From raquino at gmail.com  Mon May  2 11:58:44 2016
From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro)
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 12:58:44 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Whatsapp in Brazil blocked again, sharing info to
 connect via VPN
Message-ID: <CAMokdMzKKMRxXsQSfa_8Lyxn166SrdRYjm6naJmAA+-KVo6ucQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi

Just to fill you in on a recent development of an old case
Same judged who blocked Whatsapp last time issued an order for 72h blockage.
Brazilians are already sharing info on how to bypass blockage and
promoting Telegram (Portuguese only, sorry)
http://www.tecmundo.com.br/whatsapp/91916-whatsapp-bloqueado-saiba-usar-app-mesmo-o-bloqueio.htm

Best,

Renata

-----
Support the idea of new voices, new regions on internet governance debates?
Share our Thunderclap campaign for #WSIS2016 and send in your thoughts
https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/41245-the-internet-belongs-to-us

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu May 12 03:35:19 2016
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 13:05:19 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Now business wants to lead policy making
Message-ID: <57343237.3020507@itforchange.net>

A recent announcement by Alibaba's founder Jack Ma exposes what the real
intent, and the problem, with business led multistakeholderism is,
something a lot of people/ groups have perhaps innocently got into
supporting.... He proposes a new business led initiative to frame global
e-commerce rules, which would rival the WTO, which can keep making them
for offline trade.  And he is entirely serious, with Alibaba already
working with a number of groups and intending to present the proposal to
G 20 later this year.. To me it is a political shocker, but that is
where much of multistakholderism ideology is headed.

I wrote an op-ed on this issue in yesterday's The Hindu, which is at
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/a-borderless-economy-that-will-be-controlled/article8581476.ece

We must re-assess what does unhinging of the role of legitimate
political actors in key public policy areas means. It just transfers
power to a few global corporates to runs our societies as a
corporatocracy. Many of our discussions here on mulitistakeholderism as
a sovereign political form need to be seen in this context.

parminder


From nashton at consensus.pro  Thu May 12 04:00:26 2016
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:00:26 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Now business wants to lead policy
 making
In-Reply-To: <57343237.3020507@itforchange.net>
References: <57343237.3020507@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <C0136CA5-074A-425B-A8C3-6C44D647E323@consensus.pro>

Dear Parminder, FWIW, he’s been saying this for about a year, and he keeps suggesting new intergovernmental fora where he’s going to bring this up but so far, I’ve not noticed anyone else taking this idea up.

> On 12 May 2016, at 09:35, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> A recent announcement by Alibaba's founder Jack Ma exposes what the real
> intent, and the problem, with business led multistakeholderism is,
> something a lot of people/ groups have perhaps innocently got into
> supporting.... He proposes a new business led initiative to frame global
> e-commerce rules, which would rival the WTO, which can keep making them
> for offline trade.  And he is entirely serious, with Alibaba already
> working with a number of groups and intending to present the proposal to
> G 20 later this year.. To me it is a political shocker, but that is
> where much of multistakholderism ideology is headed.
> 
> I wrote an op-ed on this issue in yesterday's The Hindu, which is at
> http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/a-borderless-economy-that-will-be-controlled/article8581476.ece
> 
> We must re-assess what does unhinging of the role of legitimate
> political actors in key public policy areas means. It just transfers
> power to a few global corporates to runs our societies as a
> corporatocracy. Many of our discussions here on mulitistakeholderism as
> a sovereign political form need to be seen in this context.
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160512/b4ba0c44/attachment.sig>

From lorena at collaboratory.de  Fri May 13 16:31:57 2016
From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 22:31:57 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] EMBRACING THE DIGITAL (R)EVOLUTION. EuroDIG 2016, 9-10th
 of June in Brussels. Registration open til 31.05
Message-ID: <CAPqXojKBqXQbqUbFYNZB8Fgku7dmk2b-VrkvH1SgMNX12nfvCg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

apologies for cross-posting.

The European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG) will take place on
June, 9-10th at the Square, Brussels Meeting Centre
<http://www.squarebrussels.com/sfSympalBossSiteModel1Plugin/pdf/SQUARE_how_to_get_there.pdf>
with
EURid and the European Commission as host.

There is a day 0 on the 8th of June. The programme is made bottom up by
anyone interested in contributing. You can take a look at the programme in
our wiki <http://eurodigwiki.org/wiki/Programme_overview_2016>.

Attendance is open to everyone and free of charge. Online registration is
mandatory due to security reasons.

http://www.eurodig.org/eurodig-2016/registration/

Looking forward to meeting you in Brussels!

Lorena

Lorena Jaume-Palasí
Director Communications & Youth Engagement

European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG)
lorena at eurodig.org
www.eurodig.org

Cel: +49.179.9119 578
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160513/2213f281/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri May 13 22:59:10 2016
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 08:29:10 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Now business wants to lead policy
 making
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR07MB240895DCDD96C53B7C6CA735A1740@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <57343237.3020507@itforchange.net>
 <BY2PR07MB240895DCDD96C53B7C6CA735A1740@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <5736947E.9040903@itforchange.net>



On Friday 13 May 2016 09:30 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> Parminder:
> I am curious about your response to this initiative. I know that in your world, anything that a business does is bad, 
Milton:

This is not a fact, and unlike many others  (and as I'd show later in
this email, also you Milton :) ) I let my views be clearly known on any
subject that I am queried about - I consider that as my duty as a public
interest actor in a public space. So about business, my view is that
economic enterprise is to be largely a private (sector) affair. Not only
that, I believe that such is the current complexity of our societies, a
very good part of such private enterprise would need to be organised in
and as large corporates. But like even the father of free market
ideology Adam Smith called them the 'masters of the earth', business
needs to be kept under careful regulatory watch, bigger a business is,
more watch is needed. That is an important political function.

> but please tell me this: 
>
> Many people have complained about the WTO and other government-government trade negotiations because they are closed to other stakeholders and not transparent. 

Now, let me also tell my views on transparency and public engagement
with regard to policy making... During the period of last government in
India, I/ IT for Change was actively involved in pushing a legislation
for compulsory and structured pre-legislative consultations before any
law is made in India... The proposal was that before any law is passed,
drafts had to be made public, public inputs taken, responses made to key
inputs, second draft published and so on. And it had to be a legal
requirement..... In fact, this advocacy had reached an advanced stage,
and a law looked possible at that stage... In any case, this should be
enough to make clear what I/ my organisation thinks about transparency
and stakeholder in law making... We have a similar stance for global law
making.....

Meanwhile, your representation of what is seen as problematic with WTO,
and if I may add, other global treaties, is partial.... Most civil
society is not just concerned that these are closed to other
'stakeholders' - it is specifically concerned that it is heavily
influenced by big business which seems to have special access to key
negotiators pushing 'certain agendas' while civil society is kept out...
This key distinction - which you merrily ignore - becomes especially
important when the issue under discussion is about a new proposed
'business led policy process'.

> It appears that Ma is proposing a departure from that. The WeTP would have business, "governments and NGOs and other organisations participating.”

Since you are following up on my article and references, I must take it
to be deliberate that you excluded from above description of eWTP the
clear call by Jack Ma for *business leading the process*, and all others
participating.. I dont agree with business 'leading' public policy
processes, and all the democracy groups and movements that I know,
including in your country, the US, would instinctively pull away from
and thoroughly oppose any such suggestion.

But since Jack Ma clearly asked for a business led public policy making
process, here is your opportunity to tell us, what do you think of a
'business led public policy process' . I am sure the language here is
clear to you. And, what specifically do you see as the role of business
in "public policy" "decision making" . (I suspect that you wont answer
this bec we have been here many times before, and say things like, it is
never clear what is technical and what policy, or what is decision
making and what is contributing to decisions, and so on, but not answer
clearly, but I'd let you surprise me, Milton :))

> Of course, one would have to know more about the terms and conditions of "participation" but I see a potential for movement forward rather than backwards.  Please tell us why this is worse than the status quo? 

Status quo needs improvement in the form of more public participation.
As shown above, I am very keen to ensure that, and am part of advocacies
to than end... However we do not need greater business influence on
public policy processes *than there already is* - much less for business
to lead the process as expressly proposed by Jack MA.... If he just
wanted to make global policy processes more open and transparent, he
could well have said just that .

BTW, Milton, I am sure you must have been paying attention to your own
country's presidential election campaign - you can clearly see what is
the overwhelming public sentiment in the regard of big business
influence on your country's politics - that is if the dominant public
sentiment matters to you in making up your view about what kind of
public policy processes are appropriate.

If you and others hear 'more transparency and participation'  when
someone calls for 'business led policy making', Milton, I must tell you
that there is a serious ideological issue here - and you are certainly
quite off from the stance of overwhelming global civil society
opinion.... It is only in the IG space that some of you have been able
to create this pro-business neoliberal thinking environment, which is
what, as you have seen, people like me keep resisting...

*Meanwhile, pl do not forget to tell me clearly what you think is the
role of different social actors, especially business, in public policy
making...* And please try to be as clear as possible (though I can bet
money that you are unlikely to do any such thing :) ).

parminder

PS: Let me quote what was supposed to be the second para in the article
on Jack Ma's announcement that I wrote, but I removed in the last edit
to shorten the piece...

"Social roles have historically been divided between public and private
sectors, with some in-between zones that have been the subject of much
political contest. But at the two ends, it has for some time been
generally accepted that the policies, laws and rules of society's
working are public functions whereas economic enterprise should largely
be private. Neoliberalism is defined as bringing market paradigms to
bear on areas that are traditionally in the realm of the social/public
sector – from dismantling or weakening industry regulation (in favour of
'self-regulation') to privatising public services like education,
health, and livelihood support. In the new era of digital corporations
taking over complete social and business sectors ranging from organsing
society's knowledge, social networking, and instant media, to travel,
hotels, transportation, health, education and agriculture, we are
witness to an entirely new levels of neoliberal onslaught as these
corporations now begin to write the very rules that govern each of these
sectors. "

> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
> Professor, School of Public Policy
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
>> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder
>> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 3:35 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>> Subject: [governance] Now business wants to lead policy making
>>
>> A recent announcement by Alibaba's founder Jack Ma exposes what the real
>> intent, and the problem, with business led multistakeholderism is, something
>> a lot of people/ groups have perhaps innocently got into supporting.... He
>> proposes a new business led initiative to frame global e-commerce rules,
>> which would rival the WTO, which can keep making them for offline trade.
>> And he is entirely serious, with Alibaba already working with a number of
>> groups and intending to present the proposal to G 20 later this year.. To me it
>> is a political shocker, but that is where much of multistakholderism ideology
>> is headed.
>>
>> I wrote an op-ed on this issue in yesterday's The Hindu, which is at
>> http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/a-borderless-economy-that-will-
>> be-controlled/article8581476.ece
>>
>> We must re-assess what does unhinging of the role of legitimate political
>> actors in key public policy areas means. It just transfers power to a few global
>> corporates to runs our societies as a corporatocracy. Many of our discussions
>> here on mulitistakeholderism as a sovereign political form need to be seen in
>> this context.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160514/8ec13a3e/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri May 13 23:12:25 2016
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 08:42:25 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Now business wants to lead policy
 making
In-Reply-To: <C0136CA5-074A-425B-A8C3-6C44D647E323@consensus.pro>
References: <57343237.3020507@itforchange.net>
 <C0136CA5-074A-425B-A8C3-6C44D647E323@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <57369799.1090808@itforchange.net>



On Thursday 12 May 2016 01:30 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> Dear Parminder, FWIW, he’s been saying this for about a year, and he keeps suggesting new intergovernmental fora where he’s going to bring this up but so far, I’ve not noticed anyone else taking this idea up.

Dear Nick

You will note from the news coverage of his announcement that he is
*not* at all suggesting a 'new intergovernmental fora', as you put it,
instead, he is calling for a 'business led multistakeholder platform'
for framing rules for global e-commerce.... He, or ecom business in
general, is of course welcome to submit any new ecom rules related
proposal to the WTO, or even call for an entirely new intergov body to
separately deal with global ecom... But if your key point was that no
one is taking him up on the idea, well, still idea is still strongly
backed enough for it to be discussed in the public sphere and people
give their opinion on it -- also remember Ma is  co-chair of the Net
Mundial Initiative, in which many people here have enthusiastically
participated... They for instance need to tell us what they think of
this proposal of business led public policy making, that Ma wants to
propose to G 20 later this year...

Now, what Jack Ma is calling for is the exact reification of the
language of equal footing multistakeholderism, even for public policy
decision making, that many people have be touting here - though never
clearly telling what and how of it. (Ma only takes it a clear one step
forward, from equal footing to business leading it, which, we all know
is always the meaning and intention of the so called equal footing MS
model)...  This is just the right opportunity for multistakeholderist
ideologues to clearly tell what they want and support and what not......
They cannot remain silent even now. They should either support Ma's
proposal as just the kind of thing they want, or say, no, this is not
what they have always asked for, and it is different in this and this
manner.

parminder
>
>> On 12 May 2016, at 09:35, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>> A recent announcement by Alibaba's founder Jack Ma exposes what the real
>> intent, and the problem, with business led multistakeholderism is,
>> something a lot of people/ groups have perhaps innocently got into
>> supporting.... He proposes a new business led initiative to frame global
>> e-commerce rules, which would rival the WTO, which can keep making them
>> for offline trade.  And he is entirely serious, with Alibaba already
>> working with a number of groups and intending to present the proposal to
>> G 20 later this year.. To me it is a political shocker, but that is
>> where much of multistakholderism ideology is headed.
>>
>> I wrote an op-ed on this issue in yesterday's The Hindu, which is at
>> http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/a-borderless-economy-that-will-be-controlled/article8581476.ece
>>
>> We must re-assess what does unhinging of the role of legitimate
>> political actors in key public policy areas means. It just transfers
>> power to a few global corporates to runs our societies as a
>> corporatocracy. Many of our discussions here on mulitistakeholderism as
>> a sovereign political form need to be seen in this context.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160514/1cfddab1/attachment.htm>

From nadira.araj at gmail.com  Mon May 16 11:58:56 2016
From: nadira.araj at gmail.com (Nadira Alaraj)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 18:58:56 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?Reminder=3A_call_for_members_Fwd=3A_=5Bcs-co?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?ord=5D_CSCGWG_-=E2=80=8B_Draft_Terms_of_Reference_=28for_review?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=29?=
Message-ID: <CAJdpWNAAwBuKUeXjsGc+-9J+KNmRmsvsDkQrCsd49hPWd+9ovQ@mail.gmail.com>

On May 11, 2016 10:39 PM, "Nadira Alaraj" <nadira.araj at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Best Bits members,
> During the discussions of the nomcom to the IGF MAG, CSTD WG on Enhanced
> Cooperation and WSIS Forum High level track facilitators, many points were
> raised to enhance the CSCG ToR.
>
> Here I'm circulating Ian Peter email below to those interested to be on
> the Working Group to review the CSCG ToR.
> Please note, that the last date to join the group is on May 23.
>
> Best wishes,
> Nadira Alaraj
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:45 AM
> Subject: [cs-coord] CSCGWG
> To:
> ​ ​
> cs-coord at internetgov-cs.org
>
> As discussed recently, a Working Group is being set up to look at the
> Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG), and whether there are changes that
> should be made to improve its capabilities.
>
> A Draft
> ​​
> Terms of Reference is below – this will be considered by the Working
> Group. Membership is open to people involved with civil society
> organisations, and you can join at
> http://internetgov-cs.org/mailman/listinfo/cscgwg. Please note that, as
> it is intended that the group commence collaborative deliberations as soon
> as possible and complete its work by end August, you must join by *Monday,
> May 23*.
>
> If you are able to devote some time to this task in coming months, and can
> offer some expertise and inputs to assist us, we would like you to work
> with us on this important task.
>
> DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE (to be reviewed when working group is established)
>
> 1.    To examine the current  structure,  membership and mission of CSCG,
> and whether  this structure is the best way to ensure that civil society
> representation  is representative (including geographically, politically,
> and in respect of gender balance)
> 2.    To consider in this examination whether a structure capable of
> receiving and administering funds to assist with civil society
> representatives attendance and travel should also be established
> 3.    To consider workload and whether it is in civil society’s best
> interest to rotate nomcom membership rather than continuance of one
> representative group making all decisions
> 4.    To examine current selection procedures to see whether improvements
> should be made
> 5.    To report back to civil society networks with any resulting
> recommendations by August 31 2016
> _______________________________________________
> CS-coord mailing list
> CS-coord at internetgov-cs.org
> http://internetgov-cs.org/mailman/listinfo/cs-coord
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
> <#m_1469366319193248502_DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160516/de0dd0d9/attachment.htm>

From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net  Tue May 17 14:20:18 2016
From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 14:20:18 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] (OT?) Toward a Global Realignment
Message-ID: <bfd3b3b2-e5b2-d378-93f9-fbb0880352f7@riseup.net>


Dear friends,

maybe, some or many of you think, this text from Zbigniew Brzezinski 
have not much to do with our themes, the telecommunication in form of a 
Internet.

I see this very different. Zbigniew Brzezinski comes from another sphere 
and another time. But he know, that we live in the time of change to 
another epoche.

He works for the conservation of traditional geo-political structures 
and models. We, maybe, work for the global cooperation.

If anyone of you know the spanish version, please let me know. I need it 
for our friends in Latin America.

many greetings, willi
Manaus, Brasil



Toward a Global Realignment
Zbigniew Brzezinski
17.04.2016
www.the-american-interest.com/2016/04/17/toward-a-global-realignment/

As its era of global dominance ends, the United States needs to take the 
lead in realigning the global power architecture.

Five basic verities regarding the emerging redistribution of global 
political power and the violent political awakening in the Middle East 
are signaling the coming of a new global realignment.
The first of these verities is that the United States is still the 
world’s politically, economically, and militarily most powerful entity 
but, given complex geopolitical shifts in regional balances, it is no 
longer the globally imperial power. But neither is any other major power.

The second verity is that Russia is experiencing the latest convulsive 
phase of its imperial devolution. A painful process, Russia is not 
fatally precluded – if it acts wisely – from becoming eventually a 
leading European nation-state. However, currently it is pointlessly 
alienating some of its former subjects in the Islamic southwest of its 
once extensive empire, as well as Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia, not to 
mention the Baltic States.

The third verity is that China is rising steadily, if more slowly as of 
late, as America’s eventual coequal and likely rival; but for the time 
being it is careful not to pose an outright challenge to America. 
Militarily, it seems to be seeking a breakthrough in a new generation of 
weapons while patiently enhancing its still very limited naval power.

The fourth verity is that Europe is not now and is not likely to become 
a global power. But it can play a constructive role in taking the lead 
in regard to transnational threats to global wellbeing and even human 
survival. Additionally, Europe is politically and culturally aligned 
with and supportive of core U.S. interests in the Middle East, and 
European steadfastness within NATO is essential to an eventually 
constructive resolution of the Russia-Ukraine crisis.

The fifth verity is that the currently violent political awakening among 
post-colonial Muslims is, in part, a belated reaction to their 
occasionally brutal suppression mostly by European powers. It fuses a 
delayed but deeply felt sense of injustice with a religious motivation 
that is unifying large numbers of Muslims against the outside world; but 
at the same time, because of historic sectarian schisms within Islam 
that have nothing to do with the West, the recent welling up of 
historical grievances is also divisive within Islam.

Taken together as a unified framework, these five verities tell us that 
the United States must take the lead in realigning the global power 
architecture in such a way that the violence erupting within and 
occasionally projected beyond the Muslim world—and in the future 
possibly from other parts of what used to be called the Third World—can 
be contained without destroying the global order. We can sketch this new 
architecture by elaborating briefly each of the five foregoing verities.

First, America can only be effective in dealing with the current Middle 
Eastern violence if it forges a coalition that involves, in varying 
degrees, also Russia and China. To enable such a coalition to take 
shape, Russia must first be discouraged from its reliance on the 
unilateral use of force against its own neighbors—notably Ukraine, 
Georgia, the Baltic States—and China should be disabused of the idea 
that selfish passivity in the face of the rising regional crisis in the 
Middle East will prove to be politically and economically rewarding to 
its ambitions in the global arena. These shortsighted policy impulses 
need to be channeled into a more farsighted vision.

Second, Russia is becoming for the first time in its history a truly 
national state, a development that is as momentous as it is generally 
overlooked. The Czarist Empire, with its multinational but largely 
politically passive population, came to an end with World War I and the 
Bolshevik creation of an allegedly voluntary union of national republics 
(the USSR), with power resting effectively in Russian hands, took its 
place. The collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991 led to the 
sudden emergence of a predominantly Russian state as its successor, and 
to the transformation of the former Soviet Union’s non-Russian 
“republics” into formally independent states. These states are now 
consolidating their independence, and both the West and China—in 
different areas and different ways—are exploiting that new reality to 
Russia’s disadvantage. In the meantime, Russia’s own future depends on 
its ability to become a major and influential nation-state that is part 
of a unifying Europe. Not to do so could have dramatically negative 
consequences for Russia’s ability to withstand growing 
territorial-demographic pressure from China, which is increasingly 
inclined as its power grows to recall the “unequal” treaties Moscow 
imposed on Beijing in times past.

Third, China’s dramatic economic success requires enduring patience and 
the country’s awareness that political haste will make for social waste. 
The best political prospect for China in the near future is to become 
America’s principal partner in containing global chaos of the sort that 
is spreading outward (including to the northeast) from the Middle East. 
If it is not contained, it will contaminate Russia’s southern and 
eastern territories as well as the western portions of China. Closer 
relations between China and the new republics in Central Asia, the 
post-British Muslim states in Southwest Asia (notably Pakistan) and 
especially with Iran (given its strategic assets and economic 
significance), are the natural targets of Chinese regional geopolitical 
outreach. But they should also be targets of global Sino-American 
accommodation.

Fourth, tolerable stability will not return to the Middle East as long 
as local armed military formations can calculate that they can be 
simultaneously the beneficiaries of a territorial realignment while 
selectively abetting extreme violence. Their ability to act in a savage 
manner can only be contained by increasingly effective—but also 
selective—pressure derived from a base of U.S.-Russian-Chinese 
cooperation that, in turn, enhances the prospects for the responsible 
use of force by the region’s more established states (namely, Iran, 
Turkey, Israel, and Egypt). The latter should also be the recipients of 
more selective European support. Under normal circumstances, Saudi 
Arabia would be a significant player on that list, but the current 
inclination of the Saudi government still to foster Wahhabi fanaticism, 
even while engaged in ambitious domestic modernization efforts, raises 
grave doubts regarding Saudi Arabia’s ability to play a regionally 
significant constructive role.

