted sources of online and offline information. But more than that, the surveys seek to add to a process: learning how to plumb general views about the influence of the Internet on politics and society and chart attitudes concerning censorship on various political, religious and social grounds. The reports test an approach to determining who, among competing institutions, people trust to regulate the Internet, what constitutes their policy preferences about Internet regulation, and the extent to which Internet regulation issues might figure in political mobilization efforts in furtherance of Internet freedom.I hope you all found this report interesting. Best Regards,Arzak Khan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jun 9 10:44:34 2016 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 10:44:34 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] NEW - NTIA supports IANA transition Message-ID: IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Assessment Report (Page with links to several PDFs) http://www.ntia.doc.gov/report/2016/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-assessment-report NTIA Finds IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Meets Criteria to Complete Privatization (Press release) http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2016/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-meets-criteria-complete-privatization Q and A on IANA Stewardship Transition http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2016/q-and-iana-stewardship-transition Fact Sheet on NTIA’s Assessment of the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2016/fact-sheet-ntias-assessment-iana-stewardship-transition-proposal Letter to Congress Transmitting Assessment of IANA Transition Proposal http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2016/letter-congress-transmitting-assessment-iana-transition-proposal Exchange of Letters - U.S. Government Administered TLDs http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/exchange-letters-us-government-administered-tlds Letter to ICANN Chairman Crocker Transmitting Assessment of IANA Transition Proposal http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2016/letter-icann-chairman-crocker-transmitting-assessment-iana-transition-proposa AFP Article: http://phys.org/news/2016-06-icann-endorses-cede-internet-oversight.html Washington Post story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/06/09/the-u-s-just-took-one-step-closer-to-privatizing-a-core-part-of-the-internet/ Internet Society/CCIA/I2 Statement: http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=d22b086f797111bbb11f40b2a&id=04ef34d665&e=9fa88cc08e -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From melanie at publicknowledge.org Fri Jun 10 10:41:47 2016 From: melanie at publicknowledge.org (Melanie Penagos) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 10:41:47 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] LAST CALL FOR APPLICATIONS: PK Open Internet Course Message-ID: Dear All, This is just a reminder that *today is the last day to submit applications* *to **Public Knowledge's **Open Internet Course .* The course is set to begin on June 27, 2016. The direct link to the application form can be accessed here and topics will include: Module 0: Introduction to the Open Internet Module 1: The “What” and “Why” of Advocacy Module 2: The “Who” of Advocacy Module 3: The “When” and “Where” of Advocacy Module 4: The “How”: Tactics and Tools for Successful Campaigns Module 5: Definitions of Internet Governance Module 6: Human Rights and the Internet Module 7: Access to Internet Module 8: Net Neutrality Module 9: The Right to Privacy Module 10: Impact of Trade Agreements on Open Internet Module 11: Cybersecurity Module 12: Spectrum Management The primary goal of the course is to help train a new generation of advocates to work on creating and maintaining an Open Internet for all. For more information, please see our blog post and call for students . Please send any questions to opencourse at publicknowledge.org. Thank you! Melanie On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Melanie Penagos wrote: > Dear All, > > > Public Knowledge is happy to announce that the second round of our Open > Internet Course is set to launch on June > 27, 2016. You can check out our description page here > . Last summer, our > course hosted 30 participants, including advocates, judges, and journalists > from various countries throughout Latin America. The second round will > include new resources and updated training materials, including a new > module on spectrum management, featuring original videos with spectrum > experts, as well as an updated cybersecurity module with the latest on > U.S. cybersecurity policies and practices. > > The call for applications is now open and we will continue to accept > applications for participants until June 10. *Those of you who are > interested are encouraged to apply as soon as possible! *Please help us > spread the word by sharing the English/Spanish version of the call for > applicants, which can be found here > . > > You can also help us reach the broadest possible audience by tweeting this > or the > following suggestions: > > . at PublicKnowledge 's Open Internet > Course for #DigitalRights > Advocates is > accepting applications from now - June 10 http://bit.ly/1QVY4Dz > > The next @publicknowledge #OpenInternet Course is starting on 6/27. Apply > today! Applications accepted until June 10 http://bit.ly/1XUFcIL > > La convocatoria para el próximo curso de Internet Libre y Abierto por > @publicknowledge ya empezó, apliquen hoy! http://bit.ly/1XUFcIL > > El curso Internet Libre y Abierto esta aceptando aplicaciones para la > clase del 2016 hasta 10 de junio. Aplique aquí http://bit.ly/1TXcYHv > > The final online version of the course is currently only available in > Spanish and requires approximately 5-7 hours per week/module. Participants > can take longer if they wish to go deeper, since every module has > additional suggested readings and assignments. > > > The course is targeted towards new activists, advocates, young > professionals, young policy makers, and others who are interested in > learning the basics of topics related to the intersection of advocacy and > internet-related issues. Topics to be covered in the course include, among > others, strategic planning, campaigning, internet governance, human rights > online, and net neutrality. > > The primary goal of the course is to help train a new generation of > advocates to work on creating and maintaining an Open Internet for all. > Help us spread the word with our blog post > > and press release > . > The direct link to the course registration form can be accessed here > > . > > > Please send questions to opencourse at publicknowledge.org. > > Thank you for your applications and support! > > Kind regards, > > > Carolina and Melanie > > -- > *Melanie Penagos* > > *International Policy Associate* > *Public Knowledge* > *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * > +1 (202) 861-0020 ext. 122 | skype: melanie.penagos | @ampenagos > > -- *Melanie Penagos* *International Policy Associate* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * +1 (202) 861-0020 ext. 122 | skype: melanie.penagos | @ampenagos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From raquino at gmail.com Sun Jun 12 14:45:09 2016 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 15:45:09 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Reminder: IGF 2016 Open Forum Requests - for gov`t organizations and others Message-ID: IGF 2016 Open Forum Requests The IGF Secretariat is accepting requests to hold Open Forums during the 11th Annual IGF Meeting, set to take place in Guadalajara, Mexico, on 6-9 December 2016. Deadline for submissions is 20 June, midnight UTC. All Governments and relevant organizations dealing with Internet governance-related issues are invited to submit a request for an Open Forum slot, bearing in mind a background paper is strongly encouraged for inclusion in the request. Open Forum sessions should focus on the organization’s activities during the past year and allow sufficient time for questions and discussions. Governments and treaty-based international organizations will be given slots on a priority basis. Please make your request through the online form HERE. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2016-open-forums (apologies for cross-posting) From katitza at eff.org Mon Jun 13 15:19:29 2016 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:19:29 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] ACTION: Sign on Rule 41 Global Campaign Message-ID: <575F0741.2010806@eff.org> Holas I'm reaching out to you regarding an advocacy campaign my colleague Rainey Reitman at EFF is putting together to raise awareness about a pending change to search warrant standards in the United States that will affect people worldwide. We'd love your help and support. The change is a pending update to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which would grant authority to judges across the U.S. to issue a search warrant for hacking or surveillance when a computer's location is unknown or when the computer is part of a botnet. This will directly impact people outside of the United States -- especially those using privacy protective technologies! https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/rule-41-little-known-committee-proposes-grant-new-hacking-powers-government The U.S. Congress has until December 1 to stop this rule change from taking effect. We're going to raise public awareness through a day of action on June 21. I've attached a coalition letter that explains the problem in depth. We're hoping that you can help out in 3 ways: 1. Sign the attached coalition letter, which we'll publish and send to members of Congress. 2. List your logo on our coalition page, which will be a community of tech companies and advocacy groups standing against the changes to Rule 41. 