Fifth, special attention should be focused on the non-Western world’s 
newly politically aroused masses. Long-repressed political memories are 
fueling in large part the sudden and very explosive awakening energized 
by Islamic extremists in the Middle East, but what is happening in the 
Middle East today may be just the beginning of a wider phenomenon to 
come out of Africa, Asia, and even among the pre-colonial peoples of the 
Western Hemisphere in the years ahead.

Periodic massacres of their not-so-distant ancestors by colonists and 
associated wealth-seekers largely from western Europe (countries that 
today are, still tentatively at least, most open to multiethnic 
cohabitation) resulted within the past two or so centuries in the 
slaughter of colonized peoples on a scale comparable to Nazi World War 
II crimes: literally involving hundreds of thousands and even millions 
of victims. Political self-assertion enhanced by delayed outrage and 
grief is a powerful force that is now surfacing, thirsting for revenge, 
not just in the Muslim Middle East but also very likely beyond.

Much of the data cannot be precisely established, but taken 
collectively, they are shocking. Let just a few examples suffice. In the 
16th century, due largely to disease brought by Spanish explorers, the 
population of the native Aztec Empire in present-day Mexico declined 
from 25 million to approximately one million. Similarly, in North 
America, an estimated 90 percent of the native population died within 
the first five years of contact with European settlers, due primarily to 
diseases. In the 19th century, various wars and forced resettlements 
killed an additional 100,000. In India from 1857-1867, the British are 
suspected of killing up to one million civilians in reprisals stemming 
from the Indian Rebellion of 1857. The British East India Company’s use 
of Indian agriculture to grow opium then essentially forced on China 
resulted in the premature deaths of millions, not including the directly 
inflicted Chinese casualties of the First and Second Opium Wars. In the 
Congo, which was the personal holding of Belgian King Leopold II, 10-15 
million people were killed between 1890 and 1910. In Vietnam, recent 
estimates suggest that between one and three million civilians were 
killed from 1955 to 1975.

As to the Muslim world in Russia’s Caucasus, from 1864 and 1867, 90 
percent of the local Circassian population was forcibly relocated and 
between 300,000 and 1.5 million either starved to death or were killed. 
Between 1916 and 1918, tens of thousands of Muslims were killed when 
300,000 Turkic Muslims were forced by Russian authorities through the 
mountains of Central Asia and into China. In Indonesia, between 1835 and 
1840, the Dutch occupiers killed an estimated 300,000 civilians. In 
Algeria, following a 15-year civil war from 1830-1845, French brutality, 
famine, and disease killed 1.5 million Algerians, nearly half the 
population. In neighboring Libya, the Italians forced Cyrenaicans into 
concentration camps, where an estimated 80,000 to 500,000 died between 
1927 and 1934.

More recently, in Afghanistan between 1979 and 1989 the Soviet Union is 
estimated to have killed around one million civilians; two decades 
later, the United States has killed 26,000 civilians during its 15-year 
war in Afghanistan. In Iraq, 165,000 civilians have been killed by the 
United States and its allies in the past 13 years. (The disparity 
between the reported number of deaths inflicted by European colonizers 
compared with the United States and its allies in Iraq and Afghanistan 
may be due in part to the technological advances that have resulted in 
the more productive use of force and in part as well to a shift in the 
world’s normative climate.) Just as shocking as the scale of these 
atrocities is how quickly the West forgot about them.

In today’s postcolonial world, a new historical narrative is emerging. A 
profound resentment against the West and its colonial legacy in Muslim 
countries and beyond is being used to justify their sense of deprivation 
and denial of self-dignity. A stark example of the experience and 
attitudes of colonial peoples is well summarized by the Senegalese poet 
David Diop in “Vultures”:

In those days,
When civilization kicked us in the face
The vultures built in the shadow of their talons
The blood stained monument of tutelage…

Given all this, a long and painful road toward an initially limited 
regional accommodation is the only viable option for the United States, 
Russia, China, and the pertinent Middle Eastern entities. For the United 
States, that will require patient persistence in forging cooperative 
relationships with some new partners (particularly Russia and China) as 
well as joint efforts with more established and historically rooted 
Muslim states (Turkey, Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia if it can detach 
its foreign policy from Wahhabi extremism) in shaping a wider framework 
of regional stability. Our European allies, previously dominant in the 
region, can still be helpful in that regard.
A comprehensive U.S. pullout from the Muslim world favored by domestic 
isolationists, could give rise to new wars (for example, Israel vs. 
Iran, Saudi Arabia vs. Iran, a major Egyptian intervention in Libya) and 
would generate an even deeper crisis of confidence in America’s globally 
stabilizing role. In different but dramatically unpredictable ways, 
Russia and China could be the geopolitical beneficiaries of such a 
development even as global order itself becomes the more immediate 
geopolitical casualty. Last but not least, in such circumstances a 
divided and fearful Europe would see its current member states searching 
for patrons and competing with one another in alternative but separate 
arrangements among the more powerful trio.

A constructive U.S. policy must be patiently guided by a long-range 
vision. It must seek outcomes that promote the gradual realization in 
Russia (probably post-Putin) that its only place as an influential world 
power is ultimately within Europe. China’s increasing role in the Middle 
East should reflect the reciprocal American and Chinese realization that 
a growing U.S.-PRC partnership in coping with the Middle Eastern crisis 
is an historically significant test of their ability to shape and 
enhance together wider global stability.

The alternative to a constructive vision, and especially the quest for a 
one-sided militarily and ideologically imposed outcome, can only result 
in prolonged and self-destructive futility. For America, that could 
entail enduring conflict, fatigue, and conceivably even a demoralizing 
withdrawal to its pre-20th century isolationism. For Russia, it could 
mean major defeat, increasing the likelihood of subordination in some 
fashion to Chinese predominance. For China, it could portend war not 
only with the United States but also, perhaps separately, with either 
Japan or India or with both. And, in any case, a prolonged phase of 
sustained ethnic, quasi-religious wars pursued through the Middle East 
with self-righteous fanaticism would generate escalating bloodshed 
within and outside the region, and growing cruelty everywhere.

The fact is that there has never been a truly “dominant” global power 
until the emergence of America on the world scene. Imperial Great 
Britain came close to becoming one, but World War I and later World War 
II not only bankrupted it but also prompted the emergence of rival 
regional powers. The decisive new global reality was the appearance on 
the world scene of America as simultaneously the richest and militarily 
the most powerful player. During the latter part of the 20th century no 
other power even came close.

That era is now ending. While no state is likely in the near future to 
match America’s economic-financial superiority, new weapons systems 
could suddenly endow some countries with the means to commit suicide in 
a joint tit-for-tat embrace with the United States, or even to prevail. 
Without going into speculative detail, the sudden acquisition by some 
state of the capacity to render America militarily inferior would spell 
the end of America’s global role. The result would most probably be 
global chaos. And that is why it behooves the United States to fashion a 
policy in which at least one of the two potentially threatening states 
becomes a partner in the quest for regional and then wider global 
stability, and thus in containing the least predictable but potentially 
the most likely rival to overreach. Currently, the more likely to 
overreach is Russia, but in the longer run it could be China.

Since the next twenty years may well be the last phase of the more 
traditional and familiar political alignments with which we have grown 
comfortable, the response needs to be shaped now. During the rest of 
this century, humanity will also have to be increasingly preoccupied 
with survival as such on account of a confluence of environmental 
challenges. Those challenges can only be addressed responsibly and 
effectively in a setting of increased international accommodation. And 
that accommodation has to be based on a strategic vision that recognizes 
the urgent need for a new geopolitical framework.

*The author acknowledges the helpful contribution of his research 
assistant Paul Wasserman, and the scholarship on the subject of colonial 
brutality by Adam Hochschild, Richard Pierce, William Polk, and the 
Watson Institute at Brown University, among others.

Zbigniew Brzezinski is a counselor at the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies and was the National Security Advisor to President 
Jimmy Carter from 1977-81. He is the author, most recently, of Strategic 
Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power.

---
Este email foi escaneado pelo Avast antivírus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


From raquino at gmail.com  Tue May 17 21:05:11 2016
From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 22:05:11 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Seeking IGF2016 Conference Coordinator and
 BPF/'Connecting the Next Billion' Consultants
Message-ID: <CAMokdMz-=FsQQ2vMbd0zKJD9BGKF9BdKQdC-R6aW34oA7f1kOg@mail.gmail.com>

IGF Vacancies Posted: Seeking IGF2016 Conference Coordinator and
BPF/'Connecting the Next Billion' Consultants

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/aboutigf/vacancies

Interested candidates should consult the published ToRs and send their
applications to vacancies at intgovforum.org by Monday 23 May.

From sheetal at gp-digital.org  Wed May 18 10:03:32 2016
From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 15:03:32 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Tool for Human Rights Defenders on Cybersecurity Policy
Message-ID: <CAK78muT_Esq3kv+8c8v24wSZMnqZ4wXzE1iikTR-ZUiA=uh8RQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I am writing to share a publication on cybersecurity policy which has just
been published by Global Partners Digital. The "travel guide to
cybersecurity policy for human rights defenders" is authored by Carly Nyst
and forms the third in our 'travelguide to the digital world series'. The
aim of the guide is to support human rights defenders' effective engagement
and advocacy in cybersecurity policymaking.

The guide is available here:
http://www.gp-digital.org/publication/travel-guide-to-the-digital-world-cybersecurity-policy-for-human-rights-defenders/

There is also an accompanying news piece which explains more about the
publication here:
http://www.gp-digital.org/gpd-update/introducing-gpds-new-travel-guide-to-cybersecurity-policy-for-human-rights-defenders/


Please feel free to share widely. We also very much welcome any questions
or feedback on the guide.

Thanks!
-- 
*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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160518/73df2562/attachment.htm>

From nadira.araj at gmail.com  Fri May 20 23:40:33 2016
From: nadira.araj at gmail.com (Nadira Alaraj)
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 06:40:33 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] IGF Planning Retreat
In-Reply-To: <6E5EB9C724884F36ABEC3147A58E90DD@Toshiba>
References: <6E5EB9C724884F36ABEC3147A58E90DD@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAJdpWNATpq=tQ=Tb5a0=y70Md_-sm7VjuQpXhHwUNxiXXbCMNQ@mail.gmail.com>

The IGF has opened a call for nominations to attend a Planning Retreat from
July 14-16 at Glen Cove, New York. Details can be found at

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat

The IGF nomination procedures can be found from the link above and
interested civil society people should apply. Travel assistance *may* be
available for participants from developing countries and transitional
economies but cannot be guaranteed at this stage.

CSCG is still discussing whether it wishes to become involved in a parallel
process of recommending civil society candidates. Our involvement is
welcomed by the IGF Secretariat, but we are concerned about the lack of
transparency and rushed nature of any involvement (which would also need to
be completed by May 31 on current indications, in parallel with nominations
still being received). We will advise further (within 48 hours) on
procedures that should be followed for those seeking CSCG endorsement if a
decision is made to be involved.

Apologies for incredibly short notice: this was only announced on Thursday
May 19 and we have been seeking clarification on how this will be conducted.

Ian Peter (Independent Chair, CSCG)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160521/60971e69/attachment.htm>

From raquino at gmail.com  Mon May  2 12:03:12 2016
From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro)
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 13:03:12 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Whatsapp in Brazil blocked again, sharing info to
 connect via VPN
In-Reply-To: <CAMokdMzKKMRxXsQSfa_8Lyxn166SrdRYjm6naJmAA+-KVo6ucQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMokdMzKKMRxXsQSfa_8Lyxn166SrdRYjm6naJmAA+-KVo6ucQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMokdMzuFht29-594oOnzpw=j_TdV=VzwVz_CEbWrQOU=zc68Q@mail.gmail.com>

<resending w/ correct blockage link>

Hi

Just to fill you in on a recent development of an old case
Same judged who blocked Whatsapp last time issued an order for 72h blockage.
Brazilians are already sharing info on how to bypass blockage and
promoting Telegram (Portuguese only, sorry)
http://www.tecmundo.com.br/whatsapp/104302-whatsapp-bloqueado-brasil-hoje-justica-entenda.htm

Best,

Renata

-----
Support the idea of new voices, new regions on internet governance debates?
Share our Thunderclap campaign for #WSIS2016 and send in your thoughts
https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/41245-the-internet-belongs-to-us

From nadira.araj at gmail.com  Mon May 23 17:30:36 2016
From: nadira.araj at gmail.com (Nadira Alaraj)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 00:30:36 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Open call for members -IGF Planning Retreat
Message-ID: <CAJdpWNA9PtVcg5uPPe5aO3ZcD7LYPr+3r1CVXH4q3wvZ7kWa_A@mail.gmail.com>

Following from the announcement  a few days ago of the IGF Planning
Retreat, CSCG has decided that, while being deeply concerned about the way
this exercise has been announced and the almost impossible timeframes being
suggested for us to endorse suitable civil society candidates,  it will
endorse suitable civil society names by the May 31 deadline given to us. We
will use the best possible selection method we can in the circumstances of
not enough time for a proper evaluation. Although this is not a
satisfactory situation from our point of view, in the spirit of
co-operating towards the introduction of better IGF processes for
multistakeholder representation in the future, we will proceed as best we
can and inform the IGF Secretariat of our intentions.

What this means for civil society candidates seeking CSCG endorsement is
that, in addition to completing the IGF form, you must also send an email
to nomcom08 at internetgov-cs.org, informing CSCG of your nomination and a
brief statement outlining why you are a suitable civil society
representative for this planning retreat. However, please note – THE
SUBMISSIONS TO CSCG MUST REACH THE MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE NO LATER THAN COB
THIS FRIDAY (MAY 27) - to allow us to also submit our recommendations by
the IGF closing date of May 31.

So briefly – to seek CSCG endorsement for attendance at this workshop, you
must submit an email to us at nomcom08 at internetgov-cs.org no later than COB
on Friday, May 27. (and you must also apply via the IGF process outlined at
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat)

CSCG will make its recommendations taking into account the contribution
nominees can make, as well as gender, geographic and political diversity.

If more information comes to hand, we will inform CS lists as soon as
possible. But we do believe it is important to select a diverse and
representative group of civil society attendees for this retreat, and will
do the best possible in the limited time available to achieve this.

> From: Ian Peter
> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 8:51 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: [governance] IGF Planning Retreat
>
>
> The IGF has opened a call for nominations to attend a Planning Retreat
from July 14-16 at Glen Cove, New York. Details can be found at
>
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat
>
> The IGF nomination procedures can be found from the link above and
interested civil society people should apply. Travel assistance *may* be
available for participants from developing countries and transitional
economies but cannot be guaranteed at this stage.
>
> CSCG is still discussing whether it wishes to become involved in a
parallel process of recommending civil society candidates. Our involvement
is welcomed by the IGF Secretariat, but we are concerned about the lack of
transparency and rushed nature of any involvement (which would also need to
be completed by May 31 on current indications, in parallel with nominations
still being received). We will advise further (within 48 hours) on
procedures that should be followed for those seeking CSCG endorsement if a
decision is made to be involved.
>
> Apologies for incredibly short notice: this was only announced on
Thursday May 19 and we have been seeking clarification on how this will be
conducted.
>
>
>
> Ian Peter (Independent Chair, CSCG)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160524/147b69c0/attachment.htm>

From raquino at gmail.com  Mon May 23 20:39:58 2016
From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 21:39:58 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Call for Fellowship to IGF 2016 - Africa and Asia
Message-ID: <CAMokdMztx3VaYHY_tTzDvP63q-Aihz=zM_B-4UcPzjqXr51pFg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all

Forwarding this opportunity related to IGF2016. Apply by 12th June

Eligible to those in:

Namibia,
Republic of the Congo,
Togo,
South Africa,
Myanmar,
Sri Lanka,
Bhutan,
Bangladesh



Message: 1
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 22:31:16 +0200
From: lorena jaume <ljaume at hotmail.com>
To: "igfregionals at intgovforum.org" <igfregionals at intgovforum.org>
Subject: [Igfregionals] Call for Applications for Fellows from the
        Global  South

IGF Academy Fellowships

iRights, in cooperation with the Association for Progressive
Communications (APC) and LIRNEasia, with the financial support of the
German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, are pleased
to announce the call for applications for a fellowship to the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF) Academy.

We are looking for national champions in the field of freedom of
expression and / or Internet governance. The fellowship will enable
fellows to receive mentoring from internationally renowned experts in
the Internet governance process, to participate in a regional workshop
with champions from other countries, and to participate in the global
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Guadalajara, Mexico, from December
4th to 10th.

About the academy

The project seeks to foster and enhance freedom of expression on the
Internet and inclusive and transparent national Internet governance
and policy processes through the creation and/or consolidation of
multistakeholder, national Internet Governance structures in Africa
and Asia. To achieve this, the IGF Academy will bring together eight
national champions from four African countries (Namibia, South Africa,
Congo Brazzaville, Togo) and eight national champions from four Asian
countries (Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Bangladesh).

The IGF Academy Fellowships

The fellowship will provide experienced individuals with the opportunity to:

> receive mentoring from internationally renowned Internet governance practitioners

> deepen their understanding of Internet governance issues and processes

> expand their networks nationally, regionally and globally

> develop a strategic roadmap to strengthen existing or initiate inclusive national Internet Governance processes in their countries

> peer learning with experts from their country, their region and cross-regionally

> participate in a regional training event

> participate in a training event at the global IGF

> participate in the global UN IGF 2016 in Guadalajara

> be part of a (cross)regional and UN global dialogue on freedom of expression and information preparing for the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Fellowships will be awarded through a competitive process.
Applications will be accepted until the 12th of June 2016, 22:00 GMT.

We encourage you to apply and forward the information about this
programme to individuals who have a passion for freedom of expression
and a broad understanding of a multistakeholder dialogue.

The fellowship period runs from June – December 2016.

Successful applicants will receive assistance and funding for travel,
accommodation and meals to attend:

> One training event in their region (3 days), dates and location to be determined

> The UN Internet Governance Forum, Guadalajara, Mexico and a one-day pre-IGF workshop, December 4- 10 2016

Criteria for selection

Selection for the Fellowship is competitive. The selected candidates
must provide a clear motivation for participating in the academy,
including demonstrating a strong sense of what they intend to
accomplish, how Internet Governance may help to foster freedom of
expression in the long term in their home country and how they intend
to apply the regional and global experiences from the trainings and
the global UN IGF in their own national project.

Two fellows per country will be selected, one of them experienced in
the human rights field, the other with experience in Internet
governance processes.

In order to qualify applicants must be based in one of these countries:

Namibia,
Republic of the Congo,
Togo,
South Africa,
Myanmar,
Sri Lanka,
Bhutan,
Bangladesh

and be able to demonstrate that they

> are proficient in English (oral and written)

> are committed to the use of the Internet as a driver for development, democracy and human rights and Internet governance

> are self-motivated and able to work independently

> have fundraising and resource mobilisation skills at a national level

> have the capacity to build networks and to convene stakeholders from a variety of sectors

Depending on their profile (freedom of expression / Internet
governance), candidates must have a proven track-record in

> human rights work (especially freedom of expression) at a national level

> Internet governance and/or public policy, especially in national regulatory ICT processes

The Application

Qualified applicants are requested to express their interest by
filling the form.*
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1TgPmSvZKiENV6zdsfs2hvRE0JtXNk22QOg7e2e2n7xE/viewform

Only fully completed applications will be considered.

*Your personal data will be transmitted using SSL encryption

In case you have further questions regarding the application process,
please contact us by email at igf-academy [at] iRights [dot] info.

From anriette at apc.org  Tue May 24 03:17:15 2016
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 09:17:15 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Call for Applications for Fellows from the Global South
In-Reply-To: <DUB127-W14D94896241984152F8284D54E0@phx.gbl>
References: <DUB127-W14D94896241984152F8284D54E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <5743FFFB.2090506@apc.org>

Apologies for cross posting.

Best to all

Anriette


          IGF Academy Fellowships

iRights, in cooperation with the Association for Progressive
Communications (APC) and LIRNEasia, with the financial support of
the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, are
pleased to announce the call for applications for a fellowship to the
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Academy.

We are looking for national champions in the field of freedom of
expression and / or Internet governance. The fellowship will enable
fellows to receive mentoring from internationally renowned experts in
the Internet governance process, to participate in a regional workshop
with champions from other countries, and to participate in the global
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Guadalajara, Mexico, from December
4th to 10th.


          About the academy

The project seeks to foster and enhance freedom of expression on the
Internet and inclusive and transparent national Internet governance and
policy processes through the creation and/or consolidation of
multistakeholder, national Internet Governance structures in Africa and
Asia. To achieve this, the IGF Academy will bring together eight
national champions from four African countries (Namibia, South Africa,
Congo Brazzaville, Togo) and eight national champions from four Asian
countries (Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Bangladesh).


          The IGF Academy Fellowships

The fellowship will provide experienced individuals with the opportunity to:

> receive mentoring from internationally renowned Internet governance practitioners

> deepen their understanding of Internet governance issues and processes

> expand their networks nationally, regionally and globally

> develop a strategic roadmap to strengthen existing or initiate inclusive national Internet Governance processes in their countries

> peer learning with experts from their country, their region and cross-regionally

> participate in a regional training event

> participate in a training event at the global IGF

> participate in the global UN IGF 2016 in Guadalajara

> be part of a (cross)regional and UN global dialogue on freedom of expression and information preparing for the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Fellowships will be awarded through a competitive process. Applications
will be accepted until the 12th of June 2016, 22:00 GMT.

We encourage you to apply and forward the information about this
programme to individuals who have a passion for freedom of expression
and a broad understanding of a multistakeholder dialogue.

The fellowship period runs from June – December 2016.

Successful applicants will receive assistance and funding for travel,
accommodation and meals to attend:

> One training event in their region (3 days), dates and location to be
determined

> The UN Internet Governance Forum, Guadalajara, Mexico and a one-day pre-IGF workshop, December 4- 10 2016


          Criteria for selection

Selection for the Fellowship is competitive. The selected candidates
must provide a clear motivation for participating in the academy,
including demonstrating a strong sense of what they intend to
accomplish, how Internet Governance may help to foster freedom of
expression in the long term in their home country and how they intend to
apply the regional and global experiences from the trainings and the
global UN IGF in their own national project.

Two fellows per country will be selected, one of them experienced in the
human rights field, the other with experience in Internet governance
processes.

In order to qualify applicants must be based in one of these countries:

      * Namibia,
      * Republic of the Congo,
      * Togo,
      * South Africa,
      * Myanmar,
      * Sri Lanka,
      * Bhutan,
      * Bangladesh

and be able to demonstrate that they

> are proficient in English (oral and written)

> are committed to the use of the Internet as a driver for development,
democracy and human rights and Internet governance

> are self-motivated and able to work independently

> have fundraising and resource mobilisation skills at a national level

> have the capacity to build networks and to convene stakeholders from a
variety of sectors

Depending on their profile (freedom of expression / Internet
governance), candidates must have a proven track-record in

> human rights work (especially freedom of expression) at a national level

> Internet governance and/or public policy, especially in national regulatory ICT processes


          The Application

Qualified applicants are requested to express their interest by filling
the form
<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1TgPmSvZKiENV6zdsfs2hvRE0JtXNk22QOg7e2e2n7xE/viewform>.*

*Only fully completed applications will be considered.*

*Your personal data will be transmitted using SSL encryption

In case you have further questions regarding the application process,
please contact us by email at igf-academy [at] iRights [dot] info.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorena Jaume-Palasí
Cel. + 49 (0) 179 9119 578



-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Igfregionals mailing list
Igfregionals at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfregionals_intgovforum.org


From wisdom.dk at gmail.com  Tue May 24 04:02:51 2016
From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 08:02:51 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Call for Fellowship to IGF 2016 - Africa and
 Asia
In-Reply-To: <CAMokdMztx3VaYHY_tTzDvP63q-Aihz=zM_B-4UcPzjqXr51pFg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMokdMztx3VaYHY_tTzDvP63q-Aihz=zM_B-4UcPzjqXr51pFg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAU+vPHhuqxVX4K+QM6hiF2TL9b8XcWPTmRSdJ5Bn0u8TauX2w@mail.gmail.com>

Renata I can't see Ghana on the list

Cheers

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Forwarding this opportunity related to IGF2016. Apply by 12th June
>
> Eligible to those in:
>
> Namibia,
> Republic of the Congo,
> Togo,
> South Africa,
> Myanmar,
> Sri Lanka,
> Bhutan,
> Bangladesh
>
>
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 22:31:16 +0200
> From: lorena jaume <ljaume at hotmail.com>
> To: "igfregionals at intgovforum.org" <igfregionals at intgovforum.org>
> Subject: [Igfregionals] Call for Applications for Fellows from the
>         Global  South
>
> IGF Academy Fellowships
>
> iRights, in cooperation with the Association for Progressive
> Communications (APC) and LIRNEasia, with the financial support of the
> German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, are pleased
> to announce the call for applications for a fellowship to the Internet
> Governance Forum (IGF) Academy.
>
> We are looking for national champions in the field of freedom of
> expression and / or Internet governance. The fellowship will enable
> fellows to receive mentoring from internationally renowned experts in
> the Internet governance process, to participate in a regional workshop
> with champions from other countries, and to participate in the global
> Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Guadalajara, Mexico, from December
> 4th to 10th.
>
> About the academy
>
> The project seeks to foster and enhance freedom of expression on the
> Internet and inclusive and transparent national Internet governance
> and policy processes through the creation and/or consolidation of
> multistakeholder, national Internet Governance structures in Africa
> and Asia. To achieve this, the IGF Academy will bring together eight
> national champions from four African countries (Namibia, South Africa,
> Congo Brazzaville, Togo) and eight national champions from four Asian
> countries (Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Bangladesh).
>
> The IGF Academy Fellowships
>
> The fellowship will provide experienced individuals with the opportunity
to:
>
>> receive mentoring from internationally renowned Internet governance
practitioners
>
>> deepen their understanding of Internet governance issues and processes
>
>> expand their networks nationally, regionally and globally
>
>> develop a strategic roadmap to strengthen existing or initiate inclusive
national Internet Governance processes in their countries
>
>> peer learning with experts from their country, their region and
cross-regionally
>
>> participate in a regional training event
>
>> participate in a training event at the global IGF
>
>> participate in the global UN IGF 2016 in Guadalajara
>
>> be part of a (cross)regional and UN global dialogue on freedom of
expression and information preparing for the UN Internet Governance Forum
(IGF)
>
> Fellowships will be awarded through a competitive process.
> Applications will be accepted until the 12th of June 2016, 22:00 GMT.
>
> We encourage you to apply and forward the information about this
> programme to individuals who have a passion for freedom of expression
> and a broad understanding of a multistakeholder dialogue.
>
> The fellowship period runs from June – December 2016.
>
> Successful applicants will receive assistance and funding for travel,
> accommodation and meals to attend:
>
>> One training event in their region (3 days), dates and location to be
determined
>
>> The UN Internet Governance Forum, Guadalajara, Mexico and a one-day
pre-IGF workshop, December 4- 10 2016
>
> Criteria for selection
>
> Selection for the Fellowship is competitive. The selected candidates
> must provide a clear motivation for participating in the academy,
> including demonstrating a strong sense of what they intend to
> accomplish, how Internet Governance may help to foster freedom of
> expression in the long term in their home country and how they intend
> to apply the regional and global experiences from the trainings and
> the global UN IGF in their own national project.
>
> Two fellows per country will be selected, one of them experienced in
> the human rights field, the other with experience in Internet
> governance processes.
>
> In order to qualify applicants must be based in one of these countries:
>
> Namibia,
> Republic of the Congo,
> Togo,
> South Africa,
> Myanmar,
> Sri Lanka,
> Bhutan,
> Bangladesh
>
> and be able to demonstrate that they
>
>> are proficient in English (oral and written)
>
>> are committed to the use of the Internet as a driver for development,
democracy and human rights and Internet governance
>
>> are self-motivated and able to work independently
>
>> have fundraising and resource mobilisation skills at a national level
>
>> have the capacity to build networks and to convene stakeholders from a
variety of sectors
>
> Depending on their profile (freedom of expression / Internet
> governance), candidates must have a proven track-record in
>
>> human rights work (especially freedom of expression) at a national level
>
>> Internet governance and/or public policy, especially in national
regulatory ICT processes
>
> The Application
>
> Qualified applicants are requested to express their interest by
> filling the form.*
>
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1TgPmSvZKiENV6zdsfs2hvRE0JtXNk22QOg7e2e2n7xE/viewform
>
> Only fully completed applications will be considered.
>
> *Your personal data will be transmitted using SSL encryption
>
> In case you have further questions regarding the application process,
> please contact us by email at igf-academy [at] iRights [dot] info.
>

-- 
*WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)*
E-government and Open Government Data Platforms Specialist
National Information Technology Agency (NITA)/
Ghana Open Data Initiative Project.
ICANN Fellow / Member, UN IGF MAG Member, ISOC Member,
Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) Member, Diplo Foundation Member,
OGP Open Data WG Member, GODAN Memember, ITAG Member
Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com
wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh
wisdom.dk at gmail.com
Skype: wisdom_dk
facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk
Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh
www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160524/590a6b56/attachment.htm>

From lorena at collaboratory.de  Tue May 24 04:16:58 2016
From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:16:58 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Call for Fellowship to IGF 2016 - Africa and
 Asia
In-Reply-To: <CAAU+vPHhuqxVX4K+QM6hiF2TL9b8XcWPTmRSdJ5Bn0u8TauX2w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMokdMztx3VaYHY_tTzDvP63q-Aihz=zM_B-4UcPzjqXr51pFg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAU+vPHhuqxVX4K+QM6hiF2TL9b8XcWPTmRSdJ5Bn0u8TauX2w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPqXojJTGmAafEqwFWN62vYaRWXfv56rNeqN80nHGNrZTE1JEw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Wisdom,
our funding agreement restricts us to the countries mentioned. We are
hoping to increase the number of countries we can accept applications from.
But even in case we are successful this will not take effect before next
year.
Kind regards,
Lorena

2016-05-24 10:02 GMT+02:00 Wisdom Donkor <wisdom.dk at gmail.com>:

>
> Renata I can't see Ghana on the list
>
> Cheers
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2016, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear all
> >
> > Forwarding this opportunity related to IGF2016. Apply by 12th June
> >
> > Eligible to those in:
> >
> > Namibia,
> > Republic of the Congo,
> > Togo,
> > South Africa,
> > Myanmar,
> > Sri Lanka,
> > Bhutan,
> > Bangladesh
> >
> >
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 22:31:16 +0200
> > From: lorena jaume <ljaume at hotmail.com>
> > To: "igfregionals at intgovforum.org" <igfregionals at intgovforum.org>
> > Subject: [Igfregionals] Call for Applications for Fellows from the
> >         Global  South
> >
> > IGF Academy Fellowships
> >
> > iRights, in cooperation with the Association for Progressive
> > Communications (APC) and LIRNEasia, with the financial support of the
> > German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, are pleased
> > to announce the call for applications for a fellowship to the Internet
> > Governance Forum (IGF) Academy.
> >
> > We are looking for national champions in the field of freedom of
> > expression and / or Internet governance. The fellowship will enable
> > fellows to receive mentoring from internationally renowned experts in
> > the Internet governance process, to participate in a regional workshop
> > with champions from other countries, and to participate in the global
> > Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Guadalajara, Mexico, from December
> > 4th to 10th.
> >
> > About the academy
> >
> > The project seeks to foster and enhance freedom of expression on the
> > Internet and inclusive and transparent national Internet governance
> > and policy processes through the creation and/or consolidation of
> > multistakeholder, national Internet Governance structures in Africa
> > and Asia. To achieve this, the IGF Academy will bring together eight
> > national champions from four African countries (Namibia, South Africa,
> > Congo Brazzaville, Togo) and eight national champions from four Asian
> > countries (Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Bangladesh).
> >
> > The IGF Academy Fellowships
> >
> > The fellowship will provide experienced individuals with the opportunity
> to:
> >
> >> receive mentoring from internationally renowned Internet governance
> practitioners
> >
> >> deepen their understanding of Internet governance issues and processes
> >
> >> expand their networks nationally, regionally and globally
> >
> >> develop a strategic roadmap to strengthen existing or initiate
> inclusive national Internet Governance processes in their countries
> >
> >> peer learning with experts from their country, their region and
> cross-regionally
> >
> >> participate in a regional training event
> >
> >> participate in a training event at the global IGF
> >
> >> participate in the global UN IGF 2016 in Guadalajara
> >
> >> be part of a (cross)regional and UN global dialogue on freedom of
> expression and information preparing for the UN Internet Governance Forum
> (IGF)
> >
> > Fellowships will be awarded through a competitive process.
> > Applications will be accepted until the 12th of June 2016, 22:00 GMT.
> >
> > We encourage you to apply and forward the information about this
> > programme to individuals who have a passion for freedom of expression
> > and a broad understanding of a multistakeholder dialogue.
> >
> > The fellowship period runs from June – December 2016.
> >
> > Successful applicants will receive assistance and funding for travel,
> > accommodation and meals to attend:
> >
> >> One training event in their region (3 days), dates and location to be
> determined
> >
> >> The UN Internet Governance Forum, Guadalajara, Mexico and a one-day
> pre-IGF workshop, December 4- 10 2016
> >
> > Criteria for selection
> >
> > Selection for the Fellowship is competitive. The selected candidates
> > must provide a clear motivation for participating in the academy,
> > including demonstrating a strong sense of what they intend to
> > accomplish, how Internet Governance may help to foster freedom of
> > expression in the long term in their home country and how they intend
> > to apply the regional and global experiences from the trainings and
> > the global UN IGF in their own national project.
> >
> > Two fellows per country will be selected, one of them experienced in
> > the human rights field, the other with experience in Internet
> > governance processes.
> >
> > In order to qualify applicants must be based in one of these countries:
> >
> > Namibia,
> > Republic of the Congo,
> > Togo,
> > South Africa,
> > Myanmar,
> > Sri Lanka,
> > Bhutan,
> > Bangladesh
> >
> > and be able to demonstrate that they
> >
> >> are proficient in English (oral and written)
> >
> >> are committed to the use of the Internet as a driver for development,
> democracy and human rights and Internet governance
> >
> >> are self-motivated and able to work independently
> >
> >> have fundraising and resource mobilisation skills at a national level
> >
> >> have the capacity to build networks and to convene stakeholders from a
> variety of sectors
> >
> > Depending on their profile (freedom of expression / Internet
> > governance), candidates must have a proven track-record in
> >
> >> human rights work (especially freedom of expression) at a national level
> >
> >> Internet governance and/or public policy, especially in national
> regulatory ICT processes
> >
> > The Application
> >
> > Qualified applicants are requested to express their interest by
> > filling the form.*
> >
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1TgPmSvZKiENV6zdsfs2hvRE0JtXNk22QOg7e2e2n7xE/viewform
> >
> > Only fully completed applications will be considered.
> >
> > *Your personal data will be transmitted using SSL encryption
> >
> > In case you have further questions regarding the application process,
> > please contact us by email at igf-academy [at] iRights [dot] info.
> >
>
> --
> *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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160524/07b82138/attachment.htm>

From wisdom.dk at gmail.com  Tue May 24 04:29:00 2016
From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 08:29:00 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Call for Fellowship to IGF 2016 - Africa and
 Asia
In-Reply-To: <CAPqXojJTGmAafEqwFWN62vYaRWXfv56rNeqN80nHGNrZTE1JEw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMokdMztx3VaYHY_tTzDvP63q-Aihz=zM_B-4UcPzjqXr51pFg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAU+vPHhuqxVX4K+QM6hiF2TL9b8XcWPTmRSdJ5Bn0u8TauX2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPqXojJTGmAafEqwFWN62vYaRWXfv56rNeqN80nHGNrZTE1JEw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAU+vPHtU4rvVcxjS1f2VraFnhMdSFGW+2KXTOowXDQkApXnZw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Lorena.

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016, Lorena Jaume-Palasi <lorena at collaboratory.de>
wrote:
> Dear Wisdom,
> our funding agreement restricts us to the countries mentioned. We are
hoping to increase the number of countries we can accept applications from.
But even in case we are successful this will not take effect before next
year.
> Kind regards,
> Lorena
> 2016-05-24 10:02 GMT+02:00 Wisdom Donkor <wisdom.dk at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Renata I can't see Ghana on the list
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2016, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> > Dear all
>> >
>> > Forwarding this opportunity related to IGF2016. Apply by 12th June
>> >
>> > Eligible to those in:
>> >
>> > Namibia,
>> > Republic of the Congo,
>> > Togo,
>> > South Africa,
>> > Myanmar,
>> > Sri Lanka,
>> > Bhutan,
>> > Bangladesh
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Message: 1
>> > Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 22:31:16 +0200
>> > From: lorena jaume <ljaume at hotmail.com>
>> > To: "igfregionals at intgovforum.org" <igfregionals at intgovforum.org>
>> > Subject: [Igfregionals] Call for Applications for Fellows from the
>> >         Global  South
>> >
>> > IGF Academy Fellowships
>> >
>> > iRights, in cooperation with the Association for Progressive
>> > Communications (APC) and LIRNEasia, with the financial support of the
>> > German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, are pleased
>> > to announce the call for applications for a fellowship to the Internet
>> > Governance Forum (IGF) Academy.
>> >
>> > We are looking for national champions in the field of freedom of
>> > expression and / or Internet governance. The fellowship will enable
>> > fellows to receive mentoring from internationally renowned experts in
>> > the Internet governance process, to participate in a regional workshop
>> > with champions from other countries, and to participate in the global
>> > Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Guadalajara, Mexico, from December
>> > 4th to 10th.
>> >
>> > About the academy
>> >
>> > The project seeks to foster and enhance freedom of expression on the
>> > Internet and inclusive and transparent national Internet governance
>> > and policy processes through the creation and/or consolidation of
>> > multistakeholder, national Internet Governance structures in Africa
>> > and Asia. To achieve this, the IGF Academy will bring together eight
>> > national champions from four African countries (Namibia, South Africa,
>> > Congo Brazzaville, Togo) and eight national champions from four Asian
>> > countries (Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Bangladesh).
>> >
>> > The IGF Academy Fellowships
>> >
>> > The fellowship will provide experienced individuals with the
opportunity to:
>> >
>> >> receive mentoring from internationally renowned Internet governance
practitioners
>> >
>> >> deepen their understanding of Internet governance issues and processes
>> >
>> >> expand their networks nationally, regionally and globally
>> >
>> >> develop a strategic roadmap to strengthen existing or initiate
inclusive national Internet Governance processes in their countries
>> >
>> >> peer learning with experts from their country, their region and
cross-regionally
>> >
>> >> participate in a regional training event
>> >
>> >> participate in a training event at the global IGF
>> >
>> >> participate in the global UN IGF 2016 in Guadalajara
>> >
>> >> be part of a (cross)regional and UN global dialogue on freedom of
expression and information preparing for the UN Internet Governance Forum
(IGF)
>> >
>> > Fellowships will be awarded through a competitive process.
>> > Applications will be accepted until the 12th of June 2016, 22:00 GMT.
>> >
>> > We encourage you to apply and forward the information about this
>> > programme to individuals who have a passion for freedom of expression
>> > and a broad understanding of a multistakeholder dialogue.
>> >
>> > The fellowship period runs from June – December 2016.
>> >
>> > Successful applicants will receive assistance and funding for travel,
>> > accommodation and meals to attend:
>> >
>> >> One training event in their region (3 days), dates and location to be
determined
>> >
>> >> The UN Internet Governance Forum, Guadalajara, Mexico and a one-day
pre-IGF workshop, December 4- 10 2016
>> >
>> > Criteria for selection
>> >
>> > Selection for the Fellowship is competitive. The selected candidates
>> > must provide a clear motivation for participating in the academy,
>> > including demonstrating a strong sense of what they intend to
>> > accomplish, how Internet Governance may help to foster freedom of
>> > expression in the long term in their home country and how they intend
>> > to apply the regional and global experiences from the trainings and
>> > the global UN IGF in their own national project.
>> >
>> > Two fellows per country will be selected, one of them experienced in
>> > the human rights field, the other with experience in Internet
>> > governance processes.
>> >
>> > In order to qualify applicants must be based in one of these countries:
>> >
>> > Namibia,
>> > Republic of the Congo,
>> > Togo,
>> > South Africa,
>> > Myanmar,
>> > Sri Lanka,
>> > Bhutan,
>> > Bangladesh
>> >
>> > and be able to demonstrate that they
>> >
>> >> are proficient in English (oral and written)
>> >
>> >> are committed to the use of the Internet as a driver for development,
democracy and human rights and Internet governance
>> >
>> >> are self-motivated and able to work independently
>> >
>> >> have fundraising and resource mobilisation skills at a national level
>> >
>> >> have the capacity to build networks and to convene stakeholders from
a variety of sectors
>> >
>> > Depending on their profile (freedom of expression / Internet
>> > governance), candidates must have a proven track-record in
>> >
>> >> human rights work (especially freedom of expression) at a national
level
>> >
>> >> Internet governance and/or public policy, especially in national
regulatory ICT processes
>> >
>> > The Application
>> >
>> > Qualified applicants are requested to express their interest by
>> > filling the form.*
>> >
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1TgPmSvZKiENV6zdsfs2hvRE0JtXNk22QOg7e2e2n7xE/viewform
>> >
>> > Only fully completed applications will be considered.
>> >
>> > *Your personal data will be transmitted using SSL encryption
>> >
>> > In case you have further questions regarding the application process,
>> > please contact us by email at igf-academy [at] iRights [dot] info.
>> >
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>

-- 
*WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)*
E-government and Open Government Data Platforms Specialist
National Information Technology Agency (NITA)/
Ghana Open Data Initiative Project.
ICANN Fellow / Member, UN IGF MAG Member, ISOC Member,
Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) Member, Diplo Foundation Member,
OGP Open Data WG Member, GODAN Memember, ITAG Member
Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com
wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh
wisdom.dk at gmail.com
Skype: wisdom_dk
facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk
Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh
www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160524/25a5123f/attachment.htm>

From roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca  Tue May 24 11:01:10 2016
From: roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:01:10 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] [GIGANET-MEMBERS] Fwd: Call for Applications for
 Fellows from the Global South
In-Reply-To: <57446B4F.1090300@wzb.eu>
References: <5743FFFB.2090506@apc.org>
 <57446B4F.1090300@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <D369D6D8.52B3D%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca>


>--------
>
>           IGF Academy Fellowships
>
>iRights, in cooperation with the Association for Progressive
>Communications (APC) and LIRNEasia, with the financial support of
>the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, are
>pleased to announce the call for applications for a fellowship to the
>Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Academy.
>
>We are looking for national champions in the field of freedom of
>expression and / or Internet governance. The fellowship will enable
>fellows to receive mentoring from internationally renowned experts in
>the Internet governance process, to participate in a regional workshop
>with champions from other countries, and to participate in the global
>Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Guadalajara, Mexico, from December
>4th to 10th.
>
>
>           About the academy
>
>The project seeks to foster and enhance freedom of expression on the
>Internet and inclusive and transparent national Internet governance and
>policy processes through the creation and/or consolidation of
>multistakeholder, national Internet Governance structures in Africa and
>Asia. To achieve this, the IGF Academy will bring together eight
>national champions from four African countries (Namibia, South Africa,
>Congo Brazzaville, Togo) and eight national champions from four Asian
>countries (Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Bangladesh).
>
>
>           The IGF Academy Fellowships
>
>The fellowship will provide experienced individuals with the opportunity
>to:
>
>> receive mentoring from internationally renowned Internet governance
>>practitioners
>
>> deepen their understanding of Internet governance issues and processes
>
>> expand their networks nationally, regionally and globally
>
>> develop a strategic roadmap to strengthen existing or initiate
>>inclusive national Internet Governance processes in their countries
>
>> peer learning with experts from their country, their region and
>>cross-regionally
>
>> participate in a regional training event
>
>> participate in a training event at the global IGF
>
>> participate in the global UN IGF 2016 in Guadalajara
>
>> be part of a (cross)regional and UN global dialogue on freedom of
>>expression and information preparing for the UN Internet Governance
>>Forum (IGF)
>
>Fellowships will be awarded through a competitive process. Applications
>will be accepted until the 12th of June 2016, 22:00 GMT.
>
>We encourage you to apply and forward the information about this
>programme to individuals who have a passion for freedom of expression
>and a broad understanding of a multistakeholder dialogue.
>
>The fellowship period runs from June � December 2016.
>
>Successful applicants will receive assistance and funding for travel,
>accommodation and meals to attend:
>
>> One training event in their region (3 days), dates and location to be
>determined
>
>> The UN Internet Governance Forum, Guadalajara, Mexico and a one-day
>>pre-IGF workshop, December 4- 10 2016
>
>
>           Criteria for selection
>
>Selection for the Fellowship is competitive. The selected candidates
>must provide a clear motivation for participating in the academy,
>including demonstrating a strong sense of what they intend to
>accomplish, how Internet Governance may help to foster freedom of
>expression in the long term in their home country and how they intend to
>apply the regional and global experiences from the trainings and the
>global UN IGF in their own national project.
>
>Two fellows per country will be selected, one of them experienced in the
>human rights field, the other with experience in Internet governance
>processes.
>
>In order to qualify applicants must be based in one of these countries:
>
>       * Namibia,
>       * Republic of the Congo,
>       * Togo,
>       * South Africa,
>       * Myanmar,
>       * Sri Lanka,
>       * Bhutan,
>       * Bangladesh
>
>and be able to demonstrate that they
>
>> are proficient in English (oral and written)
>
>> are committed to the use of the Internet as a driver for development,
>democracy and human rights and Internet governance
>
>> are self-motivated and able to work independently
>
>> have fundraising and resource mobilisation skills at a national level
>
>> have the capacity to build networks and to convene stakeholders from a
>variety of sectors
>
>Depending on their profile (freedom of expression / Internet
>governance), candidates must have a proven track-record in
>
>> human rights work (especially freedom of expression) at a national level
>
>> Internet governance and/or public policy, especially in national
>>regulatory ICT processes
>
>
>           The Application
>
>Qualified applicants are requested to express their interest by filling
>the form
><https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1TgPmSvZKiENV6zdsfs2hvRE0JtXNk22QOg7e2e2n
>7xE/viewform>.*
>
>*Only fully completed applications will be considered.*
>
>*Your personal data will be transmitted using SSL encryption
>
>In case you have further questions regarding the application process,
>please contact us by email at igf-academy [at] iRights [dot] info.
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Lorena Jaume-Palas��
>Cel. + 49 (0) 179 9119 578



From anriette at apc.org  Tue May 24 12:29:51 2016
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 18:29:51 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for Applications for Fellows from
 the Global South
In-Reply-To: <CAMitOTiTei5dZHJBPCaJG8bQAWFcOEkeCMHTuQF02x5DaeC3kg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DUB127-W14D94896241984152F8284D54E0@phx.gbl>
 <5743FFFB.2090506@apc.org>
 <CAHyAo0H6sDwTW17uy5Qdb_KK50G2RJ4xUVCghJiizZR5+af7hw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMitOTiTei5dZHJBPCaJG8bQAWFcOEkeCMHTuQF02x5DaeC3kg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5744817F.4030107@apc.org>

Dear Siva and Janvier

I can speak mostly for the selection of the African countries as APC is
leading on Africa, and LirneAsia leading on Asia.