3. Show support on our day of action, June 21. This could mean embedding a banner on your website which will let people contact Congress (it would look like this: https://efforg.github.io/ngw-banner/example/banner.html ) or publishing a statement on your website, tweeting out support, emailing your list asking them to speak out, or other actions that can help drive awareness. Just let us know if you can help out. Please let me know if you have questions, if you have a few minutes to jump on the phone next week, or if you think you can participate. I've added a few links below my signature with more information about Rule 41. Thanks, Katitza Rodriguez EFF International Rights Director Rainey Reitman *EFF Activism Director* | 415.436.9333 ext 140 815 Eddy Street, San Francisco, CA 94109 Love EFF? Twitter. Facebook. Donate. Take action. More about Rule 41 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/rule-41-little-known-committee-proposes-grant-new-hacking-powers-government https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/855 https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-congress-must-reject-sprawling-expansion-of-government-surveillance https://privacysos.org/blog/fbi-warns-against-cyber-attacks-but-seeks-rule-change-to-make-them-much-more-likely/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/rule-41-would-make-it-easier-for-the-government-to-carry-out-hacks/ https://publicpolicy.googleblog.com/2015/02/a-small-rule-change-that-could-give-us.html -- From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jun 1 13:28:28 2016 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 13:28:28 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] FYI - Global Legislative Hackathon Message-ID: Sorry for cross-posting ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [image: Imagem inline 1] *We’re pleased to announce the first Global Legislative Hackathon 2016*, jointly organized by the *Inter-Parliamentary Union*,* National Democratic Institute*, *Brazilian Chamber of Deputies' HackerLab* and *Chilean Chamber of Deputies* . The event is part of the World e-Parliament Conference 2016 (WePC). Everyone from around the world is invited to work on legislative issues and to help ideate, code and co-create digital solutions that contribute to better understand legislative work and to engage citizens in lawmaking. The Hackathon will be held i Valparaiso, Chile from 28 June 2016 (Tuesday) to 30 June 2016 (Thursday). You are not required to be physically present. Registration for the Hackathon is opened from 25 May to 26 June 2016. For more information and registration, please visit *www.wepc2016.org/en/hackathon-wepc2016* (for English) and *www.wepc2016.org/es/hackaton-wepc2016* (for Spanish). [image: Imagem inline 2] -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: E-mail Mkt Header.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 177154 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: E-mail Mkt assinatura.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16342 bytes Desc: not available URL: From katitza at eff.org Mon Jun 13 15:21:46 2016 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:21:46 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] ACTION: Sign on Rule 41 Global Campaign In-Reply-To: <575F0741.2010806@eff.org> References: <575F0741.2010806@eff.org> Message-ID: <575F07CA.60305@eff.org> Forgot to attach the coalition letter. Now attached. Please do mail my colleague Rainey Reitman if you want to join On 06/13/2016 12:19 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Holas > > > I'm reaching out to you regarding an advocacy campaign my colleague > Rainey Reitman at EFF is putting together to raise awareness about a > pending change to search warrant standards in the United States that > will affect people worldwide. We'd love your help and support. > > The change is a pending update to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of > Criminal Procedure, which would grant authority to judges across the > U.S. to issue a search warrant for hacking or surveillance when a > computer's location is unknown or when the computer is part of a botnet. > This will directly impact people outside of the United States -- > especially those using privacy protective technologies! > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/rule-41-little-known-committee-proposes-grant-new-hacking-powers-government > > The U.S. Congress has until December 1 to stop this rule change from > taking effect. We're going to raise public awareness through a day of > action on June 21. > > I've attached a coalition letter that explains the problem in depth. > We're hoping that you can help out in 3 ways: > > 1. Sign the attached coalition letter, which we'll publish and send to > members of Congress. > 2. List your logo on our coalition page, which will be a community of > tech companies and advocacy groups standing against the changes to Rule 41. > 3. Show support on our day of action, June 21. This could mean embedding > a banner on your website which will let people contact Congress (it > would look like this: > https://efforg.github.io/ngw-banner/example/banner.html ) or publishing > a statement on your website, tweeting out support, emailing your list > asking them to speak out, or other actions that can help drive > awareness. Just let us know if you can help out. > > Please let me know if you have questions, if you have a few minutes to > jump on the phone next week, or if you think you can participate. I've > added a few links below my signature with more information about Rule 41. > > > Thanks, > > Katitza Rodriguez > EFF International Rights Director > > Rainey Reitman > *EFF Activism Director* | 415.436.9333 ext 140 > 815 Eddy Street, San Francisco, CA 94109 > Love EFF? Twitter. Facebook. > Donate. > Take action. > > > More about Rule 41 > > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/rule-41-little-known-committee-proposes-grant-new-hacking-powers-government > > > https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/855 > > https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-congress-must-reject-sprawling-expansion-of-government-surveillance > > https://privacysos.org/blog/fbi-warns-against-cyber-attacks-but-seeks-rule-change-to-make-them-much-more-likely/ > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/rule-41-would-make-it-easier-for-the-government-to-carry-out-hacks/ > > https://publicpolicy.googleblog.com/2015/02/a-small-rule-change-that-could-give-us.html > > -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rule-41-coalition letter-to-share.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 18327 bytes Desc: not available URL: From yannis at registry.asia Tue Jun 14 04:03:22 2016 From: yannis at registry.asia (Yannis Li) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 16:03:22 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] APrIGF Taipei 2016 - Synthesis Document Public Comment of Draft 0 [Until 7 Jul] References: <10D26C40-7523-4326-9F03-02896D4C419F@aprigf.asia> Message-ID: <9F2C4D15-3189-4705-ABAD-BF9A93EFFB9D@registry.asia> Dear All, Sharing for your interest. Hope to have your contribution for the document too. Yannis ======================= Asia Pacific Regional IGF - Public Comment Period for Synthesis Document open until July 7 Following the earlier open call for contribution on the APrIGF 2016 Taipei Synthesis Document, Draft 0 is based on the submitted and accepted workshop proposals for the APrIGF and contains placeholders for topics to be discussed at the APrIGF event. The Synthesis Document aims to document items of common interest relevant to Internet Governance in the Asia Pacific region. Synthesis Document Discussion Town Hall Sessions have been scheduled at the end of Day 1 and 2 of the APrIGF Taipei meeting, with a presentation of the document at the closing plenary of the final day. There will be two public comment periods on the draft Synthesis Document: one scheduled before the Taipei meeting to collect preparatory input; and one after the meeting to aggregate discussions. For more background information, you may visit http://2016.aprigf.asia/synthesis/ . Draft 0 is now open for public comment until July 7, 2016 23:59 UTC, and is expected to be further developed and discussed during the APrIGF 2016 in Taipei. Please go to http://comment.rigf.asia to give your input! Best Regards, Secretariat of APrIGF -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Tue Jun 14 05:19:42 2016 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:19:42 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Human rights and the internet: New space on openDemocracy - now live In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63e7e37f-5c07-390b-e126-e18dfb89384c@gold.ac.uk> Dear all (Apologies for the inevitable cross-posting) After some months of work, it is with great pleasure that I can introduce you all to a new initiative, which has just gone live on openDemocracy - It is entitled /Human Rights and the Internet/, and you can enter the series directly at https://www.opendemocracy.net/hri. This space brings scholars, activists, artists, techies, and policymakers together to debate, and also to delve more deeply into a range of interlocked issues that fall under this rubric now that this connection has become a recognizable element to internet governance policymaking, scholarship, and human rights advocacy. Thanks to all the contributors for the inaugural page, some familiar authors and also some up and coming contributors. Feel free to comment and if you would like to contribute let me know. Watch this space for more news on upcoming articles. The hashtag is #humanrightsinternet Best wishes MF -- Marianne Franklin, PhD Professor of Global Media and Politics Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Goldsmiths (University of London) Department of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14 6NW Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 @GloComm https://twitter.com/GloComm http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ Chair of the Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) Steering Committee/Former Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) www.internetrightsandprinciples.org @netrights -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Tue Jun 14 06:15:27 2016 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_Fabien_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:15:27 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] NextGen@ICANN Application Round Opens for ICANN 57 Message-ID: <1465899327841-88c56512-dd7415f7-05782b53@mixmax.com> Hello everyone, If you know anyone living in the Asia/Pacific region who is still in school and interested in the field of Internet governance, please encourage them to apply for the NextGen at ICANN 57 programme. This is a great introduction to how policy making processes work within the ICANN ecosystem, and travel to Hyderabad, India is fully funded. Please note that applications close on 22 July . For those in Europe , applications for the NextGen at ICANN 58 programme in Copenhagen will open on 26 September. For those in Africa , applications for the NextGen at ICANN 59 programme in Johannesburg open 16 January. I'll send more details once I have them. More information is available here: https://www.icann.org/development-and-public-responsibility/nextgen Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From