But it is more or less the same for both I would say.

1) The project is intended to support emerging national processes. That
does not meant that 'consolidation' is not also part of it, but we
prioritised countries that do not already have well-established national
IGF processes.

2) We had to choose countries which qualify from the perspective of
German development cooperation as the funding is from them.

Note also that there is no funding for national activity at all. The
support is limited to capacity building and travel to the global IGF for
the 'fellows'.

Also note that by 'fellows' we definitely include people that have
experience and people of all ages qualify.

As for the future.. I really don't know. All I know is that we will
learn from this process and if the opportunity arises - as in another
suitable call for proposals from the German Federal Ministry for
Economic Cooperation and Development - we will build on/continue the
initiative.

I am copying Lorena Jaume-Palasi from iRights in case she wants to add more.

Thanks for the interest everyone.

Anriette


On 24/05/2016 18:11, Janvier Noulaye wrote:
> Thank you Anriette
> Just some quick questions about this programme, on the same direction as
> Siva.
> What are the criteria that led to the selection of these countries, or
> is it a deliberate choice?
> Will there another group of countries the next rounds?
> Or maybe this programme has a background which handles the framework of it?
> 
> 
> Warm regards,
> Janvier Ngnoualye
> 
> 2016-05-24 16:57 GMT+01:00 Sivasubramanian M <isolatednet at gmail.com
> <mailto:isolatednet at gmail.com>>:
> 
>     Anriette,
> 
>     Why are applicants from India NOT listed as eligible, please?
> 
>     Sivasubramanian M
> 
>     On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen
>     <anriette at apc.org <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
> 
>         Apologies for cross posting.
> 
>         Best to all
> 
>         Anriette
> 
> 
>                   IGF Academy Fellowships
> 
>         iRights, in cooperation with the Association for Progressive
>         Communications (APC) and LIRNEasia, with the financial support of
>         the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, are
>         pleased to announce the call for applications for a fellowship
>         to the
>         Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Academy.
> 
>         We are looking for national champions in the field of freedom of
>         expression and / or Internet governance. The fellowship will enable
>         fellows to receive mentoring from internationally renowned
>         experts in
>         the Internet governance process, to participate in a regional
>         workshop
>         with champions from other countries, and to participate in the
>         global
>         Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Guadalajara, Mexico, from
>         December
>         4th to 10th.
> 
> 
>                   About the academy
> 
>         The project seeks to foster and enhance freedom of expression on the
>         Internet and inclusive and transparent national Internet
>         governance and
>         policy processes through the creation and/or consolidation of
>         multistakeholder, national Internet Governance structures in
>         Africa and
>         Asia. To achieve this, the IGF Academy will bring together eight
>         national champions from four African countries (Namibia, South
>         Africa,
>         Congo Brazzaville, Togo) and eight national champions from four
>         Asian
>         countries (Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Bangladesh).
> 
> 
>                   The IGF Academy Fellowships
> 
>         The fellowship will provide experienced individuals with the
>         opportunity to:
> 
>         > receive mentoring from internationally renowned Internet
>         governance practitioners
> 
>         > deepen their understanding of Internet governance issues and
>         processes
> 
>         > expand their networks nationally, regionally and globally
> 
>         > develop a strategic roadmap to strengthen existing or initiate
>         inclusive national Internet Governance processes in their countries
> 
>         > peer learning with experts from their country, their region
>         and cross-regionally
> 
>         > participate in a regional training event
> 
>         > participate in a training event at the global IGF
> 
>         > participate in the global UN IGF 2016 in Guadalajara
> 
>         > be part of a (cross)regional and UN global dialogue on freedom
>         of expression and information preparing for the UN Internet
>         Governance Forum (IGF)
> 
>         Fellowships will be awarded through a competitive process.
>         Applications
>         will be accepted until the 12th of June 2016, 22:00 GMT.
> 
>         We encourage you to apply and forward the information about this
>         programme to individuals who have a passion for freedom of
>         expression
>         and a broad understanding of a multistakeholder dialogue.
> 
>         The fellowship period runs from June – December 2016.
> 
>         Successful applicants will receive assistance and funding for
>         travel,
>         accommodation and meals to attend:
> 
>         > One training event in their region (3 days), dates and
>         location to be
>         determined
> 
>         > The UN Internet Governance Forum, Guadalajara, Mexico and a
>         one-day pre-IGF workshop, December 4- 10 2016
> 
> 
>                   Criteria for selection
> 
>         Selection for the Fellowship is competitive. The selected candidates
>         must provide a clear motivation for participating in the academy,
>         including demonstrating a strong sense of what they intend to
>         accomplish, how Internet Governance may help to foster freedom of
>         expression in the long term in their home country and how they
>         intend to
>         apply the regional and global experiences from the trainings and the
>         global UN IGF in their own national project.
> 
>         Two fellows per country will be selected, one of them
>         experienced in the
>         human rights field, the other with experience in Internet governance
>         processes.
> 
>         In order to qualify applicants must be based in one of these
>         countries:
> 
>               * Namibia,
>               * Republic of the Congo,
>               * Togo,
>               * South Africa,
>               * Myanmar,
>               * Sri Lanka,
>               * Bhutan,
>               * Bangladesh
> 
>         and be able to demonstrate that they
> 
>         > are proficient in English (oral and written)
> 
>         > are committed to the use of the Internet as a driver for
>         development,
>         democracy and human rights and Internet governance
> 
>         > are self-motivated and able to work independently
> 
>         > have fundraising and resource mobilisation skills at a
>         national level
> 
>         > have the capacity to build networks and to convene
>         stakeholders from a
>         variety of sectors
> 
>         Depending on their profile (freedom of expression / Internet
>         governance), candidates must have a proven track-record in
> 
>         > human rights work (especially freedom of expression) at a
>         national level
> 
>         > Internet governance and/or public policy, especially in
>         national regulatory ICT processes
> 
> 
>                   The Application
> 
>         Qualified applicants are requested to express their interest by
>         filling
>         the form
>         <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1TgPmSvZKiENV6zdsfs2hvRE0JtXNk22QOg7e2e2n7xE/viewform>.*
> 
>         *Only fully completed applications will be considered.*
> 
>         *Your personal data will be transmitted using SSL encryption
> 
>         In case you have further questions regarding the application
>         process,
>         please contact us by email at igf-academy [at] iRights [dot] info.
> 
> 
> 
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         Lorena Jaume-Palasí
>         Cel. + 49 (0) 179 9119 578
>         <tel:%2B%2049%20%280%29%20179%209119%20578>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>              governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>         <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
> 
> 

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Anriette Esterhuysen
Executive Director
Association for Progressive Communications
anriette at apc.org
www.apc.org
IM: ae_apc

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Wed May 25 04:11:51 2016
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 13:41:51 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Letter on IANA Transition
Message-ID: <57455E47.7030408@cis-india.org>

Dear all,
I recently came across this:
http://bestbits.net/iana-transition/

However, I never saw its contents being discussed on this list.  Did I 
somehow fail to receive those messages?

I am quite concerned about the way the letter takes an uncritical global 
North approach to the IANA transition, and refuses to contend with the 
power dynamics at play.

> The undersigned civil society and public interest groups believe that the IANA transition is a positive development for the Domain Name System and for the Internet at large, and that the process to develop the transition proposal has been a successful expression of multistakeholder approaches to Internet decision-making.

I have pointed out in the past that this IANA transition process fails 
the requirements of the NetMundial Statement, and was primarily led by 
corporate interests in the US, and men:
http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-multistakeholder-community-neither-global-nor-multistakeholder

Regards,
Pranesh

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
https://twitter.com/pranesh

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160525/09e01426/attachment.sig>

From mshears at cdt.org  Wed May 25 05:10:22 2016
From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:10:22 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Letter on IANA Transition
In-Reply-To: <57455E47.7030408@cis-india.org>
References: <57455E47.7030408@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <e789987b-0fa5-c92a-9db7-5afbe5fc1366@cdt.org>

Hi Pranesh, all

This letter was an effort by a small number of US and intl civil society 
groups to address some unfortunate characterizations and spin related to 
human rights and free expression issues associated with the IANA 
Transition that have arisen over the past month in the media and on 
Capitol Hill.

The letter was intended to be available for the Senate hearing yesterday 
and to be entered in the record.  It addresses a number of concerns that 
were raised in the hearing.  The statement was only finalized Monday night.

I understand that you have concerns about the power dynamics at play in 
the IANA transition but that is not the purpose of this letter.

It is up on the BestBits site for sign on.   For those who agree with 
the contents of the letter I encourage you to sign up.

Thanks!

Matthew


On 5/25/2016 9:11 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
> Dear all,
> I recently came across this:
> http://bestbits.net/iana-transition/
>
> However, I never saw its contents being discussed on this list. Did I 
> somehow fail to receive those messages?
>
> I am quite concerned about the way the letter takes an uncritical 
> global North approach to the IANA transition, and refuses to contend 
> with the power dynamics at play.
>
>> The undersigned civil society and public interest groups believe that 
>> the IANA transition is a positive development for the Domain Name 
>> System and for the Internet at large, and that the process to develop 
>> the transition proposal has been a successful expression of 
>> multistakeholder approaches to Internet decision-making.
>
> I have pointed out in the past that this IANA transition process fails 
> the requirements of the NetMundial Statement, and was primarily led by 
> corporate interests in the US, and men:
> http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-multistakeholder-community-neither-global-nor-multistakeholder 
>
>
> Regards,
> Pranesh
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160525/c68124ad/attachment.htm>

From roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca  Tue May  3 12:06:42 2016
From: roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 11:06:42 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Call for Chapters: Networks, Movements & Technopolitics
 in Latin America: Critical Analysis and Current Challenges
Message-ID: <D34E3686.5181B%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca>

Might be of interest to some...



>BOOK: Networks, Movements & Technopolitics in Latin America: Critical
>Analysis and Current Challenges
><http://www.compoliticas.org/web/images/stories/CFP-%20Networks,%20Movemen
>ts%20&%20Technopolitics%20in%20Latin%20America-%20Critical%20Analysis%20an
>d%20Current%20Challenges.pdf>
>Edit by Francisco Sierra Caballero (CIESPAL) and Tommaso Gravante (UNAM)
>
>This publication aims to: firstly, present a critical reflection on the
>different scenarios and challenges that are appearing in Latin America
>regarding the power relationships that are produced based on new digital
>technologies and the social processes of which they are part; secondly,
>to establish a dialogue with researchers in other places who have
>critically analysed the use and application of technology and digital
>culture for the active participation of citizenship in decision-making,
>exchange and social solidarity processes, such as the Arab Spring, the
>Occupy movement in the USA, protests against the economic crisis in
>Europe and protests for a broader democratic arena in Hong Kong,
>Singapore, Taiwan and Japan, among others.
>
>    We therefore invite academics and researchers to contribute to one
>of the topic areas discussed in this book:
>
>1.     Technopolitics: a theoretical framework. In this first topic
>area, we are interested in and propose, based on an interpretation of
>Communicology of the South and together with researchers from different
>countries, a theoretical framework that makes it possible to
>conceptualise the different mediation processes that emerge between
>cyberdemocracy and the emancipation practices of new social movements in
>Latin America.
>
>2.     Dissident technopolitics practices in Latin America: critical
>analysis and current challenges. Taking Latin American experiences as a
>starting point, in this second topic area we are interested in
>reflecting on the practices and experiences that are, autonomously and
>using self-management, creating other identities and social spaces on
>the margins of and against the neoliberal system through the use of
>digital technology. We are interested in the dissenting experiences in
>Latin America whose practices are used not only to hack and make pirate
>copies of hardware and software in order to make their own technologies
>and liberating tools, but also to hack the concept of the body, gender,
>maternity, sexuality, health, care, education, knowledge, nature,
>spirituality, etc. They are experiences in which technologies are a
>pretext for rethinking and collectively rebuilding on the margins of and
>outside the state. There is a particular emphasis on collective writing
>about common culture, assets and knowledge, as well as successes,
>failures and challenges.
>
>INFORMATION FOR AUTHORS
>
>The book will be edited by Francisco Sierra Caballero and Tommaso
>Gravante. Anyone who wishes to collaborate in the publication can submit
>their proposal by sending an abstract in English, which must be between
>800 and 1500 words in length, by 1 July 2016.
>
>Authors will be notified of the proposals chosen by 1 August 2016.
>
>The full, original text should have a maximum length of 8,000 words
>(including bibliography, notes and tables) for theoretical texts and
>6,000 words (including bibliography, notes and tables) for case studies.
>The full text, in UK English, should be sent by 1 November 2016.
>
>
>SUBMISSION
>
>Proposals and full texts should be sent to the book¹s two editors: Dr.
>Francisco SIERRA CABALLERO (fcompoliticas at gmail.com
><mailto:fcompoliticas at gmail.com>) and Dr. Tommaso GRAVANTE
>(t.gravante at gmail.com).
>
>Call (PDF 
><http://www.compoliticas.org/web/images/stories/CFP-%20Networks,%20Movemen
>ts%20&%20Technopolitics%20in%20Latin%20America-%20Critical%20Analysis%20an
>d%20Current%20Challenges.pdf>)
>
>Francisco Sierra Caballero
>
>Professor of Communication Theory. Director of the International Centre
>for Advanced Studies in Communications for Latin America (CIESPAL),
>Quito. Director of the Interdisciplinary Group of Studies in
>Communication, Politics and Social Change (www.compoliticas.org),
>University of Seville.
>
>
>Tommaso Gravante
>
>PhD in Politics. Postdoctoral Fellow at UNAM, Mexico. Researcher of the
>Interdisciplinary Group of Studies in Communication, Politics and Social
>Change (COMPOLITICAS).
>---------------



From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Wed May 25 07:47:12 2016
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 17:17:12 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Letter on IANA Transition
In-Reply-To: <e789987b-0fa5-c92a-9db7-5afbe5fc1366@cdt.org>
References: <57455E47.7030408@cis-india.org> <e789987b-0fa5-c92a-9db7-5afbe5fc1366@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHA-tT_eck4zOx_T2bjVQCXUg7hYdY30TzxtkwfB5N1cWg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Matthew,

I share Pranesh's concerns about how this was handled. I appreciate tight
deadlines sometimes complicate matters, but if the letter was posted on the
site, shouldn't at least an email have been sent to the entire group to
flag the existence of the letter after it was finalised? Why is it
circulating on twitter, but not here?

As a refresher for everyone, I'm posting the BB rules regarding statements
below this email (they can also be found at
http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/). Please note that they say: "we
would seldom agree to post a text that is final and that only a few groups
from one part of the world drafted". They also note that if the "process
and timetable have not been complied with", this is an acceptable ground
for opposition to the statement being put up on Best Bits.

Clearly, Pranesh is completely in his right to raise the concerns that he
does. It would be good to hear opinions from others on this as well.

Thanks and best regards,
Anja

*Producing Best Bits Statements*

   1. Statements are not issued by Best Bits but by individual endorsers,
   and public statements about the statement should be worded with care to
   avoid suggesting otherwise.
   2. In exceptional cases where a large proportion of participants are
   physically present or otherwise actively express their views about a
   statement, and it appears that it enjoys full consensus of those
   participants, they may resolve that it be issued as a statement “of the
   Best Bits network.
   3. Anyone may propose posting a statement (eg. joint letter, submission)
   be posted to the Best Bits website. Any such proposal should be accompanied
   by either:
      - a proposed text, accompanied by a description of the process by
      which it was drafted and a proposed process and timetable for finalising
      and posting it for endorsement; or
      - a proposed process and timetable for drafting, finalising and
      posting the text for endorsement.
   4. The process and timetable may vary depending on context and urgency,
   but in general:
      - the text should be finalised by a fluid working group that is open
      to civil society participants from the main Best Bits mailing list (but
      which might work on a separate mailing list, which could be closed);
      - the timescale for drafting the text should normally be at least 48
      hours;
      - the draft text should normally be posted to the main Best Bits
      mailing list for comment at least another 48 hours before being posted to
      the website;
      - there should be an adequate balance between inclusiveness of the
      initial drafting process, and the finality of the text. (In
other words, we
      would seldom agree to post a text that is final and that only a
few groups
      from one part of the world drafted.)
   5. Objections to the posting of a text for endorsement may be made at
   the stage of its initial proposal, or at a later stage when the draft text
   is posted for comment, and can be made both on strategic and on substantive
   grounds. Possible grounds for opposition include:
      - The statement is not on-topic for Best Bits.
      - Any proposed statement should not go against the Best Bits
      principles and goals but should in fact further those.
      - The process and timetable are not realistic, or are not inclusive
      enough.
      - The process and timetable have not been complied with.
   6. However, consensus is not required in order for a text to be posted.
   If significant opposition to the posting of the text has been voiced on the
   main list and cannot be resolved, the steering committee may make a final
   decision about whether or not to post the statement, in consultation with
   at least one proponent of the text and at least one opponent.



On 25 May 2016 at 14:40, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

> Hi Pranesh, all
>
> This letter was an effort by a small number of US and intl civil society
> groups to address some unfortunate characterizations and spin related to
> human rights and free expression issues associated with the IANA Transition
> that have arisen over the past month in the media and on Capitol Hill.
>
> The letter was intended to be available for the Senate hearing yesterday
> and to be entered in the record.  It addresses a number of concerns that
> were raised in the hearing.  The statement was only finalized Monday
> night.
>
> I understand that you have concerns about the power dynamics at play in
> the IANA transition but that is not the purpose of this letter.
>
> It is up on the BestBits site for sign on.   For those who agree with the
> contents of the letter I encourage you to sign up.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Matthew
>
> On 5/25/2016 9:11 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
>
> Dear all,
> I recently came across this:
> http://bestbits.net/iana-transition/
>
> However, I never saw its contents being discussed on this list.  Did I
> somehow fail to receive those messages?
>
> I am quite concerned about the way the letter takes an uncritical global
> North approach to the IANA transition, and refuses to contend with the
> power dynamics at play.
>
> The undersigned civil society and public interest groups believe that the
> IANA transition is a positive development for the Domain Name System and
> for the Internet at large, and that the process to develop the transition
> proposal has been a successful expression of multistakeholder approaches to
> Internet decision-making.
>
>
> I have pointed out in the past that this IANA transition process fails the
> requirements of the NetMundial Statement, and was primarily led by
> corporate interests in the US, and men:
>
> http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-multistakeholder-community-neither-global-nor-multistakeholder
>
> Regards,
> Pranesh
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160525/64531adc/attachment.htm>

From gabriel at isoc-gauteng.org.za  Wed May 25 08:06:15 2016
From: gabriel at isoc-gauteng.org.za (Gabriel Ramokotjo)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 14:06:15 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Letter on IANA Transition
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHA-tT_eck4zOx_T2bjVQCXUg7hYdY30TzxtkwfB5N1cWg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57455E47.7030408@cis-india.org>
	<e789987b-0fa5-c92a-9db7-5afbe5fc1366@cdt.org>
	<CAJqNAHA-tT_eck4zOx_T2bjVQCXUg7hYdY30TzxtkwfB5N1cWg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACuy083yqBAQRTWAtNwUd=mSpak3pXs-p+rmJGqrCjccC+ickg@mail.gmail.com>

+1 Anja and Pranesh.

Regards
Gabriel

Gabriel Ramokotjo
President
Internet Society Gauteng Chapter
083 742 2005
www.isoc-gauteng.org.za

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>
wrote:

> Hi Matthew,
>
> I share Pranesh's concerns about how this was handled. I appreciate tight
> deadlines sometimes complicate matters, but if the letter was posted on the
> site, shouldn't at least an email have been sent to the entire group to
> flag the existence of the letter after it was finalised? Why is it
> circulating on twitter, but not here?
>
> As a refresher for everyone, I'm posting the BB rules regarding statements
> below this email (they can also be found at
> http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/). Please note that they say:
> "we would seldom agree to post a text that is final and that only a few
> groups from one part of the world drafted". They also note that if the
> "process and timetable have not been complied with", this is an acceptable
> ground for opposition to the statement being put up on Best Bits.
>
> Clearly, Pranesh is completely in his right to raise the concerns that he
> does. It would be good to hear opinions from others on this as well.
>
> Thanks and best regards,
> Anja
>
> *Producing Best Bits Statements*
>
>    1. Statements are not issued by Best Bits but by individual endorsers,
>    and public statements about the statement should be worded with care to
>    avoid suggesting otherwise.
>    2. In exceptional cases where a large proportion of participants are
>    physically present or otherwise actively express their views about a
>    statement, and it appears that it enjoys full consensus of those
>    participants, they may resolve that it be issued as a statement “of the
>    Best Bits network.
>    3. Anyone may propose posting a statement (eg. joint letter,
>    submission) be posted to the Best Bits website. Any such proposal should be
>    accompanied by either:
>       - a proposed text, accompanied by a description of the process by
>       which it was drafted and a proposed process and timetable for finalising
>       and posting it for endorsement; or
>       - a proposed process and timetable for drafting, finalising and
>       posting the text for endorsement.
>    4. The process and timetable may vary depending on context and
>    urgency, but in general:
>       - the text should be finalised by a fluid working group that is
>       open to civil society participants from the main Best Bits mailing list
>       (but which might work on a separate mailing list, which could be closed);
>       - the timescale for drafting the text should normally be at least
>       48 hours;
>       - the draft text should normally be posted to the main Best Bits
>       mailing list for comment at least another 48 hours before being posted to
>       the website;
>       - there should be an adequate balance between inclusiveness of the
>       initial drafting process, and the finality of the text. (In other words, we
>       would seldom agree to post a text that is final and that only a few groups
>       from one part of the world drafted.)
>    5. Objections to the posting of a text for endorsement may be made at
>    the stage of its initial proposal, or at a later stage when the draft text
>    is posted for comment, and can be made both on strategic and on substantive
>    grounds. Possible grounds for opposition include:
>       - The statement is not on-topic for Best Bits.
>       - Any proposed statement should not go against the Best Bits
>       principles and goals but should in fact further those.
>       - The process and timetable are not realistic, or are not inclusive
>       enough.
>       - The process and timetable have not been complied with.
>    6. However, consensus is not required in order for a text to be
>    posted. If significant opposition to the posting of the text has been
>    voiced on the main list and cannot be resolved, the steering committee may
>    make a final decision about whether or not to post the statement, in
>    consultation with at least one proponent of the text and at least one
>    opponent.
>
>
>
> On 25 May 2016 at 14:40, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Pranesh, all
>>
>> This letter was an effort by a small number of US and intl civil society
>> groups to address some unfortunate characterizations and spin related to
>> human rights and free expression issues associated with the IANA Transition
>> that have arisen over the past month in the media and on Capitol Hill.
>>
>> The letter was intended to be available for the Senate hearing yesterday
>> and to be entered in the record.  It addresses a number of concerns that
>> were raised in the hearing.  The statement was only finalized Monday
>> night.
>>
>> I understand that you have concerns about the power dynamics at play in
>> the IANA transition but that is not the purpose of this letter.
>>
>> It is up on the BestBits site for sign on.   For those who agree with the
>> contents of the letter I encourage you to sign up.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> On 5/25/2016 9:11 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>> I recently came across this:
>> http://bestbits.net/iana-transition/
>>
>> However, I never saw its contents being discussed on this list.  Did I
>> somehow fail to receive those messages?
>>
>> I am quite concerned about the way the letter takes an uncritical global
>> North approach to the IANA transition, and refuses to contend with the
>> power dynamics at play.
>>
>> The undersigned civil society and public interest groups believe that the
>> IANA transition is a positive development for the Domain Name System and
>> for the Internet at large, and that the process to develop the transition
>> proposal has been a successful expression of multistakeholder approaches to
>> Internet decision-making.
>>
>>
>> I have pointed out in the past that this IANA transition process fails
>> the requirements of the NetMundial Statement, and was primarily led by
>> corporate interests in the US, and men:
>>
>> http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-multistakeholder-community-neither-global-nor-multistakeholder
>>
>> Regards,
>> Pranesh
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160525/0b374168/attachment.htm>

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Wed May 25 09:03:00 2016
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 09:03:00 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Letter on IANA Transition
In-Reply-To: <57455E47.7030408@cis-india.org>
References: <57455E47.7030408@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN7uCObG+eU0pge=+NV8shawhKxKa6O2u9aGV7TEeH8Odw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Pranesh,
I also have a concern - serious at least in my view. The third paragraph of
the statement begins with this sentence "When the Internet community came
together in Marrakech in March 2016 to endorse and forward the IANA
transition package to NTIA, there was consensus that the product of two
years of challenging hard work was robust and credible and met the key NTIA
criteria." I have noticed, and questioned publicly, the spreading "loose"
use of the word "community" which is leading, again in my view, to a rather
dangerous conflation of concepts. To my mind it is incorrect to suggest
that the ICANN community, which met in Marrakech in March, is the same
thing as the internet community of which the ICANN community is a subset.
This - deliberately? - confusing use of the word "community" has been going
on for several years.
I wonder does anyone else consider it to be a matter for concern?
Best wishes
Deirdre

On 25 May 2016 at 04:11, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
> I recently came across this:
> http://bestbits.net/iana-transition/
>
> However, I never saw its contents being discussed on this list.  Did I
> somehow fail to receive those messages?
>
> I am quite concerned about the way the letter takes an uncritical global
> North approach to the IANA transition, and refuses to contend with the
> power dynamics at play.
>
> The undersigned civil society and public interest groups believe that the
>> IANA transition is a positive development for the Domain Name System and
>> for the Internet at large, and that the process to develop the transition
>> proposal has been a successful expression of multistakeholder approaches to
>> Internet decision-making.
>>
>
> I have pointed out in the past that this IANA transition process fails the
> requirements of the NetMundial Statement, and was primarily led by
> corporate interests in the US, and men:
>
> http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-multistakeholder-community-neither-global-nor-multistakeholder
>
> Regards,
> Pranesh
>
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
> sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
> https://twitter.com/pranesh
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160525/0704d42d/attachment.htm>

From george.sadowsky at gmail.com  Wed May 25 09:13:09 2016
From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 09:13:09 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Letter on IANA Transition
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN7uCObG+eU0pge=+NV8shawhKxKa6O2u9aGV7TEeH8Odw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57455E47.7030408@cis-india.org> <CAMz5XN7uCObG+eU0pge=+NV8shawhKxKa6O2u9aGV7TEeH8Odw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <651D0D35-FCC5-4E96-863E-700D4CF6595B@gmail.com>

Independent of the discussion that is going on here, I strongly share Deirdre's comment about the term "community."  It is often used, without appropriate qualification, in different ways and on the same discussion, so that it can be and often is interpreted in non-consistent ways.

Even the phrase 'the ICANN community' is used in disturbingly vague ways.  Is it the formal apparatus of supporting organizations and advisory committees?  Is it the people who are active in policy discussions?  Is it everyone that comes to ICANN meetings?  Is it all registrants?  

It's not clear what to do about this, except to insist upon adequate qualification of the word whenever it is used.

This problem bleeds over into discussions of what is "the global public interest," and more to the point, who defines it.  In particular, who defines the global public interest with respect to ICANN's mission?  That's a larger discussion that I'm attempting to launch here, but it's a very important question for at least a part of Internet governance.

George



> On May 25, 2016, at 9:03 AM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Pranesh,
> I also have a concern - serious at least in my view. The third paragraph of the statement begins with this sentence "When the Internet community came together in Marrakech in March 2016 to endorse and forward the IANA transition package to NTIA, there was consensus that the product of two years of challenging hard work was robust and credible and met the key NTIA criteria." I have noticed, and questioned publicly, the spreading "loose" use of the word "community" which is leading, again in my view, to a rather dangerous conflation of concepts. To my mind it is incorrect to suggest that the ICANN community, which met in Marrakech in March, is the same thing as the internet community of which the ICANN community is a subset. This - deliberately? - confusing use of the word "community" has been going on for several years.
> I wonder does anyone else consider it to be a matter for concern?
> Best wishes
> Deirdre
> 
> On 25 May 2016 at 04:11, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org <mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org>> wrote:
> Dear all,
> I recently came across this:
> http://bestbits.net/iana-transition/ <http://bestbits.net/iana-transition/>
> 
> However, I never saw its contents being discussed on this list.  Did I somehow fail to receive those messages?
> 
> I am quite concerned about the way the letter takes an uncritical global North approach to the IANA transition, and refuses to contend with the power dynamics at play.
> 
> The undersigned civil society and public interest groups believe that the IANA transition is a positive development for the Domain Name System and for the Internet at large, and that the process to develop the transition proposal has been a successful expression of multistakeholder approaches to Internet decision-making.
> 
> I have pointed out in the past that this IANA transition process fails the requirements of the NetMundial Statement, and was primarily led by corporate interests in the US, and men:
> http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-multistakeholder-community-neither-global-nor-multistakeholder <http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-multistakeholder-community-neither-global-nor-multistakeholder>
> 
> Regards,
> Pranesh
> 
> -- 
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> http://cis-india.org <http://cis-india.org/> | tel:+91 80 40926283 <tel:%2B91%2080%2040926283>
> sip:pranesh at ostel.co <mailto:sip%3Apranesh at ostel.co> | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org <mailto:xmpp%3Apranesh at cis-india.org>
> https://twitter.com/pranesh <https://twitter.com/pranesh>
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160525/70488e2f/attachment.htm>

From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Wed May 25 09:15:09 2016
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 14:15:09 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Letter on IANA Transition
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN7uCObG+eU0pge=+NV8shawhKxKa6O2u9aGV7TEeH8Odw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57455E47.7030408@cis-india.org>
	<CAMz5XN7uCObG+eU0pge=+NV8shawhKxKa6O2u9aGV7TEeH8Odw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6gTDwhiVWuXY46WYEvUVbf9yYw9bi8v78M+sN9vSzPxTA@mail.gmail.com>

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 25 May 2016 14:03, "Deirdre Williams" <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
To my mind it is incorrect to suggest that the ICANN community, which met
in Marrakech in March, is the same thing as the internet community of which
the ICANN community is a subset.
>
SO: Yes that's right; the ICANN community is part of the "internet
community" but as to the March meeting, and the entire transition proposal
development process, it was the "internet community" developing the
proposal but facilitated by ICANN who was assigned the task by NTIA.

>
This - deliberately? - confusing use of the word "community" has been going
on for several years.
>

SO: The definition of "community" in itself is not confusing any additional
qualifying word to it could be confusing.

Regards
> I wonder does anyone else consider it to be a matter for concern?
> Best wishes
> Deirdre
>
> On 25 May 2016 at 04:11, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>> I recently came across this:
>> http://bestbits.net/iana-transition/
>>
>> However, I never saw its contents being discussed on this list.  Did I
somehow fail to receive those messages?
>>
>> I am quite concerned about the way the letter takes an uncritical global
North approach to the IANA transition, and refuses to contend with the
power dynamics at play.
>>
>>> The undersigned civil society and public interest groups believe that
the IANA transition is a positive development for the Domain Name System
and for the Internet at large, and that the process to develop the
transition proposal has been a successful expression of multistakeholder
approaches to Internet decision-making.
>>
>>
>> I have pointed out in the past that this IANA transition process fails
the requirements of the NetMundial Statement, and was primarily led by
corporate interests in the US, and men:
>>
http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-multistakeholder-community-neither-global-nor-multistakeholder
>>
>> Regards,
>> Pranesh
>>
>> --
>> Pranesh Prakash
>> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
>> http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
>> sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
>> https://twitter.com/pranesh
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160525/dbeaefdc/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed May 25 09:22:21 2016
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 18:52:21 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Letter on IANA Transition
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN7uCObG+eU0pge=+NV8shawhKxKa6O2u9aGV7TEeH8Odw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57455E47.7030408@cis-india.org>
 <CAMz5XN7uCObG+eU0pge=+NV8shawhKxKa6O2u9aGV7TEeH8Odw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5745A70D.3050207@itforchange.net>



On Wednesday 25 May 2016 06:33 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
> Dear Pranesh,
> I also have a concern - serious at least in my view. The third
> paragraph of the statement begins with this sentence "When the
> Internet community came together in Marrakech in March 2016 to endorse
> and forward the IANA transition package to NTIA, there was consensus
> that the product of two years of challenging hard work was robust and
> credible and met the key NTIA criteria."I have noticed, and questioned
> publicly, the spreading "loose" use of the word "community" which is
> leading, again in my view, to a rather dangerous conflation of
> concepts. To my mind it is incorrect to suggest that the ICANN
> community, which met in Marrakech in March, is the same thing as the
> internet community of which the ICANN community is a subset. This -
> deliberately? - confusing use of the word "community" has been going
> on for several years.
> I wonder does anyone else consider it to be a matter for concern?

The problem with the abuse of the term 'community' is not limited to a
particular para of this CS letter -- it is endemic to the ICANN
structure, including very prominently in the IANA transition process.
The US gov conditions for IANA transition spoke of transition of
oversight to global multi-stakeholder community .... It then somehow
become 'internet community' and then even narrower 'icann community'.
All these concepts get used inter-changeably, as per convenience of
making some point or the other.   I have often written to the CCWG list
(the WG looking at ICANN accountability) asking people to define what
exactly is considered 'community' here, especially when  'community' or
'empowered community' is actually entering the legal language around
ICANN. And this question was addressed to the group which otherwise, in
drafting transition documents , has been hair splitting over each word,
concept and term for precise meaning.... The group never ever replies to
this question.

So, Deirdre, you are referring to what is a very foundational problem --
is community everyone who is interested in Internet gov and policies
being impacted by it - but then why it is not 'public', the traditional
political/ policy/ gov term.... But if this community is a smaller
subset of the 'public', what boundaries or conditions define it? you
wont find any response answer, bec any response would open up the
question of political legitimacy of the ICANN structure... 'community'
is a multistakeholderist term of art that covers for 'public' because
they dont like the 'public' term... Why they dont like it is something
that I would leave it for you and others to guess :)

parminder



> Best wishes
> Deirdre
>
> On 25 May 2016 at 04:11, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org
> <mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org>> wrote:
>
>     Dear all,
>     I recently came across this:
>     http://bestbits.net/iana-transition/
>
>     However, I never saw its contents being discussed on this list. 
>     Did I somehow fail to receive those messages?
>
>     I am quite concerned about the way the letter takes an uncritical
>     global North approach to the IANA transition, and refuses to
>     contend with the power dynamics at play.
>
>         The undersigned civil society and public interest groups
>         believe that the IANA transition is a positive development for
>         the Domain Name System and for the Internet at large, and that
>         the process to develop the transition proposal has been a
>         successful expression of multistakeholder approaches to
>         Internet decision-making.
>
>
>     I have pointed out in the past that this IANA transition process
>     fails the requirements of the NetMundial Statement, and was
>     primarily led by corporate interests in the US, and men:
>     http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-multistakeholder-community-neither-global-nor-multistakeholder
>
>     Regards,
>     Pranesh
>
>     -- 
>     Pranesh Prakash
>     Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
>     http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 <tel:%2B91%2080%2040926283>
>     sip:pranesh at ostel.co <mailto:sip%3Apranesh at ostel.co> |
>     xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org <mailto:xmpp%3Apranesh at cis-india.org>
>     https://twitter.com/pranesh
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160525/a55de1d1/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed May 25 09:27:35 2016
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 18:57:35 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Letter on IANA Transition
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6gTDwhiVWuXY46WYEvUVbf9yYw9bi8v78M+sN9vSzPxTA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57455E47.7030408@cis-india.org>
 <CAMz5XN7uCObG+eU0pge=+NV8shawhKxKa6O2u9aGV7TEeH8Odw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD_dc6gTDwhiVWuXY46WYEvUVbf9yYw9bi8v78M+sN9vSzPxTA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5745A847.2040508@itforchange.net>



On Wednesday 25 May 2016 06:45 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> On 25 May 2016 14:03, "Deirdre Williams" <williams.deirdre at gmail.com
> <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com>> wrote:
> To my mind it is incorrect to suggest that the ICANN community, which
> met in Marrakech in March, is the same thing as the internet community
> of which the ICANN community is a subset.
> >
> SO: Yes that's right; the ICANN community is part of the "internet
> community" but as to the March meeting, and the entire transition
> proposal development process, it was the "internet community"
> developing the proposal but facilitated by ICANN who was assigned the
> task by NTIA.
>

This is promising. Seun, you seem to have a good idea of what is
'Internet community' (also meanwhile, what is ICANN community, so that
we too could differentiate). Can you please share.... thanks, parminder

> >
> This - deliberately? - confusing use of the word "community" has been
> going on for several years.
> >
>
> SO: The definition of "community" in itself is not confusing any
> additional qualifying word to it could be confusing.
>
> Regards
> > I wonder does anyone else consider it to be a matter for concern?
> > Best wishes
> > Deirdre
> >
> > On 25 May 2016 at 04:11, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org
> <mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear all,
> >> I recently came across this:
> >> http://bestbits.net/iana-transition/
> >>
> >> However, I never saw its contents being discussed on this list. 
> Did I somehow fail to receive those messages?
> >>
> >> I am quite concerned about the way the letter takes an uncritical
> global North approach to the IANA transition, and refuses to contend
> with the power dynamics at play.
> >>
> >>> The undersigned civil society and public interest groups believe
> that the IANA transition is a positive development for the Domain Name
> System and for the Internet at large, and that the process to develop
> the transition proposal has been a successful expression of
> multistakeholder approaches to Internet decision-making.
> >>
> >>
> >> I have pointed out in the past that this IANA transition process
> fails the requirements of the NetMundial Statement, and was primarily
> led by corporate interests in the US, and men:
> >>
> http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-multistakeholder-community-neither-global-nor-multistakeholder
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Pranesh
> >>
> >> --
> >> Pranesh Prakash
> >> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> >> http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
> >> sip:pranesh at ostel.co <mailto:sip%3Apranesh at ostel.co> |
> xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org <mailto:xmpp%3Apranesh at cis-india.org>
> >> https://twitter.com/pranesh
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160525/06b56630/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Wed May 25 09:59:46 2016
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 06:59:46 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Letter on IANA Transition
In-Reply-To: <57455E47.7030408@cis-india.org>
References: <57455E47.7030408@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <88604c93-25be-4b1a-475b-cf56fa8c1838@eff.org>

On 25/05/2016 1:11 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:

> Dear all,
> I recently came across this:
> http://bestbits.net/iana-transition/
>
> However, I never saw its contents being discussed on this list.  Did I
> somehow fail to receive those messages?

I agree there was a shortfall in the process here - the drafting should
have come to the list before the text was finalised but I myself didn't
know that this was going on until it was ready and was approached to put
it up online urgently that same day (and two hours later I was
questioned why I hadn't put it up already!).  I understand that there
are sometimes cases of urgency where it's impossible to consult, but I
don't know why that was the case here.

On the other hand, all collectively have to take responsibility for the
decision made at the last Best Bits meeting that we were no longer going
to have a steering committee to make these calls, leaving the platform
essentially as Matthew has presented it in his last message - that it
will be just loosely administered as a coordinating platform for anyone
who wants to use it, and those who wish to endorse a joint statement can
do so while those who don't wish to, won't.

I would really (really!) welcome others who wish to come on board to
help to administer the Best Bits platform, even though it is no longer
as a formal steering committee.  We can't have it both ways - nobody
wishing to volunteer, and then at the same time complaining that there
is no gatekeeping of content.  So please do contact me if you can help out.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160525/b9f0dcab/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160525/b9f0dcab/attachment.sig>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed May 25 10:31:39 2016
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 07:31:39 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Letter on IANA Transition
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN7uCObG+eU0pge=+NV8shawhKxKa6O2u9aGV7TEeH8Odw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57455E47.7030408@cis-india.org> <CAMz5XN7uCObG+eU0pge=+NV8shawhKxKa6O2u9aGV7TEeH8Odw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <013e01d1b692$26e3aa70$74aaff50$@gmail.com>

Well me for one… :)

 

https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/is-there-a-global-internet-community/

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Deirdre Williams
Sent: May 25, 2016 6:03 AM
To: Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>
Cc: BestBits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Civil Society Letter on IANA Transition

 

Dear Pranesh,

I also have a concern - serious at least in my view. The third paragraph of the statement begins with this sentence "When the Internet community came together in Marrakech in March 2016 to endorse and forward the IANA transition package to NTIA, there was consensus that the product of two years of challenging hard work was robust and credible and met the key NTIA criteria." I have noticed, and questioned publicly, the spreading "loose" use of the word "community" which is leading, again in my view, to a rather dangerous conflation of concepts. To my mind it is incorrect to suggest that the ICANN community, which met in Marrakech in March, is the same thing as the internet community of which the ICANN community is a subset. This - deliberately? - confusing use of the word "community" has been going on for several years.

I wonder does anyone else consider it to be a matter for concern?

Best wishes

Deirdre

 

On 25 May 2016 at 04:11, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org <mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org> > wrote:

Dear all,
I recently came across this:
http://bestbits.net/iana-transition/

However, I never saw its contents being discussed on this list.  Did I somehow fail to receive those messages?

I am quite concerned about the way the letter takes an uncritical global North approach to the IANA transition, and refuses to contend with the power dynamics at play.

The undersigned civil society and public interest groups believe that the IANA transition is a positive development for the Domain Name System and for the Internet at large, and that the process to develop the transition proposal has been a successful expression of multistakeholder approaches to Internet decision-making.