raquino at gmail.com Tue Jun 14 07:53:01 2016 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 08:53:01 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Governance Primer - Unisinos - RS, Brazil - Free event today Message-ID: Hi Folks in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, can attend this free event today, Governance Primer Unisinos University Organization: ICANN Engagement Brazil and Unisinos 14 Jun 17h30 - 20h30 Porto Alegre Campus Av. Luiz Manoel Gonzaga 744 Bairro Três Figueiras http://www.unisinos.br/noticias/eventos/governance-primer-unisinos The event will talk about preparations for IGF Brazil 11-13 July in PoA And IGF 6-9 Dec in Guadalajara Speakers include Lucas Moura - NextGen ICANN/Axur Alexandre Arns Gonzales - NextGen ICANN/UFRGS Mark Datysgeld - Fellow/PUCSP Flavio Wagner - MAG IGF/CGI.br Renata Aquino Ribeiro - MAG IGF/UFCE Streaming has not been confirmed. If a recording is posted, we will share. Apologies for the short notice and any cross-postings. Thanks Renata From schalmers at ntia.doc.gov Tue Jun 14 13:09:04 2016 From: schalmers at ntia.doc.gov (Chalmers, Susan) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 17:09:04 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Advocacy Bytes - an experience bank In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Sheetal, This is an excellent an innovative new tool! Congratulations to GPD, and I look forward to seeing the ‘experience bank’ grow with further case studies. Sincerely, Susan Susan Chalmers Telecommunications Policy Specialist Office of International Affairs | NTIA | U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230 Desk: 202.482.6789 || schalmers at ntia.doc.gov From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Sheetal Kumar Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 10:05 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Advocacy Bytes - an experience bank Dear all, I am writing to share with you the first case study in a new experience bank, "Advocacy Bytes", which records case studies of civil society groups engaging in internet governance processes, in order to help support more strategic and effective civil society engagement. You can find an introductory piece here: http://www.gp-digital.org/introducing-advocacy-bytes-a-resource-for-civil-society-advocacy/ The link for the database is here: http://www.gp-digital.org/series/advocacy-bytes/ The aim is both to provide a useful tool for civil society engagement and to record an alternative history of internet governance – seen from below, rather than through the narrow lens of statecraft and diplomacy and we will be adding more case studies during the course of the year. We invite submissions from civil society working in all corners of internet governance to contribute to the bank - if you'd like to get involved, in whatever way, please do get in touch. 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 nadira.araj at gmail.com Wed Jun 15 04:22:55 2016 From: nadira.araj at gmail.com (Nadira Alaraj) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:22:55 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] A CS committee to plan Pre-IGF meeting Message-ID: Dear Best Bits members, Greetings, An initiative from Jeremy Malcolm - Best Bits was presented to the CSCG, to organize a joint CS Pre-IGF 2016 meeting including civil society groups for Mexico IGF Forum. This initiative was endorsement by the CSCG members and it was recommended to form an interim steering committee consisting of representatives from each group. The group representatives are Arsène Tungali & Analia Aspis - IGC Deborah Brown – APC Farzaneh Badii - NCSG Jeremy Malcolm – Best Bits Norbert Bollow – JNC Hoping this event will promote civil society solidarity in spite of any conceptual differences. Updates on the milestones of this pre-event will be conveyed to the groups through the representatives above. Best wishes, Nadira Alaraj Best Bits liaise to the CSCG Virus-free <#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org Thu Jun 16 11:11:22 2016 From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org (Stuart Hamilton) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:11:22 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Civil Society Nominations for IGF Planning Retreat, 14-16 July In-Reply-To: <2981D6B4-4DDC-469E-A8AE-0BED2F39103A@ipjustice.org> References: <45B4457F62DC48E7B8C3D6282B6EB50B@Toshiba> <2981D6B4-4DDC-469E-A8AE-0BED2F39103A@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Dear Colleagues A quick note and many apologies for not coming back to the lists before - I wanted to wait until the IGF Secretariat contacted me directly. I have just received conformation that I have been selected so I look forward to getting involved and bringing the CS perspective. I’ll try to keep you informed as things proceed and will be pleased to work with everyone in the run up to the retreat. Thanks again for selecting me to participate on behalf of CS! Cheers, Stuart Deputy Secretary General International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) On 6 June 2016 at 17:34:33, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote: Please see the below correspondence from the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) Chair Ian Peter to UN DESA regarding the civil society nominations for attending the IGF retreat in New York next month. Best, Robin From: Ian Peter Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 6:46 PM To: cmasango at unog.ch Subject: Civil Society Nominations for IGF PLanning Retreat, 14-16 July Dear Chengetai, We are pleased to forward the names of civil society representatives nominated for the IGF Retreat on Advancing the 10-Year Mandate of the Internet Governance Forum on 14-16 July 2016. Our understanding is that you want from us 2 designated participants, plus 3-4 additional nominees. This is in addition to the MAG member’s nomination of Lea Kaspar, which you will already be aware of. Our two designated attendees are: 1. Stuart Hamilton – Netherlands -Deputy Secretary General, International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) 2 Anriette Esterhuysen – South Africa – Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) Our additional nominations are: 3. Jac S M Kee – Malaysia – Manager Women’s Rights Program, APC 4. Cisse Kane -Senegal - Chair, African Civil Society on the Information Society (ACSIS) 5. Analia Apsis – Argentina – Co-coordinator, Internet Governance Caucus 6. Renata Ribeiro – Brazil - IT Professor, Federal University of Ceará, Brazil. I believe you will have biographical details of all of these nominations, as we believe they all also applied by your online system; but please contact us if you need further information on any of these applicants. These names have been selected after following as best possible in the time available our established procedures, which are outlined at http://www.internetgov-cs.org/procedures. They were chosen from 10 people who made direct contact with us seeking endorsement as civil society representatives. (Their names are included in Appendix A). We commend these excellent representatives of civil society to you. Additionally, and in the spirit of co-operation to ensure the best possible representivity for civil society stakeholders as such events, I wonder if you could take on board the following suggestions on conducting future such exercises, and circulate these to relevant colleagues? The recommendations are based on the best practice we have observed with other organisations in selecting multistakeholder representatives. We are aware that on this occasion there have been some problems with the way this event was announced, but we will keep our comments to some positive suggestions on procedures for selecting applicants. 1. The process you ran necessitated all civil society applicants applying via your advertised procedures, and then separately to us. Most organisations these days run a transparent process whereby applications details are shared with stakeholder groups. This is not a privacy problem if people are advised beforehand. We commend this method to you as one which is easier for applicants, and also allows for better sharing of information towards selecting the best possible candidates. 2. An unusual feature of the way this selection was managed is that we needed to tell you our selections at the same time as you were still receiving applications (our deadline was the same as the applicant’s deadline). This was further complicated by the MAG members selecting their representative at the same time. May we suggest that, in allocating timeframes for such processes, you allow a period of time after individual nominations have closed to receive stakeholder group nominations? This makes for a less messy process all round. 3. We understand that, in finalising stakeholder representatives, you wish to ensure that you achieve the best possible gender and geographic balance across stakeholder groups. Your process for doing this on this and other occasions has been to make final selections yourselves without further consultation with stakeholder groups. This can sometimes be problematic, as you cannot possibly be aware of the ramifications of some such choices within stakeholder groups. The way other organisations have handled this is to arrange a simultaneous phone hookup with representatives of stakeholder groups to discuss such final balance issues. You will find that we actually work quite well together in such circumstances, and we believe that the results will be more acceptable to stakeholder groups if this quick final consultation is included. This is also more aligned with the recommendation of the Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, later endorsed by the UN General Assembly, seeking self-management of stakeholder representative processes by respective stakeholder groups. Your current practices need to move further in this direction. We offer the above suggestions in the spirit of co-operation with you, as we also want to see the best possible representation of stakeholders. And again, we offer our services to work with you and other stakeholder groups to refine procedures to ensure more acceptable and more representative results. Sincerely, Ian Peter – Independent Chair, Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) (The Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) exists solely to ensure a coordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies. It comprises representatives of the coalition members of the Best Bits, Association for Progressive Communications, Internet Governance Caucus, Just Net Coalition, and Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN. Together