I have pointed out in the past that this IANA transition process fails the requirements of the NetMundial Statement, and was primarily led by corporate interests in the US, and men:
http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-multistakeholder-community-neither-global-nor-multistakeholder

Regards,
Pranesh

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 <tel:%2B91%2080%2040926283> 
sip:pranesh at ostel.co <mailto:sip%3Apranesh at ostel.co>  | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org <mailto:xmpp%3Apranesh at cis-india.org> 
https://twitter.com/pranesh


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160525/d24dad83/attachment.htm>

From lists at digitaldissidents.org  Wed May 25 11:03:53 2016
From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 17:03:53 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Letter on IANA Transition
In-Reply-To: <57455E47.7030408@cis-india.org>
References: <57455E47.7030408@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <5745BED9.90502@digitaldissidents.org>

Hi all, and specifically Pranesh,

I am a bit surprised by you coming out so strongly against this letter.
Especially since CIS has significantly contributed to the work in ICANNs
CCWG on accountability in general and in the CCWP HR specifically.

When suddenly the letter from Rubio and Cruz against a ICANN human
rights commitment, and against the transition of oversight away from USG
to the international community came out, there was sense of urgency to
react to this before the congressional hearing yesterday.

As you all know, the CCWG proposal is now under review by NTIA and congress.

So I would have thought that Pranesh would support efforts to ensure the
work of civil society in ICANN in general and the work of CIS in
specific, would make it's way through.

There is a significant chance that the transition might not go through,
and then the situation would be worse than what we have now, I hope you
all agree with me on that.

So indeed the process wasn't very clean, but a proper process would not
have delivered the letter in time for the hearing, which would have
defeated it's purpose. This is a way of getting more sign on from
people, as well as discussion.

As you probably all have noticed it has been terribly silent on the
BestBits list recently, so I hope that some positive action is also
appreciated.

All the best,

Niels


On 05/25/2016 10:11 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
> Dear all,
> I recently came across this:
> http://bestbits.net/iana-transition/
> 
> However, I never saw its contents being discussed on this list.  Did I
> somehow fail to receive those messages?
> 
> I am quite concerned about the way the letter takes an uncritical global
> North approach to the IANA transition, and refuses to contend with the
> power dynamics at play.
> 
>> The undersigned civil society and public interest groups believe that
>> the IANA transition is a positive development for the Domain Name
>> System and for the Internet at large, and that the process to develop
>> the transition proposal has been a successful expression of
>> multistakeholder approaches to Internet decision-making.
> 
> I have pointed out in the past that this IANA transition process fails
> the requirements of the NetMundial Statement, and was primarily led by
> corporate interests in the US, and men:
> http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-multistakeholder-community-neither-global-nor-multistakeholder
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Pranesh
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160525/cca3053c/attachment.sig>

From raquino at gmail.com  Wed May  4 07:29:33 2016
From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 08:29:33 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Whatsapp return and regional hate/harassment in Brazil
Message-ID: <CAMokdMy7OMxuNEUnD4e+W_4T7NCG8fzE+2a9N_BM6c+AB8tXdw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi

You may have seen that Whatsapp blockage in Brazil this time was
overturn on appeal again [1]
Also you may have seen that Zuckerberg and ITS-Rio are mobilizing for
blockages not happening again [2]

One aspect of the blockage this time which must be known as well are
Brazil`s hate crimes against Northeasterns.
Whatsapp was blocked before by judges in São Paulo and Goiás (states
on other regions).
Yet, this was the 2nd time the judge from Sergipe issued this national
blockage order.

This made many Brazilians from other regions turn to social media with
insults and harassment towards North/Northeasterns. [4]
Among the insults, outrage how a mostly disconnected region can be the
cause of a service blocking throughout the country.
Some insults are against Northeners and Northeasterns because most who
do such crimes do not differentiate these regions. They are both were
low HDIs are [3]

Brazil is a diverse country and this harrassment is being done by a minority.
However, this raises an important issue to be debated in regional
engagement in internet governance. Most organizations and activists
which raised a flag on Whatsapp blockages mobilizations are not in the
Northeast and have not addressed this unfortunate consequence of the
origin of the blockage.

In the hope that this situation does not escalate, it is important to
pay attention to this and to act on seeing internet governance as a
debate which should not have frontiers and yet take into account
economical and social conditions of regions it affects.

There is a session in WSIS this week where this theme will be
addressed this friday.
https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2016/Agenda/Session/138

You can see on the agenda many great events and they will all be
recorded. The hashtag to follow the event is #WSIS

Best,

Renata


[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/brazilian-judge-blocks-whatsapp-for-72-hours-but-it-still-works-over-vpn-wi-fi/

[2] https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102814103934951

[3] http://blog.estadaodados.com/apenas-32-cidades-tem-idh-municipal-muito-baixo-em-2000-eram-2328/

[4] http://www.brasilpost.com.br/2016/05/02/sergipe-whatsapp_n_9822622.html
http://ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/brasil/2016-05-03/internautas-disseminam-odio-contra-o-nordeste-por-bloqueio-do-whatsapp.html

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Wed May 25 11:05:22 2016
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 11:05:22 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Letter on IANA Transition
In-Reply-To: <651D0D35-FCC5-4E96-863E-700D4CF6595B@gmail.com>
References: <57455E47.7030408@cis-india.org> <CAMz5XN7uCObG+eU0pge=+NV8shawhKxKa6O2u9aGV7TEeH8Odw@mail.gmail.com>
 <651D0D35-FCC5-4E96-863E-700D4CF6595B@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN7OwBYVAPrufhUsarHygjRN6YWHRZ131dy6hRUBdNYQ2w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,
My reason for concern about the word "community" is that it is a very
loaded word - it carries extra connotations of shared interests, agreement,
togetherness. I'm not sure how far non first language English speakers
would be aware of this. Therefore when I (as a remote participant) heard a
female ICANN employee (I'm sorry I've forgotten her name) refer to "the
community" in a presentation that was part of the launching of the new
gtlds in London (2012) I asked which community she was referring to. She
replied "Oh the ICANN community" as if this were perfectly obvious. Perhaps
some of you were "there" in the chat and may remember.

George: " In particular, who defines the global public interest with
respect to ICANN's mission?" - my answer is that it should of course be the
global public, but I have a strong feeling that that is NOT what is
happening.

Seun: "Yes that's right; the ICANN community is part of the "internet
community" but as to the March meeting, and the entire transition proposal
development process, it was the "internet community" developing the
proposal but facilitated by ICANN who was assigned the task by NTIA." What
you describe is what the initial proposal appeared to be. The process was
supposed to be carried out by "the internet community" and ICANN was
instructed to identify an appropriate agency to carry out the transition
process. What in fact happened was that ICANN identified itself as the
appropriate agency. This seems to run counter to the original intention,
but perhaps it doesn't?

And yes, Parminder, "community" has been compromised throughout the system.
You fought long and eloquently over the highjacking of the word "book" as
one of the new gtlds. The time has come for all of us to fight against the
takeover of individual words - I can see what is happening in English, but
is it also happening in Hindi, Spanish, French, Urdu, Mandarin ...?? Our
language is at least in part how we think; it has a large control of our
perspective. We need to protect it as far as possible as a common good, a
free space.
Deirdre

On 25 May 2016 at 09:13, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:

> Independent of the discussion that is going on here, I strongly share
> Deirdre's comment about the term "community."  It is often used, without
> appropriate qualification, in different ways and on the same discussion, so
> that it can be and often is interpreted in non-consistent ways.
>
> Even the phrase 'the ICANN community' is used in disturbingly vague ways.
> Is it the formal apparatus of supporting organizations and advisory
> committees?  Is it the people who are active in policy discussions?  Is it
> everyone that comes to ICANN meetings?  Is it all registrants?
>
> It's not clear what to do about this, except to insist upon adequate
> qualification of the word whenever it is used.
>
> This problem bleeds over into discussions of what is "the global public
> interest," and more to the point, who defines it.  In particular, who
> defines the global public interest with respect to ICANN's mission?  That's
> a larger discussion that I'm attempting to launch here, but it's a very
> important question for at least a part of Internet governance.
>
> George
>
>
>
> On May 25, 2016, at 9:03 AM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Pranesh,
> I also have a concern - serious at least in my view. The third paragraph
> of the statement begins with this sentence "When the Internet community
> came together in Marrakech in March 2016 to endorse and forward the IANA
> transition package to NTIA, there was consensus that the product of two
> years of challenging hard work was robust and credible and met the key NTIA
> criteria." I have noticed, and questioned publicly, the spreading "loose"
> use of the word "community" which is leading, again in my view, to a rather
> dangerous conflation of concepts. To my mind it is incorrect to suggest
> that the ICANN community, which met in Marrakech in March, is the same
> thing as the internet community of which the ICANN community is a subset.
> This - deliberately? - confusing use of the word "community" has been going
> on for several years.
> I wonder does anyone else consider it to be a matter for concern?
> Best wishes
> Deirdre
>
> On 25 May 2016 at 04:11, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>> I recently came across this:
>> http://bestbits.net/iana-transition/
>>
>> However, I never saw its contents being discussed on this list.  Did I
>> somehow fail to receive those messages?
>>
>> I am quite concerned about the way the letter takes an uncritical global
>> North approach to the IANA transition, and refuses to contend with the
>> power dynamics at play.
>>
>> The undersigned civil society and public interest groups believe that the
>>> IANA transition is a positive development for the Domain Name System and
>>> for the Internet at large, and that the process to develop the transition
>>> proposal has been a successful expression of multistakeholder approaches to
>>> Internet decision-making.
>>>
>>
>> I have pointed out in the past that this IANA transition process fails
>> the requirements of the NetMundial Statement, and was primarily led by
>> corporate interests in the US, and men:
>>
>> http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-multistakeholder-community-neither-global-nor-multistakeholder
>>
>> Regards,
>> Pranesh
>>
>> --
>> Pranesh Prakash
>> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
>> http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
>> sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
>> https://twitter.com/pranesh
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>


-- 
“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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160525/da574ba7/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed May 25 11:14:22 2016
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 11:14:22 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Letter on IANA Transition
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN7OwBYVAPrufhUsarHygjRN6YWHRZ131dy6hRUBdNYQ2w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57455E47.7030408@cis-india.org>
	<CAMz5XN7uCObG+eU0pge=+NV8shawhKxKa6O2u9aGV7TEeH8Odw@mail.gmail.com>
	<651D0D35-FCC5-4E96-863E-700D4CF6595B@gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN7OwBYVAPrufhUsarHygjRN6YWHRZ131dy6hRUBdNYQ2w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAeS2koAT2atr+w=gGiELfBiwB41jHt+sX8KQPfpdO58rA@mail.gmail.com>

Just a procedural note.
I do not feel this went against the procedures. We just fail to write an
email to the BB in a timely matter (when folks in Asia are awaking and we
here are going to bed).
The core folks - all BB members - that came together to write this intended
to send an email to the list as described in the procedures, but it seems
Pranesh saw and comment on it before we could send the letter to the list.
So, I feel the reaction - while legitimate - could also be interpreted as
also rushed . ;-)

This is not at all the first time something like this happen, but since
IANA is a contentious issue, it is the first time this type of reaction has
happen. And it is also not the first time there is no consensus within BB.
Which is fine and healthy, and which means the letter might get less
signatures than other efforts.

This letter, with its core signatories is already on the record at the
Senate, and it happened before it went to BB and only with the signatures
of the core developers.  You can see it here -
https://www.accessnow.org/cms/assets/uploads/2016/05/CSstatementonIANAtransitionMay2016-1.pdf

Anyway, just providing some more context on the timing. And if you are in
favor of the IANA transition, and will hold its promises accountable, you
would be happy to know that this letter was well received.

C


On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Deirdre Williams <
williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
> My reason for concern about the word "community" is that it is a very
> loaded word - it carries extra connotations of shared interests, agreement,
> togetherness. I'm not sure how far non first language English speakers
> would be aware of this. Therefore when I (as a remote participant) heard a
> female ICANN employee (I'm sorry I've forgotten her name) refer to "the
> community" in a presentation that was part of the launching of the new
> gtlds in London (2012) I asked which community she was referring to. She
> replied "Oh the ICANN community" as if this were perfectly obvious. Perhaps
> some of you were "there" in the chat and may remember.
>
> George: " In particular, who defines the global public interest with
> respect to ICANN's mission?" - my answer is that it should of course be the
> global public, but I have a strong feeling that that is NOT what is
> happening.
>
> Seun: "Yes that's right; the ICANN community is part of the "internet
> community" but as to the March meeting, and the entire transition proposal
> development process, it was the "internet community" developing the
> proposal but facilitated by ICANN who was assigned the task by NTIA." What
> you describe is what the initial proposal appeared to be. The process was
> supposed to be carried out by "the internet community" and ICANN was
> instructed to identify an appropriate agency to carry out the transition
> process. What in fact happened was that ICANN identified itself as the
> appropriate agency. This seems to run counter to the original intention,
> but perhaps it doesn't?
>
> And yes, Parminder, "community" has been compromised throughout the
> system. You fought long and eloquently over the highjacking of the word
> "book" as one of the new gtlds. The time has come for all of us to fight
> against the takeover of individual words - I can see what is happening in
> English, but is it also happening in Hindi, Spanish, French, Urdu, Mandarin
> ...?? Our language is at least in part how we think; it has a large control
> of our perspective. We need to protect it as far as possible as a common
> good, a free space.
> Deirdre
>
> On 25 May 2016 at 09:13, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Independent of the discussion that is going on here, I strongly share
>> Deirdre's comment about the term "community."  It is often used, without
>> appropriate qualification, in different ways and on the same discussion, so
>> that it can be and often is interpreted in non-consistent ways.
>>
>> Even the phrase 'the ICANN community' is used in disturbingly vague
>> ways.  Is it the formal apparatus of supporting organizations and advisory
>> committees?  Is it the people who are active in policy discussions?  Is it
>> everyone that comes to ICANN meetings?  Is it all registrants?
>>
>> It's not clear what to do about this, except to insist upon adequate
>> qualification of the word whenever it is used.
>>
>> This problem bleeds over into discussions of what is "the global public
>> interest," and more to the point, who defines it.  In particular, who
>> defines the global public interest with respect to ICANN's mission?  That's
>> a larger discussion that I'm attempting to launch here, but it's a very
>> important question for at least a part of Internet governance.
>>
>> George
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 25, 2016, at 9:03 AM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Pranesh,
>> I also have a concern - serious at least in my view. The third paragraph
>> of the statement begins with this sentence "When the Internet community
>> came together in Marrakech in March 2016 to endorse and forward the IANA
>> transition package to NTIA, there was consensus that the product of two
>> years of challenging hard work was robust and credible and met the key NTIA
>> criteria." I have noticed, and questioned publicly, the spreading "loose"
>> use of the word "community" which is leading, again in my view, to a rather
>> dangerous conflation of concepts. To my mind it is incorrect to suggest
>> that the ICANN community, which met in Marrakech in March, is the same
>> thing as the internet community of which the ICANN community is a subset.
>> This - deliberately? - confusing use of the word "community" has been going
>> on for several years.
>> I wonder does anyone else consider it to be a matter for concern?
>> Best wishes
>> Deirdre
>>
>> On 25 May 2016 at 04:11, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>> I recently came across this:
>>> http://bestbits.net/iana-transition/
>>>
>>> However, I never saw its contents being discussed on this list.  Did I
>>> somehow fail to receive those messages?
>>>
>>> I am quite concerned about the way the letter takes an uncritical global
>>> North approach to the IANA transition, and refuses to contend with the
>>> power dynamics at play.
>>>
>>> The undersigned civil society and public interest groups believe that
>>>> the IANA transition is a positive development for the Domain Name System
>>>> and for the Internet at large, and that the process to develop the
>>>> transition proposal has been a successful expression of multistakeholder
>>>> approaches to Internet decision-making.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have pointed out in the past that this IANA transition process fails
>>> the requirements of the NetMundial Statement, and was primarily led by
>>> corporate interests in the US, and men:
>>>
>>> http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-multistakeholder-community-neither-global-nor-multistakeholder
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Pranesh
>>>
>>> --
>>> Pranesh Prakash
>>> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
>>> http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
>>> sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
>>> https://twitter.com/pranesh
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> “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
>



-- 

*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160525/77cf01f5/attachment.htm>

From bzs at theworld.com  Wed May 25 15:55:37 2016
From: bzs at theworld.com (bzs at theworld.com)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 15:55:37 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Letter on IANA Transition
In-Reply-To: <651D0D35-FCC5-4E96-863E-700D4CF6595B@gmail.com>
References: <57455E47.7030408@cis-india.org>
	<CAMz5XN7uCObG+eU0pge=+NV8shawhKxKa6O2u9aGV7TEeH8Odw@mail.gmail.com>
	<651D0D35-FCC5-4E96-863E-700D4CF6595B@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <22342.825.710490.326356@pcls8.std.com>


On May 25, 2016 at 09:13 george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) wrote:
 > This problem bleeds over into discussions of what is "the global public
 > interest," and more to the point, who defines it.  In particular, who defines
 > the global public interest with respect to ICANN's mission?  That's a larger
 > discussion that I'm attempting to launch here, but it's a very important
 > question for at least a part of Internet governance.

The USA, for one, managed to develop over almost 250 years a
democratic republic whose roots are in the general enfranchisement of
over 300M people -- about 220M eligible to vote, fewer do vote but
that's irrelevant.

It's a very expensive system. More than $2B is spent on the US
presidential election (post-primaries) alone. The US Federal Election
Commission has a $65M budget and that's a small part of what states
and localities also spend on voting regulation. The UN budget is about
$2.5B p.a. and that excludes various functions funded outside their
mainstream budget (e.g., UNICEF.)

My point is that people can dream up more equitable systems but at the
end of the day there is only so much money in the entire ICANN
function (total budget about $100M) w/ or w/o IANA, and much of their
budget is committed to performing their underlying functions such as
contract compliance and GDD, not running global political machinery.

I read Sen Rubio's or Sen Cruz' (and Heritage Foundation, et al)
criticisms of the transition plan and what keeps occurring to me is
why not put your (the USG's) money where your mouth is? At least in
some general terms as part of these alternative visions forward.

Although some of the criticisms are well-founded concerns most
basically amount to high-minded posturing. For example, China may gain
more influence and "we" don't like China.

Well, China has influence like it or not, huge amounts of influence
and none of these imaginings are likely to change that fact. I'd
prefer they were at the table rather than pronounced pariah.

And I don't see where these high-minded ideas might produce the sort
of revenue it would take to implement and operate these visions. Or
even an estimate or road map of what they might be.

In the case of the Senators and those with similar conceptions of ways
forward, basically leaves power, force of law (via the NTIA contract),
and let the chips fall where they may.

It has been very politic to describe NTIA's involvement thus far
(since 1998) as displaying a gentle touch. This largely means they did
little other than manage the specific requirements of the contract,
mere renewal being a major activity, because they were budgeted very
little and mostly never developed any structure to be more involved.

Which all basically says that (mere) talk is cheap.

-- 
        -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 roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca  Thu May 26 09:57:13 2016
From: roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 08:57:13 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Know*ing. the future of the internet and how to reboot
 it
Message-ID: <D36C6A97.52EB7%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca>



> 
> Dear colleagues, 
> 
> We are pleased to invite you to participate in the Know*ing initiative, to be
> held at EURODIG, Brussels, on June 8th, 14pm.
> 
>  Know*ing. the future of the internet and how to reboot it.
> 
>  We are pleased to announce that  pre-event  programme is now online at
> http://eurodigwiki.org/wiki/Knowing._The_future_of_the_Internet_and_how_to_reb
> oot_it
>  
> Ten years after the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), we are
> reaching a new cycle of Internet development. Big data crunching and tech
> companies¹ consolidation are driving the economy as well as social changes in
> learning, labour, leisure, etc. The ŒInternet of Things¹ and upcoming
> technologies promise to reconfigure whole sectors and services of human
> activity. Yet such important issues as big data management, corporate mergers
> and overall monetisation of Internet activities have not reached the larger
> public whose well-being is at stake. In addition, the various stakeholders
> involved in Internet Governance processes are working at full capacity to keep
> abreast with these changes. There is a difficulty in recruiting new entrants
> and summoning new energies as well as reaching out to larger constituencies
> who have vested interests in the status quo. It is time to ensure that
> Internet remains for everyone and is re-booted for what it has the potential
> to do: to empower people by sharing knowledge, facilitating participation and
> enlarging solidarity.

> Agenda

>  1. Opening remarks, presenting data on Internet trends which reveal gaps
> 
>  2. Ice-breaker questions:
> * Why does the Internet belong to everyone (collectively)?
> * Who is reaping the benefits of the Internet and its governance? what is the
> upside (accelerated development, increased investment)?  what are the risks
> ((slowing or reversing the curve of development)?
> * What alternative logic can be applied and what consequences to draw?
>  3. Know*ing origins, development, unique features and potential leading to
> open discussion on:
> *  the need for collaboration and knowledge for digital transformation and
> evolution, 
> *  what is realistic and achievable collaboration and knowledge creation?
> *  reality check (validation from the community) ­ is know*ing a repetition or
> superfluous, unnecessary, futile or, on the contrary, it is necessary and
> provides added value?
>  4. Duration, next steps, support, closing remarks
>  
> We hope you will register and come to join this much-needed discussion.
>  
> You may want to read the background paper on Education 3.0 and Internet
> Governance: a new global alliance for children and young people's sustainable
> digital development available at
> https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/gcig_no27web_0.pdf
> 
> 
> All the best
> Divina Frau-Meigs
> 
>  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160526/3f14bb43/attachment.htm>

From nadira.araj at gmail.com  Fri May 27 02:08:41 2016
From: nadira.araj at gmail.com (Nadira Alaraj)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 09:08:41 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Extended timeframe - IGF Planning Retreat...Open call
 for members
In-Reply-To: <CAJdpWNDn9_9JdvvfNvwexUU3bZqWcjVS2SjszTzL2s9RL7dZ_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJdpWNDn9_9JdvvfNvwexUU3bZqWcjVS2SjszTzL2s9RL7dZ_g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJdpWNCQ81K6FQNs8jeHK7WAX71s1pWFCh64zN1A0fWOabwU2w@mail.gmail.com>

Please note: as the IGF has extended its deadline for nominations, CSCG
will be able to accept nominations until COB next Tuesday (May 31) Details
of how to apply for CSCG endorsement are below.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Nadira Alaraj" <nadira.araj at gmail.com>
Date: May 24, 2016 12:30 AM
Subject: Open call for members -IGF Planning Retreat
To: "&lt;bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt;" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Cc:

Following from the announcement  a few days ago of the IGF Planning
Retreat, CSCG has decided that, while being deeply concerned about the way
this exercise has been announced and the almost impossible timeframes being
suggested for us to endorse suitable civil society candidates,  it will
endorse suitable civil society names by the May 31 deadline given to us. We
will use the best possible selection method we can in the circumstances of
not enough time for a proper evaluation. Although this is not a
satisfactory situation from our point of view, in the spirit of
co-operating towards the introduction of better IGF processes for
multistakeholder representation in the future, we will proceed as best we
can and inform the IGF Secretariat of our intentions.