the reach of these groups extends to many hundreds of non-governmental organisations, as well as a much greater number of individuals. ) APPENDIX ONE – APPLICANTS ASSESSED Analia Apsis * Tijani Ben Jemaa Deborah Brown Anriette Esterhuysen ** Stuart Hamilton ** Cisse Kane * Jac SM Kee * Remmy Nweke Renata Ribeiro * Klaus Stoll -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 11:31:50 2016 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:31:50 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] I have been invited to the IGF Retreat Message-ID: Dear Ian, all I have received correspondence from IGF Secretariat informing of my selection for the Retreat. I am yet to respond. Happy to hear our ideas on this Best Nnenna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Jun 16 11:37:55 2016 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:37:55 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] I have been invited to the IGF Retreat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1466091473151.79878@syr.edu> Nnenna, Congrats! My 2 cents: If you can make it, please attend. If cs folks in next couple weeks can help you cook some key - messages - or questions to bring into the retreat to inform the discussions, all the better. Lee McKnight ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net on behalf of Nnenna Nwakanma Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 11:31 AM To: Governance; ; Ian Peter Subject: [bestbits] I have been invited to the IGF Retreat Dear Ian, all I have received correspondence from IGF Secretariat informing of my selection for the Retreat. I am yet to respond. Happy to hear our ideas on this Best Nnenna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jac at apcwomen.org Thu Jun 2 03:51:03 2016 From: jac at apcwomen.org (Jac sm Kee) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:51:03 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Brief update on MAG meeting on IGF retreat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <337c8fa3-1159-f0b2-cdb8-f43aa6981145@apcwomen.org> Hello everyone, Sharing a brief update from the MAG meeting discussing the retreat last night. The concerns around short timeline, problematics around representation and participation, interest in knowing about content as well as outputs of the process, broad participation were raised also in the meeting. Some suggestions were put forth to address some of this, in summary: * That the retreat not be seen as something that makes decisions, but rather the start of articulating the process for a strategic plan. So part of the "journey" of IGF improvements that has begun many years ago, with the opportunity of a 10 year mandate * That an open process be provided for inputs to shape the agenda (including e.g. CSTD recommednaitons, WSIS + 10 doc) * Remote participation in some way is important to promote transparency and participation, and the need to balance this against smaller space for brainstorming work as forwarded by some (live tweeting, remote participation at some point every day) * That outputs be open for comments and inputs by everyone * That there be clarity around what happens next with these outputs - roles and responsibilities * And that recommendations and suggestions on how to make the retreat work is open for consultation and inputs I think that's it. May have missed out on some, but hope this gives a gist of the conversation. Also happy to bring any further thoughts or recommendations to the MAG space. j --------------------------------- Jac sm Kee Manager, Women's Rights Programme Association for Progressive Communications www.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net | erotics.apc.org Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe On 01/06/2016 18:23, Nicolás Echániz wrote: > On 06/01/2016 07:03 AM, Chat Garcia Ramilo wrote: >> Therefore, I'd like to encourage you all to send us your nominees. If >> you have other issues to raise please share them as well. > > > One issue, that maybe is a bit late to raise by now is that doing this > meeting in the USA is a poor choice. The visa process is difficult, time > consuming and expensive to people in many countries. > > This in combination with the short notice and lack of preliminary > discussion... is a bad combination. > > > _______________________________________________ > APC.members mailing list > Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/apc.members > -------------------------------------- > Temporary access to APC Member Meeting page: http://meeting.apc.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=APCcm2014-December > user: apc-member > pswd: apc2014! > -------------------------------------- > All conversations that take place on this list are considered confidential. As a member of the APC network, you are expected to respect this confidentiality. If you wish to circulate or quote a post from the APC.members list in any other space or forum, you MUST receive permission from the person who made the quote first on the APC.members listserv. > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From wisdom.dk at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 11:41:35 2016 From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:41:35 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] I have been invited to the IGF Retreat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations Nnenna. Hope to seeing you in New York. African for that matter gender issues can be properly laid on the UN table. Cheers, *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 On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > Dear Ian, all > > I have received correspondence from IGF Secretariat informing of my > selection for the Retreat. > > I am yet to respond. > > Happy to hear our ideas on this > > Best > > Nnenna > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Thu Jun 16 12:36:32 2016 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:36:32 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] I have been invited to the IGF Retreat In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Big congrats Nnenna, Excellent choice indeed. Regards On 16 June 2016 at 15:41, Wisdom Donkor wrote: > Congratulations Nnenna. Hope to seeing you in New York. > > African for that matter gender issues can be properly laid on the UN table. > > Cheers, > > > > *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 > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma > wrote: > >> Dear Ian, all >> >> I have received correspondence from IGF Secretariat informing of my >> selection for the Retreat. >> >> I am yet to respond. >> >> Happy to hear our ideas on this >> >> Best >> >> Nnenna >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 13:12:43 2016 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:12:43 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fwd: Civil Society Nominations for IGF Planning Retreat, 14-16 July In-Reply-To: <1967710596.13390.1466091268975.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n19> References: <45B4457F62DC48E7B8C3D6282B6EB50B@Toshiba> <2981D6B4-4DDC-469E-A8AE-0BED2F39103A@ipjustice.org> <1967710596.13390.1466091268975.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n19> Message-ID: Hi Stuart. Okay, so far, there is you and Nnenna. Who else got an invite? Will be good to coordinate well Best Nnenna On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Divina MEIGS wrote: > Congratulations again, Stuart! > > Divina > > > > > > > > > > > Message du 16/06/16 17:12 > > De : "Stuart Hamilton" > > A : "ncsg-discuss at listserv.syr.edu" , " > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" , " > governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > > Copie à : > > Objet : Re: [governance] Fwd: Civil Society Nominations for IGF Planning > Retreat, 14-16 July > > > > > > Dear Colleagues > > > > A quick note and many apologies for not coming back to the lists before - > I wanted to wait until the IGF Secretariat contacted me directly. I have > just received conformation that I have been selected so I look forward to > getting involved and bringing the CS perspective. I’ll try to keep you > informed as things proceed and will be pleased to work with everyone in the > run up to the retreat. > > > > Thanks again for selecting me to participate on behalf of CS! > > > > Cheers, > > > > Stuart > > > > Deputy Secretary General > International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) > > > > > > > > On 6 June 2016 at 17:34:33, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote: > > > Please see the below correspondence from the Civil Society Coordination > Group (CSCG) Chair Ian Peter to UN DESA regarding the civil society > nominations for attending the IGF retreat in New York next month. > > Best, > Robin > > *From:* Ian Peter > *Sent:* Monday, June 06, 2016 6:46 PM > *To:* cmasango at unog.ch > *Subject:* Civil Society Nominations for IGF PLanning Retreat, 14-16 July > > > Dear Chengetai, > We are pleased to forward the names of civil society representatives nominated > for the IGF Retreat on Advancing the 10-Year Mandate of the Internet > Governance Forum on 14-16 July 2016. > > > Our understanding is that you want from us 2 designated participants, plus > 3-4 additional nominees. This is in addition to the MAG member’s nomination > of *Lea Kaspar*, which you will already be aware of. > > > Our two designated attendees are: > > *1. Stuart Hamilton* – Netherlands -Deputy Secretary General, > International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) > > *2 Anriette Esterhuysen* – South Africa – Executive Director, > Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > > > Our additional nominations are: > > *3. Jac S M Kee* – Malaysia – Manager Women’s Rights Program, APC > > *4. Cisse Kane* -Senegal - Chair, African Civil Society on the > Information Society (ACSIS) > > *5. Analia Apsis* – Argentina – Co-coordinator, Internet Governance Caucus > > *6. Renata Ribeiro* – Brazil - IT Professor, Federal University of Ceará, > Brazil. > > > I believe you will have biographical details of all of these nominations, > as we believe they all also applied by your online system; but please > contact us if you need further information on any of these applicants. > > These names have been selected after following as best possible in the > time available our established procedures, which are outlined at > http://www.internetgov-cs.org/procedures. They were chosen from 10 people > who made direct contact with us seeking endorsement as civil society > representatives. (Their names are included in Appendix A). > > We commend these excellent representatives of civil society to you. > > Additionally, and in the spirit of co-operation to ensure the best > possible representivity for civil society stakeholders as such events, I > wonder if you could take on board the following suggestions on conducting > future such exercises, and circulate these to relevant colleagues? > > The recommendations are based on the best practice we have observed with > other organisations in selecting multistakeholder representatives. We are > aware that on this occasion there have been some problems with the way this > event was announced, but we will keep our comments to some positive > suggestions on procedures for selecting applicants. > > 1. The process you ran necessitated all civil society applicants > applying via your advertised procedures, and then separately to us. Most > organisations these days run a transparent process whereby applications > details are shared with stakeholder groups. This is not a privacy problem > if people are advised beforehand. We commend this method to you as one > which is easier for applicants, and also allows for better sharing of > information towards selecting the best possible candidates. > 2. An unusual feature of the way this selection was managed is that > we needed to tell you our selections at the same time as you were still > receiving applications (our deadline was the same as the applicant’s > deadline). This was further complicated by the MAG members selecting their > representative at the same time. May we suggest that, in allocating > timeframes for such processes, you allow a period of time after individual > nominations have closed to receive stakeholder group nominations? This > makes for a less messy process all round. > > 3. We understand that, in finalising stakeholder representatives, > you wish to ensure that you achieve the best possible gender and geographic > balance across stakeholder groups. Your process for doing this on this and > other occasions has been to make final selections yourselves without > further consultation with stakeholder groups. This can sometimes be > problematic, as you cannot possibly be aware of the ramifications of some > such choices within stakeholder groups. > > The way other organisations have handled this is to arrange a > simultaneous phone hookup with representatives of stakeholder groups to > discuss such final balance issues. You will find that we actually work > quite well together in such circumstances, and we believe that the results > will be more acceptable to stakeholder groups if this quick final > consultation is included. This is also more aligned with the recommendation > of the Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, later endorsed by the UN > General Assembly, seeking self-management of stakeholder representative > processes by respective stakeholder groups. Your current practices need to > move further in this direction. > > We offer the above suggestions in the spirit of co-operation with you, as > we also want to see the best possible representation of stakeholders. And > again, we offer our services to work with you and other stakeholder groups > to refine procedures to ensure more acceptable and more representative > results. > > > Sincerely, > > > Ian Peter – Independent Chair, Internet Governance Civil Society > Coordination Group (CSCG) > > (The Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) exists solely to ensure a > coordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making > civil society appointments to outside bodies. It comprises representatives > of the coalition members of the Best Bits, Association for Progressive > Communications, Internet Governance Caucus, Just Net Coalition, and > Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN. Together the reach of these > groups extends to many hundreds of non-governmental organisations, as well > as a much greater number of individuals. ) > > > > > APPENDIX ONE – > > > APPLICANTS ASSESSED > Analia Apsis * > Tijani Ben Jemaa > Deborah Brown > Anriette Esterhuysen ** > Stuart Hamilton ** > Cisse Kane * > Jac SM Kee * > Remmy Nweke > Renata Ribeiro * > Klaus Stoll > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 lea at gp-digital.org Thu Jun 16 18:18:13 2016 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 23:18:13 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Civil Society Nominations for IGF Planning Retreat, 14-16 July In-Reply-To: References: <45B4457F62DC48E7B8C3D6282B6EB50B@Toshiba> <2981D6B4-4DDC-469E-A8AE-0BED2F39103A@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <52F75A0A-A213-4E8C-B1EE-DE5F869A016A@gp-digital.org> Dear all, I have received my invite letter earlier today as well. Looking forward to working closely with Stuart, Nnenna, and whoever else is interested in figuring out a constructive and collaborative way forward. Warmly, Lea Sent from my iPhone > On 16 Jun 2016, at 16:11, Stuart Hamilton wrote: > > Dear Colleagues > > A quick note and many apologies for not coming back to the lists before - I wanted to wait until the IGF Secretariat contacted me directly. I have just received conformation that I have been selected so I look forward to getting involved and bringing the CS perspective. I’ll try to keep you informed as things proceed and will be pleased to work with everyone in the run up to the retreat. > > Thanks again for selecting me to participate on behalf of CS! > > Cheers, > > Stuart > > Deputy Secretary General > International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) > >> On 6 June 2016 at 17:34:33, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote: >> >> Please see the below correspondence from the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) Chair Ian Peter to UN DESA regarding the civil society nominations for attending the IGF retreat in New York next month. >> >> Best, >> Robin >> >>> From: Ian Peter >>> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 6:46 PM >>> To: cmasango at unog.ch >>> Subject: Civil Society Nominations for IGF PLanning Retreat, 14-16 July >>> >>> Dear Chengetai, >>> >>> We are pleased to forward the names of civil society representatives nominated for the IGF Retreat on Advancing the 10-Year Mandate of the Internet Governance Forum on 14-16 July 2016. >>> >>> Our understanding is that you want from us 2 designated participants, plus 3-4 additional nominees. This is in addition to the MAG member’s nomination of Lea Kaspar, which you will already be aware of. >>> >>> >>> Our two designated attendees are: >>> >>> 1. Stuart Hamilton – Netherlands -Deputy Secretary General, International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) >>> >>> 2 Anriette Esterhuysen – South Africa – Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) >>> >>> >>> Our additional nominations are: >>> >>> 3. Jac S M Kee – Malaysia – Manager Women’s Rights Program, APC >>> >>> 4. Cisse Kane -Senegal - Chair, African Civil Society on the Information Society (ACSIS) >>> >>> 5. Analia Apsis – Argentina – Co-coordinator, Internet Governance Caucus >>> >>> 6. Renata Ribeiro – Brazil - IT Professor, Federal University of Ceará, Brazil. >>> >>> >>> I believe you will have biographical details of all of these nominations, as we believe they all also applied by your online system; but please contact us if you need further information on any of these applicants. >>> >>> These names have been selected after following as best possible in the time available our established procedures, which are outlined at http://www.internetgov-cs.org/procedures. They were chosen from 10 people who made direct contact with us seeking endorsement as civil society representatives. (Their names are included in Appendix A). >>> >>> We commend these excellent representatives of civil society to you. >>> >>> Additionally, and in the spirit of co-operation to ensure the best possible representivity for civil society stakeholders as such events, I wonder if you could take on board the following suggestions on conducting future such exercises, and circulate these to relevant colleagues? >>> >>> The recommendations are based on the best practice we have observed with other organisations in selecting multistakeholder representatives. We are aware that on this occasion there have been some problems with the way this event was announced, but we will keep our comments to some positive suggestions on procedures for selecting applicants. >>> >>> >>> 1. The process you ran necessitated all civil society applicants applying via your advertised procedures, and then separately to us. Most organisations these days run a transparent process whereby applications details are shared with stakeholder groups. This is not a privacy problem if people are advised beforehand. We commend this method to you as one which is easier for applicants, and also allows for better sharing of information towards selecting the best possible candidates. >>> 2. An unusual feature of the way this selection was managed is that we needed to tell you our selections at the same time as you were still receiving applications (our deadline was the same as the applicant’s deadline). This was further complicated by the MAG members selecting their representative at the same time. May we suggest that, in allocating timeframes for such processes, you allow a period of time after individual nominations have closed to receive stakeholder group nominations? This makes for a less messy process all round. >>> 3. We understand that, in finalising stakeholder representatives, you wish to ensure that you achieve the best possible gender and geographic balance across stakeholder groups. Your process for doing this on this and other occasions has been to make final selections yourselves without further consultation with stakeholder groups. This can sometimes be problematic, as you cannot possibly be aware of the ramifications of some such choices within stakeholder groups. >>> >>> The way other organisations have handled this is to arrange a simultaneous phone hookup with representatives of stakeholder groups to discuss such final balance issues. You will find that we actually work quite well together in such circumstances, and we believe that the results will be more acceptable to stakeholder groups if this quick final consultation is included. This is also more aligned with the recommendation of the Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, later endorsed by the UN General Assembly, seeking self-management of stakeholder representative processes by respective stakeholder groups. Your current practices need to move further in this direction. >>> >>> We offer the above suggestions in the spirit of co-operation with you, as we also want to see the best possible representation of stakeholders. And again, we offer our services to work with you and other stakeholder groups to refine procedures to ensure more acceptable and more representative results. >>> >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter – Independent Chair, Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) >>> >>> (The Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) exists solely to ensure a coordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies. It comprises representatives of the coalition members of the Best Bits, Association for Progressive Communications, Internet Governance Caucus, Just Net Coalition, and Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN. Together the reach of these groups extends to many hundreds of non-governmental organisations, as well as a much greater number of individuals. ) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> APPENDIX ONE – >>> >>> >>> APPLICANTS ASSESSED >>> >>> Analia Apsis * >>> Tijani Ben Jemaa >>> Deborah Brown >>> Anriette Esterhuysen ** >>> Stuart Hamilton ** >>> Cisse Kane * >>> Jac SM Kee * >>> Remmy Nweke >>> Renata Ribeiro * >>> Klaus Stoll > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Sat Jun 18 14:47:43 2016 From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:47:43 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?Guccifer_2=2E0_DNC=E2=80=99s_servers_hacked_?