What this means for civil society candidates seeking CSCG endorsement is
that, in addition to completing the IGF form, you must also send an email
to nomcom08 at internetgov-cs.org, informing CSCG of your nomination and a
brief statement outlining why you are a suitable civil society
representative for this planning retreat. However, please note – THE
SUBMISSIONS TO CSCG MUST REACH THE MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE NO LATER THAN COB
THIS FRIDAY (MAY 27) - to allow us to also submit our recommendations by
the IGF closing date of May 31.

So briefly – to seek CSCG endorsement for attendance at this workshop, you
must submit an email to us at nomcom08 at internetgov-cs.org no later than COB
on Friday, May 27. (and you must also apply via the IGF process outlined at
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat)

CSCG will make its recommendations taking into account the contribution
nominees can make, as well as gender, geographic and political diversity.

If more information comes to hand, we will inform CS lists as soon as
possible. But we do believe it is important to select a diverse and
representative group of civil society attendees for this retreat, and will
do the best possible in the limited time available to achieve this.

> From: Ian Peter
> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 8:51 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: [governance] IGF Planning Retreat
>
>
> The IGF has opened a call for nominations to attend a Planning Retreat
from July 14-16 at Glen Cove, New York. Details can be found at
>
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat
>
> The IGF nomination procedures can be found from the link above and
interested civil society people should apply. Travel assistance *may* be
available for participants from developing countries and transitional
economies but cannot be guaranteed at this stage.
>
> CSCG is still discussing whether it wishes to become involved in a
parallel process of recommending civil society candidates. Our involvement
is welcomed by the IGF Secretariat, but we are concerned about the lack of
transparency and rushed nature of any involvement (which would also need to
be completed by May 31 on current indications, in parallel with nominations
still being received). We will advise further (within 48 hours) on
procedures that should be followed for those seeking CSCG endorsement if a
decision is made to be involved.
>
> Apologies for incredibly short notice: this was only announced on
Thursday May 19 and we have been seeking clarification on how this will be
conducted.
>
>
>
> Ian Peter (Independent Chair, CSCG)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160527/d297552d/attachment.htm>

From nadira.araj at gmail.com  Fri May 27 03:12:13 2016
From: nadira.araj at gmail.com (Nadira Alaraj)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 10:12:13 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Weekend Work Emails Are Now Illegal In France
Message-ID: <CAJdpWNA+n_H3xbPoc=OXNhDmmub4P43i0Qeh=Q8AgL8NRo9U2A@mail.gmail.com>

​
Weekend Work Emails Are Now Illegal In France “The right to disconnect” has
been codified in law.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/work-emails-france-labor-law_us_57455130e4b03ede4413515a>
​


<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160527/b834a3a9/attachment.htm>

From lorena at collaboratory.de  Fri May 27 06:32:29 2016
From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:32:29 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] FWD: Last call. EuroDIG. Registration about to close
Message-ID: <CAPqXojK8rtCkFtcSiB9oibiiSwmjazNxM7QooAUZXStYNNw_6g@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

apologies for cross-posting. This is a short reminder for any of you
interested in attending to EuroDIG. Registration is free but mandatory due
to security reasons - and it is about to close (on May 31) ;)

Take a look at our agenda here: www.eurodig.org/eurodig-2016/programme/And
register here: www.eurodig.org/eurodig-2016/registration/

Looking forward to seeing you in Brussels!

Kind regards,

Lorena

Lorena Jaume-Palasí
Director Communications & Youth Engagement

European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG)
office at eurodig.org
www.eurodig.org

Cel: +49.179.919 578
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160527/d0366fc3/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Fri May 27 10:30:16 2016
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 10:30:16 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Pear v. FBI - June 15th - Webcasted
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAcxn-mw2A97Q3N9TH6oV0e5np4j+ydM0W8A-T+yPLuu1w@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Barbara Peisch <bpeisch at newseum.org>



On June 15, the Newseum Institute will present a special program in which
you, your colleagues and your students might have particular interest. The
issues involved in the Apple-FBI cellphone controversy will be argued in
front of a mock U.S. Supreme Court held at the Newseum as *Pear v. United
States*.

Experts in First Amendment law, cyber security, civil liberties and
national security issues will make up the eight-member court, and legal
teams will represent “Pear” and the government. The oral argument,
supported by written briefs, will focus on those issues likely to reach the
actual high court, from the power of the government to “compel speech” to
the privacy expectations of millions of mobile phone users.

For more information and the link by which to RSVP:
http://www.newseum.org/event/pear-v-the-united-states/



With regards,



[image: cid:image003.png at 01D1B735.D9AA9580]



Gene Policinski | Chief Operating Officer

*NEWSEUM INSTITUTE*

555 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. | Washington, DC 20001

Tel: 202/292-6290 | Fax: 202/292-6295

Mobile: 615/491-5577

gpolicinski at newseum.org | newseum.org




-- 

*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160527/4564a689/attachment.htm>

From dan.oppermann at gmail.com  Fri May 27 16:45:28 2016
From: dan.oppermann at gmail.com (Daniel Oppermann)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 17:45:28 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] GigaNet abstract submission (10 June)
Message-ID: <5748B1E8.3060903@gmail.com>

Dear all,

Just a quick reminder of the approaching abstract deadline for the 2016 GigaNet Symposium in Guadalajara/México (IGF).

We hope to receive your proposals until 10 June!

Thanks a lot!


Best,
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CFP_GigaNet_annual_symposium_2016.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 169111 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160527/bc94c863/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: llamado_a_presentaciones_GigaNet_simposio_ anual_2016.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 169171 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160527/bc94c863/attachment-0001.pdf>

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Fri May 27 17:35:21 2016
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 03:05:21 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Letter on IANA Transition
In-Reply-To: <5745BED9.90502@digitaldissidents.org>
References: <57455E47.7030408@cis-india.org>
 <5745BED9.90502@digitaldissidents.org>
Message-ID: <5748BD99.6050407@cis-india.org>

Dear Niels, Carolina, and all,

Niels ten Oever <lists at digitaldissidents.org> [2016-05-25 17:03:53 +0200]:
> So I would have thought that Pranesh would support efforts to ensure the
> work of civil society in ICANN in general and the work of CIS in
> specific, would make it's way through.

I beg to disagree: I don't feel the main concerns that CIS has raised 
over the course of the transition have made any difference whatsoever in 
the process.

> There is a significant chance that the transition might not go through,
> and then the situation would be worse than what we have now, I hope you
> all agree with me on that.

I don't.  While I strongly desire a transition; a transition that 
doesn't change the status quo of US power over ICANN is going to 
increase legitimacy without actually changing the status quo in terms of 
power dynamics and the 'control' that the USG exercises over ICANN and 
the global DNS.

> So indeed the process wasn't very clean, but a proper process would not
> have delivered the letter in time for the hearing, which would have
> defeated it's purpose. This is a way of getting more sign on from
> people, as well as discussion.

+

Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> [2016-05-25 11:14:22 -0400]:
> I do not feel this went against the procedures. We just fail to write an
> email to the BB in a timely matter (when folks in Asia are awaking and we
> here are going to bed).

Just to be clear: my problem wasn't really procedural.  My problem was 
substantive.  CIS has done work on showing how the IANA transition 
process has been highly skewed in terms of participation, and I shared 
some of our research towards that end in my initial e-mail to the group 
on this.  (As to how this affects substantive outcomes: Many other 
organizations and persons from India and elsewhere (Rishabh Dara, JNC, 
CIS, CCG, Govt of India, DSCI, etc.) raised the issue of jurisdiction as 
being problematic u/ WS1 in their submissions to the ICG.  However none 
of those comments found appropriate reflection in the ICG report.)

However the drafters of this letter have suggested otherwise: "... that 
the process to develop the transition proposal has been a successful 
expression of multistakeholder approaches to Internet decision-making". 
  I believe the points countering Rubio, Heritage Foundation, et al., 
could have been done without including lines like that, which some of us 
following the IANA transition believe was not the case.

Now, quite obviously, if I or CIS disagree with that, we needn't sign 
it.  I raised it on this list to make the drafters and signatories aware 
that I *on substance* disagree with the contents of that letter.  Had 
the letter been discussed on the list (for which there wasn't any time) 
I would have raise that disagreement here.

> As you probably all have noticed it has been terribly silent on the
> BestBits list recently, so I hope that some positive action is also
> appreciated.

I posted this, asking for feedback from the BestBits list, and was 
hoping for fruitful dialogue and a way forward collectively, but 
received only one response (from Guru Acharya):

http://lists.bestbits.net/arc/bestbits/2016-04/msg00050.html

I'm just as disappointed by the quiet as you are, Niels.

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
https://twitter.com/pranesh

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160528/aea212b2/attachment.sig>

From katitza at eff.org  Wed May  4 13:28:19 2016
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 10:28:19 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Whatsapp return and regional hate/harassment in
 Brazil
In-Reply-To: <CAMokdMy7OMxuNEUnD4e+W_4T7NCG8fzE+2a9N_BM6c+AB8tXdw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMokdMy7OMxuNEUnD4e+W_4T7NCG8fzE+2a9N_BM6c+AB8tXdw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <572A3133.3000708@eff.org>

UPDATE: Brazil's Parliamentary Commission on Cybercrime approved the
#CPICIBER report. The fight continues as the report is sent to the full
lower house of Congress for committee assignment and debate.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/05/if-cpiciber-passes-whatsapp-blockade-brazil-could-be-taste-more-censorship-come


From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat May 28 00:40:41 2016
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 10:10:41 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Letter on IANA Transition
In-Reply-To: <5748BD99.6050407@cis-india.org>
References: <57455E47.7030408@cis-india.org>
 <5745BED9.90502@digitaldissidents.org> <5748BD99.6050407@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <57492149.1090807@itforchange.net>


On Saturday 28 May 2016 03:05 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
> Dear Niels, Carolina, and all,
>
> Niels ten Oever <lists at digitaldissidents.org> [2016-05-25 17:03:53
> +0200]:
>> So I would have thought that Pranesh would support efforts to ensure the
>> work of civil society in ICANN in general and the work of CIS in
>> specific, would make it's way through.
>
> I beg to disagree: I don't feel the main concerns that CIS has raised
> over the course of the transition have made any difference whatsoever
> in the process.

In the run up to the IANA transition, there were 3-4 meetings held in
India on this issue - most of them organised by groups quite sympathetic
to ICANN and involved with it (this included the dept of IT, Indian
gov). In all these meetings, without fail, the two key issues that came
out, and on which by far most people present agreed, were (1) external
oversight (meaning some kind of oversight of ICANN  processes from
outside the groups closely involved in its policy processes)) and (2)
jurisdiction of ICANN. Both these issues have been disregarded.

India has one sixth of the global population. I have no doubt that
similar concerns would have been foremost in almost all developing
countries, and also most non US developed countries.

Now when the process concludes claiming some kind of consensus, and
openness and inclusiveness of all views, one would obviously wonder what
to make of it. Who decides that most key views were included, and the
process was open. It was always some kind of a self fulfilling prophecy,
an article of incontrovertible faith - that ICANN is open and inclusive,
and it will considered open and inclusive no matter what it does and
what comes out of the process. This is a new kind of tyranny, woven
strangely from the fabric of a so-called 'openness'. No doubt a
fantastic achievement in a way.

parminder

>
>> There is a significant chance that the transition might not go through,
>> and then the situation would be worse than what we have now, I hope you
>> all agree with me on that.
>
> I don't.  While I strongly desire a transition; a transition that
> doesn't change the status quo of US power over ICANN is going to
> increase legitimacy without actually changing the status quo in terms
> of power dynamics and the 'control' that the USG exercises over ICANN
> and the global DNS.
>
>> So indeed the process wasn't very clean, but a proper process would not
>> have delivered the letter in time for the hearing, which would have
>> defeated it's purpose. This is a way of getting more sign on from
>> people, as well as discussion.
>
> +
>
> Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> [2016-05-25 11:14:22
> -0400]:
>> I do not feel this went against the procedures. We just fail to write an
>> email to the BB in a timely matter (when folks in Asia are awaking
>> and we
>> here are going to bed).
>
> Just to be clear: my problem wasn't really procedural.  My problem was
> substantive.  CIS has done work on showing how the IANA transition
> process has been highly skewed in terms of participation, and I shared
> some of our research towards that end in my initial e-mail to the
> group on this.  (As to how this affects substantive outcomes: Many
> other organizations and persons from India and elsewhere (Rishabh
> Dara, JNC, CIS, CCG, Govt of India, DSCI, etc.) raised the issue of
> jurisdiction as being problematic u/ WS1 in their submissions to the
> ICG.  However none of those comments found appropriate reflection in
> the ICG report.)
>
> However the drafters of this letter have suggested otherwise: "...
> that the process to develop the transition proposal has been a
> successful expression of multistakeholder approaches to Internet
> decision-making".  I believe the points countering Rubio, Heritage
> Foundation, et al., could have been done without including lines like
> that, which some of us following the IANA transition believe was not
> the case.
>
> Now, quite obviously, if I or CIS disagree with that, we needn't sign
> it.  I raised it on this list to make the drafters and signatories
> aware that I *on substance* disagree with the contents of that
> letter.  Had the letter been discussed on the list (for which there
> wasn't any time) I would have raise that disagreement here.
>
>> As you probably all have noticed it has been terribly silent on the
>> BestBits list recently, so I hope that some positive action is also
>> appreciated.
>
> I posted this, asking for feedback from the BestBits list, and was
> hoping for fruitful dialogue and a way forward collectively, but
> received only one response (from Guru Acharya):
>
> http://lists.bestbits.net/arc/bestbits/2016-04/msg00050.html
>
> I'm just as disappointed by the quiet as you are, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160528/13d52237/attachment.htm>

From raquino at gmail.com  Sat May 28 21:11:24 2016
From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro)
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 22:11:24 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] IGF Workshop submission deadline - a few days to go!
Message-ID: <CAMokdMzoXDpTkyJcDnArJBf0NRtwzH+NnHfiGfrBFa4Mu3jO9g@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

We are only a few days to go the the IGF Workshop submission deadline (June 6).

The IGF is a multistakeholder platform that enables the discussion of
public policy issues pertaining to the Internet.

So here are a few pointers to those who are thinking of submitting
their proposal:

* Align with the 2016 theme ‘Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth’

* Be mindful of the event dates: 6-9 December 2016 in Guadalajara, Mexico.

* Remember the aim to enhance participation from stakeholders from
developing countries, youth and those joining the IGF online.

Find out more about it in these links

FAQ
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf16-workshops/faqs-for-proposers

Call
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf16-workshops


All the best,

Renata Aquino Ribeiro

----

Important observation:
If you are from these countries
Namibia, Republic of the Congo, Togo, South Africa, Myanmar,Sri Lanka,
Bhutan, Bangladesh
You can try until June 12th the program http://IGF.Academy which can
provide funding to go the event

From jcurran at istaff.org  Mon May 30 08:37:03 2016
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 08:37:03 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Letter on IANA Transition
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN7OwBYVAPrufhUsarHygjRN6YWHRZ131dy6hRUBdNYQ2w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57455E47.7030408@cis-india.org> <CAMz5XN7uCObG+eU0pge=+NV8shawhKxKa6O2u9aGV7TEeH8Odw@mail.gmail.com> <651D0D35-FCC5-4E96-863E-700D4CF6595B@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7OwBYVAPrufhUsarHygjRN6YWHRZ131dy6hRUBdNYQ2w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6D460168-FFBD-473D-ABA1-E5550779A851@istaff.org>

On May 25, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> My reason for concern about the word "community" is that it is a very loaded word - it carries extra connotations of shared interests, agreement, togetherness. I'm not sure how far non first language English speakers would be aware of this. Therefore when I (as a remote participant) heard a female ICANN employee (I'm sorry I've forgotten her name) refer to "the community" in a presentation that was part of the launching of the new gtlds in London (2012) I asked which community she was referring to. She replied "Oh the ICANN community" as if this were perfectly obvious. Perhaps some of you were "there" in the chat and may remember.

Deirdre -

The meaning of the term “community” often varies based on the context in 
which it is used.   With respect to ICANN, there are actually several different
communities, each composed of the parties (of all shapes and sizes) that are
affected by a specific set of Internet identifiers, aka 'directly affected parties’
(as noted in the NTIA Intent to Transition Key Internet Domain Name Functions)
<https://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions <https://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>>

This “affected community” concept is also reflected the accountability principle 
provided in RFC 7500, "Principles for Operation of Internet Assigned Numbers 
Authority (IANA) Registries <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7500.txt <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7500.txt>> - 
"Accountable:  Registry policy development and registry operations need to 
 be accountable to the affected community.”    It must be possible for any party 
which claims to be affected by an Internet identifier system to speak and be 
heard regarding the merits of various policy and operational decisions in the 
administration of those Internet identifiers.   (In the ideal world, we would 
establish a clear process such that Internet identifier registry systems be 
periodically reviewed for their compliance to the principles in RFC7500, 
and (via some framework that provides for empowered and coordinated 
action) that the structures representing the various affected communities 
would be certain to conduct such reviews publicly and routinely.) 

The phrase “ICANN community” is often used to refer to all of those parties that
participate in the various aspects of DNS policy development.   It is sometimes 
used to mean all those participating in the ICANN processes of any type, e.g. 
ICANN overall governance processes.  Thus confusion in meaning is inevitable 
given that the DNS community is not organized distinctly from ICANN, as opposed
some defect inherent in the term “community”...

/John

Disclaimers:  my thoughts alone - do not impinge on the good reputation any 
other person or organization by misattribution of these inchoate musings…


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160530/cd4fbff9/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon May 30 09:54:42 2016
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 19:24:42 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Letter on IANA Transition
In-Reply-To: <6D460168-FFBD-473D-ABA1-E5550779A851@istaff.org>
References: <57455E47.7030408@cis-india.org>
 <CAMz5XN7uCObG+eU0pge=+NV8shawhKxKa6O2u9aGV7TEeH8Odw@mail.gmail.com>
 <651D0D35-FCC5-4E96-863E-700D4CF6595B@gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN7OwBYVAPrufhUsarHygjRN6YWHRZ131dy6hRUBdNYQ2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <6D460168-FFBD-473D-ABA1-E5550779A851@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <574C4622.3090403@itforchange.net>



On Monday 30 May 2016 06:07 PM, John Curran wrote:
>
> The meaning of the term “community” often varies based on the context in 
> which it is used.  

Thanks Curran, lets then speak about the meaning of the term "community"
in the specific context of the current process of IANA transition, or,
how NTIA (US gov) calls it, 'transition of key Internet name domain
functions". As per NTIA's announcement
<https://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>
, these functions were to be transferred to "the global multistakeholder
community".


> SNIP

> The phrase “ICANN community” is often used to refer to all of those
> parties that
> participate in the various aspects of DNS policy development.  It is
> sometimes 
> used to mean all those participating in the ICANN processes of any
> type, e.g. 
> ICANN overall governance processes. 

Agreed, John. Andrew Sullivan, chair of IAB, used this term with similar
meaning in his recent testimony to the US congress on the transition.
But then, this you would agree is not what can be called as "global
multistakeholder community" of NTIA's announcement. Andrew also agrees
that the "empowered community" to which the oversight powers over ICANN
are being transitioned is this same "ICANN community" as more or less
you describe. To quote his testimony, "......depends on the newly
empowered community. We already know what that community is like,
because it comprises the very same structures that ICANN has relied upon
for many years.”

It is therefore evident that oversight power has been transitioned to
the "ICANN community" and not as asked for by NTIA to the "global
multistakeholder community". Do you see this as a problem?  I see a big
political problem - a really big one. What US gov asked for and promised
has not at all been done - something quite different has been done.

This is the kind of politically expedient slipping between different
meanings of 'community' that we find problematic, and has become an
endemic feature of the 'ICANN model', and is the subject of this
discussion thread.

Not only has the oversight power been transitioned to this narrow "ICANN
community" but it is also the same one that came up with the proposal
for such a transition (within the often expressed and unexpressed
commandments by the US gov and ICANN board, who have mostly spoken the
same things).

What I am trying to understand is, where is the "global multistakeholder
community" here, which was supposed to exercise the new oversight? (If
you are now going to establish a representative relationship between the
two communities that would be interesting, and we should discuss it.)

Not that the concerned people dont understand that there is a world
outside the narrow ICANN community, the global public whose interests
are implicated. But that public is not invoked when decision making
processes are working - as mentioned, the transition proposal was
developed by the "ICANN community" itself (anyone arguing against
this?). But when political rhetoric is to be employed to claim political
legitimacy, see how the language twists (the below is from the same
testimony of IAB chief)

    "Finally, it would undermine the multistakeholder processes that
    have been a foundation of the Internet’s success, by telling the
    global Internet community that its historic, worldwide consensus
    around this proposal is meaningless."


And of course everyone know that "global multistakeholder community",
which is the original term used by NTIA in the original announcement, is
something else altogether. Below again from the same testimony.

    "A consensus this broad will be frustrated and fragile when faced
    with delay, and such a delay would represent an attack on the global
    multistakeholder community." 