= =?UTF-8?Q?by_a_lone_hacker?= Message-ID: <34cd6078-bc16-6bd5-e7fb-4be5279e7343@riseup.net> Dear friends, also in the ISOC we discuss about security in the "Internet". But also we know, with the leaks in any forms from any persons and group we only get the inside view to the truth. And, how we want solve this contradiction? Guccifer 2.0 DNC’s servers hacked by a lone hacker https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/dnc/ many greetings, willi Manaus, Brasil From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Sat Jun 18 15:32:15 2016 From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 16:32:15 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?Guccifer_2=2E0_DNC=E2=80=99s_servers_hac?= =?UTF-8?Q?ked_by_a_lone_hacker?= In-Reply-To: References: <34cd6078-bc16-6bd5-e7fb-4be5279e7343@riseup.net> Message-ID: Dear Suresh, many thanks for your very fast answer. In this text from vocativ at the end i found: "He (Jeffrey Carr, CEO of cybersecurity firm Taia Global) did, however, caution against CrowdStrike’s original analysis, stressing the enormous difficulty of definitively attributing any sophisticated cyberattack. “I’m skeptical almost all the time when it comes to attribution,” he said. “I think the entire historical assignment of [government-affiliated] actors…was just wrong. That they were never part of an intelligence service or military service in the Russian government, that they were always independent hackers, and we don’t really know who they are.”" This is also my view and experience. The highest power in the using of technology we find outside of the state institutions. Buy what you think. You are thankful for this and any other leaks? many greetings, willi Manaus, Brasil Am 18/06/2016 um 16:08 schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian: > On 19-Jun-2016, at 12:17 AM, willi uebelherr wrote: >> >> also in the ISOC we discuss about security in the "Internet". But also we know, with the leaks in any forms from any persons and group we only get the inside view to the truth. And, how we want solve this contradiction? >> >> Guccifer 2.0 DNC’s servers hacked by a lone hacker >> https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/dnc/ > > It does help to read other stories about this. A lot of this doesn’t quite add up. > > There are some interesting breadcrumbs but attribution is a very chancy thing. > > http://www.vocativ.com/330201/guccifer-2-0-hacker/ > From nadira.araj at gmail.com Sun Jun 19 18:05:02 2016 From: nadira.araj at gmail.com (Nadira Alaraj) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 01:05:02 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] Closing in 5 days: Revisions to ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviors Message-ID: "The Expected Standards of Behavior set out how the participants in the ICANN community are expected to behave when participating in ICANN processes. The Standards were developed with community consultation in 2008, and were updated in 2012 after public comment. In March 2016, at the ICANN55 meeting in Marrakech, Morocco, the issue of community-member conduct towards each other was highlighted as a matter of concern. The ICANN Board was requested to work with the community to address this issue. One area that can be improved is refining the Standards document to more specifically set out what respectful treatment among community members should be, and to make clear that harassment is not appropriate conduct when participating in ICANN's work. The proposed improvement to the Standards are now provided for the community's input. The revised text is based in generally accepted broad standards for areas of protection against harassment. Deadline for community input: 25 June, 23;59 UTC. Read more here: https://goo.gl/WKfdDV " -- Virus-free <#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lea at gp-digital.org Mon Jun 20 11:31:08 2016 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:31:08 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants In-Reply-To: <733C506E-6192-49B6-A46E-BEFA3BC7BEF9@unog.ch> References: <733C506E-6192-49B6-A46E-BEFA3BC7BEF9@unog.ch> Message-ID: Dear all, In case of interest, the IGF Secretariat has just published the full list of participants to the July Retreat. See Chengetai's email below. Best, *Lea Kaspar* Head of Programmes | 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: Chengetai Masango Date: Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:10 PM Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants To: MAG-public Dear All, The list of IGF Retreat participants has been published at: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat-participants-list Best regards, Chengetai _______________________________________________ Igfmaglist mailing list Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Mon Jun 20 11:41:38 2016 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_Fabien_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:41:38 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants In-Reply-To: References: <733C506E-6192-49B6-A46E-BEFA3BC7BEF9@unog.ch> Message-ID: Dear Lea, Thank you for sharing this. I note that Nitin Desai will be participating in the Retreat remotely. I wonder if this mean that remote participation will be available to all to observe the dialogue exchanged? Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Dear all, > > In case of interest, the IGF Secretariat has just published the full list > of participants to the July Retreat. See Chengetai's email below. > > Best, > > *Lea Kaspar* > > Head of Programmes | 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: Chengetai Masango > Date: Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:10 PM > Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants > To: MAG-public > > > Dear All, > > > > The list of IGF Retreat participants has been published at: > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat-participants-list > > > > Best regards, > > > > Chengetai > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Igfmaglist mailing list > Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Mon Jun 20 11:45:15 2016 From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:45:15 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants In-Reply-To: References: <733C506E-6192-49B6-A46E-BEFA3BC7BEF9@unog.ch>

Message-ID: <928e41da-ab8d-c9cd-275d-f9418104bdd2@cdt.org> Great point Ayden. I would hope that those who have been invited to participate will continue to be push hard for remote participation. Matthew On 6/20/2016 11:41 AM, Ayden Fabien Férdeline wrote: > Dear Lea, > > Thank you for sharing this. I note that Nitin Desai will be > participating in the Retreat remotely. I wonder if this mean that > remote participation will be available to all to observe the dialogue > exchanged? > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Lea Kaspar > wrote: > > Dear all, > > In case of interest, the IGF Secretariat has just published the > full list of participants to the July Retreat. See Chengetai's > email below. > > Best, > > *Lea Kaspar* > > Head of Programmes | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > > T: +44 (0)20 38183258 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 > > > gp-digital.org > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Chengetai Masango* > > Date: Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:10 PM > Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants > To: MAG-public > > > > Dear All, > > The list of IGF Retreat participants has been published at: > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat-participants-list > > Best regards, > > Chengetai > > > _______________________________________________ > Igfmaglist mailing list > Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jun 2 04:32:50 2016 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 14:02:50 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Brief update on MAG meeting on IGF retreat In-Reply-To: <337c8fa3-1159-f0b2-cdb8-f43aa6981145@apcwomen.org> References: <337c8fa3-1159-f0b2-cdb8-f43aa6981145@apcwomen.org> Message-ID: <574FEF32.1010108@itforchange.net> Thanks Jac Do we know if it is strictly a UNDESA owned, funded and run event, or is it co-funded? Are there any other principals here than UNDESA? Or is it really a fully UN event, like UN agencies do hold once in a while? The fact that they are not using UN facilities in NY but are meeting outside does partly fuel my stated curiosity. thanks, parminder On Thursday 02 June 2016 01:21 PM, Jac sm Kee wrote: > Hello everyone, > > Sharing a brief update from the MAG meeting discussing the retreat last > night. > > The concerns around short timeline, problematics around representation > and participation, interest in knowing about content as well as outputs > of the process, broad participation were raised also in the meeting. > > Some suggestions were put forth to address some of this, in summary: > > * That the retreat not be seen as something that makes decisions, but > rather the start of articulating the process for a strategic plan. So > part of the "journey" of IGF improvements that has begun many years ago, > with the opportunity of a 10 year mandate > * That an open process be provided for inputs to shape the agenda > (including e.g. CSTD recommednaitons, WSIS + 10 doc) > * Remote participation in some way is important to promote transparency > and participation, and the need to balance this against smaller space > for brainstorming work as forwarded by some (live tweeting, remote > participation at some point every day) > * That outputs be open for comments and inputs by everyone > * That there be clarity around what happens next with these outputs - > roles and responsibilities > * And that recommendations and suggestions on how to make the retreat > work is open for consultation and inputs > > I think that's it. May have missed out on some, but hope this gives a > gist of the conversation. Also happy to bring any further thoughts or > recommendations to the MAG space. > > j > > --------------------------------- > Jac sm Kee > Manager, Women's Rights Programme > Association for Progressive Communications > www.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net | erotics.apc.org > Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe > > On 01/06/2016 18:23, Nicolás Echániz wrote: >> On 06/01/2016 07:03 AM, Chat Garcia Ramilo wrote: >>> Therefore, I'd like to encourage you all to send us your nominees. If >>> you have other issues to raise please share them as well. >> >> One issue, that maybe is a bit late to raise by now is that doing this >> meeting in the USA is a poor choice. The visa process is difficult, time >> consuming and expensive to people in many countries. >> >> This in combination with the short notice and lack of preliminary >> discussion... is a bad combination. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> APC.members mailing list >> Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/apc.members >> -------------------------------------- >> Temporary access to APC Member Meeting page: http://meeting.apc.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=APCcm2014-December >> user: apc-member >> pswd: apc2014! >> -------------------------------------- >> All conversations that take place on this list are considered confidential. As a member of the APC network, you are expected to respect this confidentiality. If you wish to circulate or quote a post from the APC.members list in any other space or forum, you MUST receive permission from the person who made the quote first on the APC.members listserv. >> >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lea at gp-digital.org Mon Jun 20 11:45:51 2016 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:45:51 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants In-Reply-To: References: <733C506E-6192-49B6-A46E-BEFA3BC7BEF9@unog.ch>

Message-ID: Hi Ayden - I think remote participation is still TBD. Hoping to get an update from the Secretariat on tomorrow's MAG call. Will keep you updated. Best, Lea On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Ayden Fabien Férdeline wrote: > Dear Lea, > > Thank you for sharing this. I note that Nitin Desai will be participating > in the Retreat remotely. I wonder if this mean that remote participation > will be available to all to observe the dialogue exchanged? > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> In case of interest, the IGF Secretariat has just published the full list >> of participants to the July Retreat. See Chengetai's email below. >> >> Best, >> >> *Lea Kaspar* >> >> Head of Programmes | 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: Chengetai Masango >> Date: Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:10 PM >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants >> To: MAG-public >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> The list of IGF Retreat participants has been published at: >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat-participants-list >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Chengetai >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Igfmaglist mailing list >> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org >> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From judith at jhellerstein.com Mon Jun 20 11:48:00 2016 From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:48:00 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants In-Reply-To: References: <733C506E-6192-49B6-A46E-BEFA3BC7BEF9@unog.ch>

Message-ID: <6435603a-322a-6675-d657-2901452789a9@jhellerstein.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Mon Jun 20 11:53:36 2016 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 15:53:36 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants In-Reply-To: <928e41da-ab8d-c9cd-275d-f9418104bdd2@cdt.org> References: <733C506E-6192-49B6-A46E-BEFA3BC7BEF9@unog.ch>

<928e41da-ab8d-c9cd-275d-f9418104bdd2@cdt.org> Message-ID: +1 Matthew, Will be great in some format if there is remote participation maybe for comments to certain discuss etc. Awaiting to see if the secretariat will allow a format for certain sessions to be for remote participation if time permits. Kind Regards Poncelet On 20 June 2016 at 15:45, Matthew Shears wrote: > Great point Ayden. I would hope that those who have been invited to > participate will continue to be push hard for remote participation. > > Matthew > > On 6/20/2016 11:41 AM, Ayden Fabien Férdeline wrote: > > Dear Lea, > > Thank you for sharing this. I note that Nitin Desai will be participating > in the Retreat remotely. I wonder if this mean that remote participation > will be available to all to observe the dialogue exchanged? > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> In case of interest, the IGF Secretariat has just published the full list >> of participants to the July Retreat. See Chengetai's email below. >> >> Best, >> >> *Lea Kaspar* >> >> Head of Programmes | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> >> T: +44 (0)20 3818 3258 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 >> <%2B44%20%280%297583%20929216> >> >> gp-digital.org >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Chengetai Masango >> Date: Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:10 PM >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants >> To: MAG-public >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> The list of IGF Retreat participants has been published at: >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat-participants-list >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Chengetai >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Igfmaglist mailing list >> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org >> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- > > Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project > Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org > E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lea at gp-digital.org Tue Jun 21 11:08:39 2016 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:08:39 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants In-Reply-To: <928e41da-ab8d-c9cd-275d-f9418104bdd2@cdt.org> References: <733C506E-6192-49B6-A46E-BEFA3BC7BEF9@unog.ch>

<928e41da-ab8d-c9cd-275d-f9418104bdd2@cdt.org> Message-ID: Hi all, Just got off the MAG call. Remote participation for the Retreat still not sorted out. From what I understood, we can expect live tweeting under Chatham house rules, but that could be it. Others on the call can corroborate - Best, Lea On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Matthew Shears wrote: > Great point Ayden. I would hope that those who have been invited to > participate will continue to be push hard for remote participation. > > Matthew > > On 6/20/2016 11:41 AM, Ayden Fabien Férdeline wrote: > > Dear Lea, > > Thank you for sharing this. I note that Nitin Desai will be participating > in the Retreat remotely. I wonder if this mean that remote participation > will be available to all to observe the dialogue exchanged? > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> In case of interest, the IGF Secretariat has just published the full list >> of participants to the July Retreat. See Chengetai's email below. >> >> Best, >> >> *Lea Kaspar* >> >> Head of Programmes | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> >> T: +44 (0)20 3818 3258 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 >> <%2B44%20%280%297583%20929216> >> >> gp-digital.org >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Chengetai Masango >> Date: Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:10 PM >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants >> To: MAG-public >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> The list of IGF Retreat participants has been published at: >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat-participants-list >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Chengetai >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Igfmaglist mailing list >> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org >> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- > > Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project > Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org > E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Tue Jun 21 12:20:28 2016 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:20:28 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants In-Reply-To: References: <733C506E-6192-49B6-A46E-BEFA3BC7BEF9@unog.ch>

<928e41da-ab8d-c9cd-275d-f9418104bdd2@cdt.org> Message-ID: Thanks, Lea I think it is important that CS folks organisee CS remote participation. That is, if the IGF secretariat is okay with it. Just thinking loud Nnenna On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Hi all, > > Just got off the MAG call. Remote participation for the Retreat still not > sorted out. From what I understood, we can expect live tweeting under > Chatham house rules, but that could be it. Others on the call can > corroborate - > > Best, > Lea > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Matthew Shears wrote: > >> Great point Ayden. I would hope that those who have been invited to >> participate will continue to be push hard for remote participation. >> >> Matthew >> >> On 6/20/2016 11:41 AM, Ayden Fabien Férdeline wrote: >> >> Dear Lea, >> >> Thank you for sharing this. I note that Nitin Desai will be participating >> in the Retreat remotely. I wonder if this mean that remote participation >> will be available to all to observe the dialogue exchanged? >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden Férdeline >> >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> In case of interest, the IGF Secretariat has just published the full >>> list of participants to the July Retreat. See Chengetai's email below. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> *Lea Kaspar* >>> >>> Head of Programmes | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> >>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>> >>> T: +44 (0)20 3818 3258 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 >>> <%2B44%20%280%297583%20929216> >>> >>> gp-digital.org >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Chengetai Masango >>> Date: Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:10 PM >>> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants >>> To: MAG-public >>> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> >>> >>> The list of IGF Retreat participants has been published at: >>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat-participants-list >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Chengetai >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Igfmaglist mailing list >>> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org >>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> -- >> >> Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project >> Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org >> E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james at cyberinvasion.net Tue Jun 21 12:27:18 2016 From: james at cyberinvasion.net (James Gannon) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:27:18 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants In-Reply-To: References: <733C506E-6192-49B6-A46E-BEFA3BC7BEF9@unog.ch>