Wow! When required for political rhetoric, the "global MS community " is
back! It has just temporarily gone missing when real decisions were
being taken.

parminder


> Thus confusion in meaning is inevitable 
> given that the DNS community is not organized distinctly from ICANN,
> as opposed
> some defect inherent in the term “community”...
>
> /John
>
> Disclaimers:  my thoughts alone - do not impinge on the good
> reputation any 
> other person or organization by misattribution of these inchoate musings…
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160530/2ab9420f/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at istaff.org  Mon May 30 11:16:06 2016
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 11:16:06 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Letter on IANA Transition
In-Reply-To: <574C4622.3090403@itforchange.net>
References: <57455E47.7030408@cis-india.org> <CAMz5XN7uCObG+eU0pge=+NV8shawhKxKa6O2u9aGV7TEeH8Odw@mail.gmail.com> <651D0D35-FCC5-4E96-863E-700D4CF6595B@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7OwBYVAPrufhUsarHygjRN6YWHRZ131dy6hRUBdNYQ2w@mail.gmail.com> <6D460168-FFBD-473D-ABA1-E5550779A851@istaff.org> <574C4622.3090403@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <75806D9C-AC80-4075-B666-301F24299FA9@istaff.org>

On May 30, 2016, at 9:54 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> On Monday 30 May 2016 06:07 PM, John Curran wrote:
>> 
>> The meaning of the term “community” often varies based on the context in 
>> which it is used.   
> 
> Thanks Curran, lets then speak about the meaning of the term "community" in the specific context of the current process of IANA transition, or, how NTIA (US gov) calls it, 'transition of key Internet name domain functions". As per NTIA's announcement <https://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions> , these functions were to be transferred to "the global multistakeholder community".
> 
> 
>> SNIP
> 
>> The phrase “ICANN community” is often used to refer to all of those parties that
>> participate in the various aspects of DNS policy development.  It is sometimes 
>> used to mean all those participating in the ICANN processes of any type, e.g. 
>> ICANN overall governance processes.  
> 
> Agreed, John. Andrew Sullivan, chair of IAB, used this term with similar meaning in his recent testimony to the US congress on the transition. But then, this you would agree is not what can be called as "global multistakeholder community" of NTIA's announcement.

I would disagree with you on that point -  there is no reason that the referenced
“global multistakeholder community” is not synonymous with the union of the 
affected communities for the Internet identifiers. 

> Andrew also agrees that the "empowered community" to which the oversight powers over ICANN are being transitioned is this same "ICANN community" as more or less you describe. To quote his testimony, "......depends on the newly empowered community. We already know what that community is like, because it comprises the very same structures that ICANN has relied upon for many years.” 
> 
> It is therefore evident that oversight power has been transitioned to the "ICANN community" and not as asked for by NTIA to the "global multistakeholder community". Do you see this as a problem?  I see a big political problem - a really big one. What US gov asked for and promised has not at all been done - something quite different has been done. 

As noted above, I disagree with your premise.  Please state clearly why 
you believe that the "global multistakeholder community” is something 
different that the coordinated action of the Internet names community, 
Internet numbers community, and the Internet protocol community.

> What I am trying to understand is, where is the "global multistakeholder community" here, which was supposed to exercise the new oversight? (If you are now going to establish a representative relationship between the two communities that would be interesting, and we should discuss it.)

You must first provide a definition for "global multistakeholder community”
which distinguishes it from the collected set of the affected communities 
of the Internet identifier systems.

> Not that the concerned people dont understand that there is a world outside the narrow ICANN community, the global public whose interests are implicated. But that public is not invoked when decision making processes are working - as mentioned, the transition proposal was developed by the "ICANN community" itself (anyone arguing against this?). But when political rhetoric is to be employed to claim political legitimacy, see how the language twists (the below is from the same testimony of IAB chief)

To the extent that the public, civil society and governments wish to participate
in the development and implementation of Internet identifier policies, they are
most certainly part of the global multistakeholder community… (indeed, it is 
the diverse nature of the participation that is the multi-stakeholder character
of the model.) 

Thanks!
/John

Disclaimer:  My views alone; please recycle these electrons when you are doing using them.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160530/134b0d7c/attachment.htm>

From nadira.araj at gmail.com  Mon May 30 14:28:38 2016
From: nadira.araj at gmail.com (Nadira Alaraj)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 21:28:38 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] New CSCG website
In-Reply-To: <D6BDDB5B827B4AC1905CEAC19955CF08@Toshiba>
References: <D6BDDB5B827B4AC1905CEAC19955CF08@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAJdpWNANBkhkaUSNcEnYW_QMeLFZWzLEsTyKie0QMZqeNKOJ_Q@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Best Bits members,
Greetings,
Here I would like to bring to your attention the new CSCG website.
Thanks to the work of both Akinremi Peter Taiwo and Norbert Bollow.

Appreciate any feedback for future updates,
Best wishes,
Nadira Alaraj

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Date: May 30, 2016 1:12 PM
Subject: [governance] New CSCG website
To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Cc:

> I am pleased to announce the launch of the new CSCG website at
www.internetgov-cs.org
>
> We need to particularly thank Akinremi Peter Taiwo for his great work on
the design and building of the site, and also our Webmaster, Norbert
Bollow,  for getting the site up and running.
>
> And also many thanks to the CSCG Working Group (of which Akinremi Peter
Taiwo and Norbert Bollow are members) for their work in reviewing the site
and making a range of positive suggestions for its improvement.
>
> There will be more changes in the future, but it is great to see the new
(and much improved) site up and running!
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160530/d6593d22/attachment.htm>

From nadira.araj at gmail.com  Mon May 30 16:19:10 2016
From: nadira.araj at gmail.com (Nadira Alaraj)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 23:19:10 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] Rapid Response Fund
Message-ID: <CAJdpWNDfRWRGFt_R=visCAWq2BPZOJ+O5gdn=knoRtezXSZz5A@mail.gmail.com>

*From Open Technology Fund*

*Rapid Response Fund*

"The Rapid Response Fund is part of a broader OTF initiative which aims to
facilitate the development of a strong digital emergency response community
that can work together to resolve threats in a timely and comprehensive
manner. OTF offers both direct financial support as well as technical
services from trusted partners to resolve digital emergencies experienced
by high-risk Internet users and organizations, such as bloggers, cyber
activists, journalists. and human rights defenders."


Click here <https://www.opentech.fund/requests/rapid-response-fund>for more
info

*​Core Infrastructure Fund*
"The Core Infrastructure Fund supports building blocks of digital security
and circumvention projects. This may include efforts focused on sustaining
or improving PGP, SSL, SSH, Tor, OTR, pluggable transports, code libraries,
and other technologies used within the core building blocks of everyday
Internet Freedom technology used by people throughout the world to increase
their access, privacy, and security online."
click here <https://www.opentech.fund/requests/core-infrastructure-fund>for
more info
​

*​Internet Freedom Fund*

"The Rapid Response Fund is part of a broader OTF initiative which aims to
facilitate the development of a strong digital emergency response community
that can work together to resolve threats in a timely and comprehensive
manner. OTF offers both direct financial support as well as technical
services from trusted partners to resolve digital emergencies experienced
by high-risk Internet users and organizations, such as bloggers, cyber
activists, journalists. and human rights defenders. "
​click here <https://www.opentech.fund/requests/internet-freedom-fund>for
more info



​


<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160530/8cf8b4a6/attachment.htm>

From steve at openmedia.ca  Mon May 30 21:37:50 2016
From: steve at openmedia.ca (Steve Anderson)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 18:37:50 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Crowdsourcing digital policy
Message-ID: <CAJOr_J62MiaifYtzV=11sfWa==t3uRQGuChYxfyyLtYSdj8HHA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all! As my role has changed
<https://openmedia.org/en/letter-community-how-openmedia-changing-face-challenges-and-opportunities-2016>
at
OpenMedia I've had a chance to do something a little different -- give some
deeper thought to how we operate and share some of what we have learned
about digital engagement over the last many years. First up is our approach
to crowdsourcing <https://openmedia.org/en/crowdsource> engagement.

OpenMedia is increasingly asked to share how we crowdsource input for our
campaigns and policy work. These requests have been coming from other
non-profit organizations (including some of you!) and more and more from
those working in government as well.

This is an exciting development, so I decided to put OpenMedia's core
principles for crowdsourcing together in this blog post
<https://openmedia.org/en/crowdsource>. Input is very much welcome.
Here's the blog: https://openmedia.org/en/crowdsource

I'd also love it if you could share on Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?m2w&u=https://openmedia.org/en/crowdsource>
 or Twitter
<https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?original_referer=http://openmedia.ca/&source=tweetbutton&text=Here%E2%80%99s+a+window+into+%40openmediaorg%27s+core+crowdsourcing+principles%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fopenmedia.org%2Fen%2Fcrowdsource&oq=Here%E2%80%99s+a+window+into+%40openmediaorg%27s+core+crowdsourcing+principles%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fopenmedia.org%2Fen%2Fcrowdsource&aqs=chrome..69i57.1546j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8>
to
further the dialogue.

thanks!
--
*Steve Anderson*
Executive Director, OpenMedia.ca
604-837-5730
http://openmedia.ca <http://www.openmedia.ca/>
steve at openmedia.ca

Follow me on Twitter <http://twitter.com/Steve_Media>
Friend me on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/Steve.Media>


* *Let's have access to affordable phone and Internet rates.
<http://demandchoice.ca>*

**Do you think we deserve a fair deal in our digital future? -->>
OurFairDeal.org <http://OurFairDeal.org>*



*Confidentiality Warning:*

* This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use
of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return
e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Thank
you.Information confidentielle:** Le présent message, ainsi que tout
fichier qui y est joint, est envoyé à l'intention exclusive de son ou de
ses destinataires; il est de nature confidentielle et peut constituer une
information privilégiée. Nous avertissons toute personne autre que le
destinataire prévu que tout examen, réacheminement, impression, copie,
distribution ou autre utilisation de ce message et de tout fichier qui y
est joint est strictement interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire
prévu, veuillez en aviser immédiatement l'expéditeur par retour de courriel
et supprimer ce message et tout document joint de votre système. Merci.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160530/90eb3c71/attachment.htm>

From dave at davecake.net  Mon May 30 23:34:15 2016
From: dave at davecake.net (David Cake)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 11:34:15 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] New CSCG website
In-Reply-To: <CAJdpWNANBkhkaUSNcEnYW_QMeLFZWzLEsTyKie0QMZqeNKOJ_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D6BDDB5B827B4AC1905CEAC19955CF08@Toshiba> <CAJdpWNANBkhkaUSNcEnYW_QMeLFZWzLEsTyKie0QMZqeNKOJ_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A3F8DD3F-5412-4F6A-A187-9E0B768300AE@davecake.net>

Well done. Functional and informative. 

David

> On 31 May 2016, at 2:28 AM, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Best Bits members,
> Greetings,
> Here I would like to bring to your attention the new CSCG website.
> Thanks to the work of both Akinremi Peter Taiwo and Norbert Bollow.
> 
> Appreciate any feedback for future updates,
> Best wishes,
> Nadira Alaraj
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>>
> Date: May 30, 2016 1:12 PM
> Subject: [governance] New CSCG website
> To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
> Cc:
> 
> > I am pleased to announce the launch of the new CSCG website at www.internetgov-cs.org <http://www.internetgov-cs.org/>
> >  
> > We need to particularly thank Akinremi Peter Taiwo for his great work on the design and building of the site, and also our Webmaster, Norbert Bollow,  for getting the site up and running.
> >  
> > And also many thanks to the CSCG Working Group (of which Akinremi Peter Taiwo and Norbert Bollow are members) for their work in reviewing the site and making a range of positive suggestions for its improvement.
> >  
> > There will be more changes in the future, but it is great to see the new (and much improved) site up and running!
> >  
> >  
> > Ian Peter
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing <http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance <http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/ <http://www.igcaucus.org/>
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t <http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160531/f018ea48/attachment.htm>

From roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca  Tue May 31 09:18:42 2016
From: roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 08:18:42 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Impacts of civil society contributions to processes
 and/or outcomes in international ndigital rights advocacy?
Message-ID: <D372F961.5339C%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca>

Dear BB colleagues,

I¹ve been following for some time now your discussions online; I also
observed various CS activity at the IGF in Brazil this year. In this
preliminary research so far I¹ve been trying to discern how various CS
stakeholders view the impacts they are making in IG governance/advocacy for
the purpose of academic and applied (evaluation-oriented) research.

For example, much activity seems centered around collaborating on issuing
various collectively produced/signed Statements. Other work involves
attending a variety of forums and meetings representing civil society
stakeholders. Still other work involves debating/discussing self-governance
processes, what community in civil society means to different participants
(the multi-stakeholder issue), documenting activities and events online,
convening together to develop intervention strategies for specific events,
pursuing litigation activity, and developing/distributing materials that
explain issues to different types of audiences.

I¹m certain this is only the tip of the iceberg, and thus, would very much
like to learn more and share what I learn via publication in scholarly
venues as well as translate that research into forms that can be beneficial
to practitioners. To be sure, many of you already document your work; many
of you also share what you view to be your impacts for your communities of
practice (including your donors). With some exceptions, however, most of
this documentation features individual, not necessarily collective, efforts.
Because of this, your individual efforts cannot be compared across
organizations in ways that allow drawing broader conclusions, i.e., beyond
specific institution/organization-based efforts. Additionally, without
research that compares activities, it¹s difficult to find ways to
respectfully self-reflect on the work being done.

With this in mind, I would like to invite those interested in being
represented in my evolving research on this topic, i.e., the forms/impacts
of CS engagement/participation in IG, to email me off-list to set up a brief
skype interview about the possible benefits/time demands for you of being
involved. Part of this of course would be a discussion about research ethics
having to do with transparency, accountability, and how those involved
participate in reading/commenting on the research about them and also how
the work can/might be distributed/translated to different audiences.

Thank you,
Becky

----------------------
Becky Lentz, PhD
Associate Professor of Communication Studies
McGill University Faculty of Arts
853 Sherbrooke Street West, Arts Building, W-265
Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 0G5
Phone 514.398.4995
Fax 514.398.8557
Email: becky.lentz at mcgill.ca
http://www.mcgill.ca/ahcs



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160531/d420f6e9/attachment.htm>

From raquino at gmail.com  Thu May  5 05:06:55 2016
From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 06:06:55 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Whatsapp return and regional hate/harassment in
 Brazil
In-Reply-To: <572A3133.3000708@eff.org>
References: <CAMokdMy7OMxuNEUnD4e+W_4T7NCG8fzE+2a9N_BM6c+AB8tXdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <572A3133.3000708@eff.org>
Message-ID: <CAMokdMwoRhqy5F7CWAnMp4E1XJ2rKZnMhNw8p40W7--YWKyE1w@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Katitza

Indeed, this piece of news is now so alarming that all attention is in it

Also, I have just heard that the hate threats were only  "media
manipulation", which I do not find at all acceptable as an analysis of
the situation, since it reduces the fact that they happened.



On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
> UPDATE: Brazil's Parliamentary Commission on Cybercrime approved the
> #CPICIBER report. The fight continues as the report is sent to the full
> lower house of Congress for committee assignment and debate.
>
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/05/if-cpiciber-passes-whatsapp-blockade-brazil-could-be-taste-more-censorship-come
>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu May  5 13:23:38 2016
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 13:23:38 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Public Knowledge TPP Analysis
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAcnPpGSiH=ySD624fVkheZjE6_KT5tC32=jNopnexEuQg@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry for cross posting on list serves, but today Public Knowledge released
an analysis of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) in the mix of
policy areas we work in. PK President Gene Kimmelman has posted the
following blog to explain the scope and intent of this analysis.  You can
find Gene's Blog here:

https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/public-knowledge-releases-trans-pacific-partnership-analysis/

The final version of the analysis is attached, and you can also link
directly here:
https://www.publicknowledge.org/documents/assessing-effects-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership-on-telecommunications-ip-and-public-interest/

We hope this analysis will spur a deeper conversation about the application
and and legal interpretations of the TPP and its specific provisions. Feel
free to reach out to Public Knowledge staff with questions and to discuss
further.
-- 

*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160505/3f5cb991/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PK_TPP_Analysis.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 420764 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160505/3f5cb991/attachment.pdf>

From roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca  Mon May  9 15:42:27 2016
From: roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 14:42:27 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Call for Participation: 5th World Forum on Free Media
 (WFFM) in Montreal, August 2016
Message-ID: <D35651CD.51DCD%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca>

Please distribute widely, and excuse any unavoidable cross-postingsŠ

http://www.fmml.net/spip.php?article161
Call for participation - 5th WFFM
Translation: [en  <http://www.fmml.net/spip.php?article160> français
<http://www.fmml.net/spip.php?article160> ]
<http://www.fmml.net/spip.php?article160>   [en Español]
<http://www.fmml.net/spip.php?article162>

Deadline: 1 June 2016

The next edition of the World Forum of Free Media (WFFM) will take place in
Montreal from August 7 to 14 within the framework of the World Social Forum
(WSF). The first two days will be dedicated to the WFFM while the other
activities will be included in the regular program of the WSF.

The World Forum of Free Media was born as part of the World Social Forums
thanks to the coming together of activists seeking to guarantee freedom of
expression and the struggle for other forms of communication. The militants
promoting the WFFM were involved in the countless experiences and struggles
led by independent media. Aware of the importance of the role of the free
media in the face of the rise of conservatism and of reactionary and
xenophobic media, as well as the place of Internet and the social networks
in our methods of informing and communicating, the WFFM seeks to be a space
for shared experiences, converging various struggles and alternative
proposals.

In each edition, the WFFM brings together journalists, associations,
developers, hackers and both academic and independent researchers. The
abundance of initiatives allows for enlightening exchanges on the freedom of
expression, the monopolization of knowledge, the challenges posed by
Internet, community radios, the re-appropriation of information, the
production of free technologies (including free software), and other themes.
The previous editions of the WFFM were also very rich in exchanges and
points of view that help to continue the fight for the right to
communication and information around the world. In 2015, the participants
adopted the World Charter of Free Media. The next edition will also provide
an opportunity to assess the progress made by this instrument of pressure
and struggle.

The various actors involved in organizing the WFFM are happy to invite all
of you to the 5th edition to be held in Canada in 2016.

How to propose an activity

The WFFM has been established and supported by the initiative of the actors
involved in it: journalists, associations, bloggers, producers of
information, NGOs, representatives of social movements, developers of free
technologies, etc.

You and your organization are invited to propose activities (or to join
those proposed by others). Nothing could be simpler: visit the FMML site
http://www.fmml.net <http://www.fmml.net/> . Choose the option ³Propose an
activity <http://www.fmml.net/spip.php?article158> ² and fill out the form.

Four subjects are already under preparation with the participation of guests
from some ten countries:

·      Free media 2.0: Community media in the digital and multiplatform
environment

·      Whose security? The impact of social and state violence on the
freedom of expression

·      Autonomy and economy: The sustainability of free media and technology

·       Community communications: Decolonising the media and technology

The activities proposed can be classified under one of the following
specific areas:

- The role of the free media in popular struggles as a tool for the
expression of social and citizen movements.
- Violence against journalists and activists: until when?
- Regulatory frameworks for the promotion of diversity, plurality and
freedom of expression.
- Decolonisation of the media, inclusion and the diversification of voices,
points of view and cultural expressions
- Public policies and the sustainability of the free media
- Access to Internet: a fundamental right in the 21st century
- Free networks, free software and the struggle against mass surveillance on
Internet
- Facebook, Google and the new gatekeepers: how to deal with monopolies in
convergence?
- Social networks: freedom of speech or discourse of hatred?
- Others...

Deadline for the submission of proposals: 1 June 2016

The proposals will be studied and grouped (according to the principle of
agglutination). Please note, all proposals will be accepted provided they
respect the principles and values outlined in the WSF Charter
<https://fsm2016.org/en/sinformer/a-propos-du-forum-social-mondial/>  and
the World Charter of Free Media
<https://fsm2016.org/en/sinformer/a-propos-du-forum-social-mondial/> .

In preparation for the WFFM, we acknowledge these events are proposed to
take place on the traditional territory of the Kanien¹kehá:ka (Mohawks). The
island of ³Montreal² is known as Tiotia:ke in the language of the
Kanien¹kehá:ka. Historically, this location was a meeting place for other
Indigenous nations, including the Anishnabe (Algonquin) peoples. We invite
participants to learn more about resistance to colonization and the role of
communication technologies in these struggles‹one theme being prepared for
the Montreal WFFM events.

If you should have any questions or concerns, please contact the WFFM
organizing committee at: info at WFFM.net

 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160509/9a5e500b/attachment.htm>

From nadira.araj at gmail.com  Wed May 11 15:39:53 2016
From: nadira.araj at gmail.com (Nadira Alaraj)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 22:39:53 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_=5Bcs-coord=5D_CSCGWG_-=E2=80=8B_Draf?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?t_Terms_of_Reference_=28for_review=29?=
Message-ID: <CAJdpWNC1JrQK=LGnSpkem45an+Tdvt2dVXn=-huW20bp9ZFGnA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Best Bits members,
During the discussions of the nomcom to the IGF MAG, CSTD WG on Enhanced
Cooperation and WSIS Forum High level track facilitators, many points were
raised to enhance the CSCG ToR.

Here I'm circulating Ian Peter email below to those interested to be on the
Working Group to review the CSCG ToR.
Please note, that the last date to join the group is on May 23.

Best wishes,
Nadira Alaraj


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:45 AM
Subject: [cs-coord] CSCGWG
To:
​ ​
cs-coord at internetgov-cs.org

As discussed recently, a Working Group is being set up to look at the Civil
Society Coordination Group (CSCG), and whether there are changes that
should be made to improve its capabilities.

A Draft
​​
Terms of Reference is below – this will be considered by the Working Group.
Membership is open to people involved with civil society organisations, and
you can join at http://internetgov-cs.org/mailman/listinfo/cscgwg. Please
note that, as it is intended that the group commence collaborative
deliberations as soon as possible and complete its work by end August, you
must join by *Monday, May 23*.

If you are able to devote some time to this task in coming months, and can
offer some expertise and inputs to assist us, we would like you to work
with us on this important task.

DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE (to be reviewed when working group is established)

1.    To examine the current  structure,  membership and mission of CSCG,
and whether  this structure is the best way to ensure that civil society
representation  is representative (including geographically, politically,
and in respect of gender balance)
2.    To consider in this examination whether a structure capable of
receiving and administering funds to assist with civil society
representatives attendance and travel should also be established
3.    To consider workload and whether it is in civil society’s best
interest to rotate nomcom membership rather than continuance of one
representative group making all decisions
4.    To examine current selection procedures to see whether improvements
should be made
5.    To report back to civil society networks with any resulting
recommendations by August 31 2016
_______________________________________________
CS-coord mailing list
CS-coord at internetgov-cs.org
http://internetgov-cs.org/mailman/listinfo/cs-coord



-- 




<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20160511/fa1197ae/attachment.htm>