<928e41da-ab8d-c9cd-275d-f9418104bdd2@cdt.org>

Message-ID: <86FD3079-1615-4EB5-BBE1-65391F77CF76@cyberinvasion.net> Just my 2c but I don’t think it should really be a negotiation, I know I may be naïve in certain aspects of the IGF working methods but open and transparent was always told to me to be a core concept. I don’t think we should be compromising those ideals at this critical juncture. Without that what do we really have to move forward with. -jg From: > on behalf of Nnenna Nwakanma > Reply-To: Nnenna Nwakanma > Date: Tuesday 21 June 2016 at 17:20 To: Lea Kaspar > Cc: Matthew Shears >, Best Bits > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants Thanks, Lea I think it is important that CS folks organisee CS remote participation. That is, if the IGF secretariat is okay with it. Just thinking loud Nnenna On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Lea Kaspar > wrote: Hi all, Just got off the MAG call. Remote participation for the Retreat still not sorted out. From what I understood, we can expect live tweeting under Chatham house rules, but that could be it. Others on the call can corroborate - Best, Lea On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Matthew Shears > wrote: Great point Ayden. I would hope that those who have been invited to participate will continue to be push hard for remote participation. Matthew On 6/20/2016 11:41 AM, Ayden Fabien Férdeline wrote: Dear Lea, Thank you for sharing this. I note that Nitin Desai will be participating in the Retreat remotely. I wonder if this mean that remote participation will be available to all to observe the dialogue exchanged? Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Lea Kaspar > wrote: Dear all, In case of interest, the IGF Secretariat has just published the full list of participants to the July Retreat. See Chengetai's email below. Best, Lea Kaspar Head of Programmes | 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: Chengetai Masango > Date: Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:10 PM Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants To: MAG-public > Dear All, The list of IGF Retreat participants has been published at: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat-participants-list Best regards, Chengetai _______________________________________________ Igfmaglist mailing list Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Tue Jun 21 12:33:14 2016 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:33:14 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants In-Reply-To: References: <733C506E-6192-49B6-A46E-BEFA3BC7BEF9@unog.ch>

<928e41da-ab8d-c9cd-275d-f9418104bdd2@cdt.org>

Message-ID: Thanks Nnenna, Excellent suggestions, am sure all folks within CS attending the retreat will support this idea. It will be good others within the list attending from CS also comment especially on looking at possible modalities on working with the secretariat to see it achievable. Poncelet On 21 June 2016 at 16:20, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > Thanks, Lea > > I think it is important that CS folks organisee CS remote participation. > That is, if the IGF secretariat is okay with it. > > Just thinking loud > > Nnenna > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Just got off the MAG call. Remote participation for the Retreat still not >> sorted out. From what I understood, we can expect live tweeting under >> Chatham house rules, but that could be it. Others on the call can >> corroborate - >> >> Best, >> Lea >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Matthew Shears wrote: >> >>> Great point Ayden. I would hope that those who have been invited to >>> participate will continue to be push hard for remote participation. >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> On 6/20/2016 11:41 AM, Ayden Fabien Férdeline wrote: >>> >>> Dear Lea, >>> >>> Thank you for sharing this. I note that Nitin Desai will be >>> participating in the Retreat remotely. I wonder if this mean that remote >>> participation will be available to all to observe the dialogue exchanged? >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden Férdeline >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> In case of interest, the IGF Secretariat has just published the full >>>> list of participants to the July Retreat. See Chengetai's email below. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> *Lea Kaspar* >>>> >>>> Head of Programmes | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> >>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>> >>>> T: +44 (0)20 3818 3258 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 >>>> <%2B44%20%280%297583%20929216> >>>> >>>> gp-digital.org >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: Chengetai Masango >>>> Date: Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:10 PM >>>> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants >>>> To: MAG-public >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The list of IGF Retreat participants has been published at: >>>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat-participants-list >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Chengetai >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Igfmaglist mailing list >>>> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org >>>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project >>> Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org >>> E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Jun 21 12:42:22 2016 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:42:22 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants In-Reply-To: <86FD3079-1615-4EB5-BBE1-65391F77CF76@cyberinvasion.net> References: <733C506E-6192-49B6-A46E-BEFA3BC7BEF9@unog.ch>

<928e41da-ab8d-c9cd-275d-f9418104bdd2@cdt.org>

<86FD3079-1615-4EB5-BBE1-65391F77CF76@cyberinvasion.net> Message-ID: Particularly in the cause of transparency and inclusion this discussion should be happening as widely as possibly among civil society. With apologies I have therefore copied to IGC and JNC. Perhaps others can spread the word further to as much of "global civil society" as possible, since all of us speaking together would have a VERY loud voice that would demand attention. Best wishes Deirdre On 21 June 2016 at 12:27, James Gannon wrote: > Just my 2c but I don’t think it should really be a negotiation, I know I > may be naïve in certain aspects of the IGF working methods but open and > transparent was always told to me to be a core concept. I don’t think we > should be compromising those ideals at this critical juncture. Without that > what do we really have to move forward with. > > -jg > > From: on behalf of Nnenna Nwakanma < > nnenna75 at gmail.com> > Reply-To: Nnenna Nwakanma > Date: Tuesday 21 June 2016 at 17:20 > To: Lea Kaspar > Cc: Matthew Shears , Best Bits < > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants > > Thanks, Lea > > I think it is important that CS folks organisee CS remote participation. > That is, if the IGF secretariat is okay with it. > > Just thinking loud > > Nnenna > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Just got off the MAG call. Remote participation for the Retreat still not >> sorted out. From what I understood, we can expect live tweeting under >> Chatham house rules, but that could be it. Others on the call can >> corroborate - >> >> Best, >> Lea >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Matthew Shears wrote: >> >>> Great point Ayden. I would hope that those who have been invited to >>> participate will continue to be push hard for remote participation. >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> On 6/20/2016 11:41 AM, Ayden Fabien Férdeline wrote: >>> >>> Dear Lea, >>> >>> Thank you for sharing this. I note that Nitin Desai will be >>> participating in the Retreat remotely. I wonder if this mean that remote >>> participation will be available to all to observe the dialogue exchanged? >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden Férdeline >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> In case of interest, the IGF Secretariat has just published the full >>>> list of participants to the July Retreat. See Chengetai's email below. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> *Lea Kaspar* >>>> >>>> Head of Programmes | 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: Chengetai Masango >>>> Date: Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:10 PM >>>> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants >>>> To: MAG-public >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The list of IGF Retreat participants has been published at: >>>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat-participants-list >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Chengetai >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Igfmaglist mailing list >>>> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org >>>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project >>> Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org >>> E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From raquino at gmail.com Tue Jun 21 13:54:50 2016 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:54:50 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF Retreat Participants In-Reply-To: References: <733C506E-6192-49B6-A46E-BEFA3BC7BEF9@unog.ch>

<928e41da-ab8d-c9cd-275d-f9418104bdd2@cdt.org>