From nigidaad at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 13:11:27 2017 From: nigidaad at gmail.com (Nighat Dad) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 23:11:27 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Digital Rights Foundation bid farewell to 2016 with two Research Studies Message-ID: Dear All, On behalf of DRF, I wish you all a very happy new year. DRF concluded 2016 with two pilot research studies: the first deals with the state of privacy policies of the major telecoms that are operating in Pakistan; the second study tackles the gendered surveillance faced by female journalists in Pakistan, and the impact it has on their professional and personal lives. The first study, *Telecoms Privacy & Data Protection Policies in Pakistan *, looks at the extent to which the privacy policies of the major telecoms in Pakistan protect and inform their customers, and where they let them down. We examine the positive and the areas which are sorely lacking. Some did better than expected, and some disappointed, given the work of their parent company/ies. DRF utilised methodology inspired by Ranking Digital Rights and their Corporate Accountability Index project. None came out with 100%, however, and one telecom company Zong has already reached out to us after release of the study. We hope that telecoms pay attention and work to develop privacy policies that respect their users, and instills greater confidence, assuring customers that their mobile service providers are able to convey that they are indeed doing their best to protect their data. This is especially important in not only the passage of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, which could have significant ramifications for telecoms customers, but in the absence of explicit data protection legislation in Pakistan. *Surveillance of Female Journalists in Pakistan *examines the experiences of female journalists and the forms of surveillance that they face in the course of their work, and the toll surveillance can take on their professional and personal lives, it bleeds over into their personal lives. The research looks at the gendered forms - and different sources of - surveillance, including the state, audience members and political groups. The female journalists interviewed for the study spoke to DRF about the surveillance that they found themselves under not just by state authorities, but also the constant social surveillance in the form of abuse on social media - largely directed at their gender and appearance, rather than their work. In addition to mapping the forms of surveillance faced by female journalists, the report also explored the impact that this constant monitoring has, in terms of the psychological toll, self-censorship and retreat from digital spaces. This research study aims to add to the conversation around free speech, freedom of the press, surveillance and gender. DRF also aims to mainstream the idea of social surveillance as part of the definition of surveillance - where surveillance is not only carried out by the state, but also by social non-state actors. It is hoped that this study will highlight the gendered experience of female journalists and the specific problems they have to face. Media Coverage: Pakistani telecoms' murky policies put users' privacy at risk: report www.dawn.com/news/1305364/pakistani-telecoms-murky- policies-put-users-privacy-at-risk-report Study finds telecom firms’ privacy, data protection policies inadequate http://www.dawn.com/news/1305503 http://nation.com.pk/national/31-Dec-2016/drf-releases-resea rch-study-on-surveillance-of-female-journalists http://nation.com.pk/national/31-Dec-2016/research-study-on- surveillance-of-female-journalists-in-pakistan http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2016/12/31/pakistani-telecom s-murky-policies-put-users-privacy-at-risk-report/ http://www.dawn.com/news/1305891/female-journalists-face- gendered-forms-of-surveillance-study-finds Best, Nighat Dad Executive Director, Digital Rights Foundation Key ID: 386F2A5F Finger Print: 73C2 8F10 60D4 6553 0BFA D174 8AA1 226F 386F 2A5F Twitter: nighatdad Phone: +92 321 4815252 <+92%20321%204815252> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lists at digitaldissidents.org Mon Jan 23 09:42:06 2017 From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:42:06 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [TIME SENSITIVE] WSIS Forum CS representative nomination for High Level Track Facilitator In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4fa50102-0ccf-2eee-f5c1-8e9414f6a21b@digitaldissidents.org> Thank you very much for this Sheetal, I would like to nominate Mehwish Ansari (cc) for this. All the best, Niels On 01/23/2017 01:05 PM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > Please find below the details of the ITU's open call to nominate a civil > society representative High-Level Track Facilitator for the WSIS Forum > this year (12-16 June, > Geneva, Switzerland). > > The ITU has requested CS High Level Track Facilitators (HLTF) - see > below the dotted line for more details received from the WSIS Forum > organisers. There is no limit to the number we can nominate. However, > note there is no financial support for participation and all costs have > to be borne by the HTLFs themselves. > > To nominate a CS representative, send the name/s either to the entire > list or to both myself and Poncelet (cc'd) by *_COB 25 January_*, and we > will forward it to the CSCG for deliberation. The CSCG will submit names > by 01 February. > > Thanks, looking forward to receiving your input! Any questions, do let > us know. > > Best, > Sheetal & Poncelet. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This is to bring your attention to the Open Call to Identify High Level > Track Facilitators from Civil Society for the High-level Policy Sessions > for WSIS Forum 2017. This format of HLTFs was really appreciated last > year as it gave a chance for stakeholders to interact better with > ministers and other high levels. __ > > __ __ > > At the WSIS Forum 2017, the High-Level Policy Sessions of the High-level > Track (HLT) will take place on the 13 and 14 June.____ > > __ __ > > The Policy Sessions will be moderated by High-Level Track Facilitators > (HLTF) nominated and identified by each stakeholder type i.e Government, > Private Sector, Civil Society, Technical/ Academic community and > International Organization. > > > Please note that all HLTFs are to cover their own expenses for travel, > accommodation and insurance. The main task of the HLTF is to capture the > vision, identify emerging trends, opportunities and challenges shared by > the leaders of their session. > > __ __ > > The concluding session of the HLT will take place on the 14 of June. > During the concluding session of the HLT the WSIS Forum 2017 Chairman > will provide an Executive Summary, giving a platform for all the HLTFs > to submit the outcomes of their respective policy session. These will be > captured in a publication entitled “WSIS Forum 2017: Policy Statements > and Executive Brief”. > > __ __ > > > __ __ > > > > -- > * > * > *Sheetal Kumar* > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)203 818 3258 0337| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From gus at publicknowledge.org Tue Jan 24 12:54:52 2017 From: gus at publicknowledge.org (Gus Rossi) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 12:54:52 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Intro In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone! I just wanted to write a short email to introduce myself to the list. My name is Gus, I'm the new Global Policy Director at Public Knowledge. I'm looking forward working with you! Best -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Tue Jan 24 13:41:30 2017 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:41:30 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [TIME SENSITIVE] WSIS Forum CS representative nomination for High Level Track Facilitator In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Thanks for your nominations thus far. This is just a polite reminder (see below) to submit any nominations to both myself and Poncelet for CS High Level Track Facilitators (HLTF) to the WSIS Forum by *COB 25 January. * Best, Sheetal. On 23 January 2017 at 12:05, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > Please find below the details of the ITU's open call to nominate a civil > society representative High-Level Track Facilitator for the WSIS Forum > this year (12-16 June, > Geneva, Switzerland). > > The ITU has requested CS High Level Track Facilitators (HLTF) - see below > the dotted line for more details received from the WSIS Forum organisers. > There is no limit to the number we can nominate. However, note there is no > financial support for participation and all costs have to be borne by the > HTLFs themselves. > > To nominate a CS representative, send the name/s either to the entire list > or to both myself and Poncelet (cc'd) by *COB 25 January*, and we will > forward it to the CSCG for deliberation. The CSCG will submit names by 01 > February. > > Thanks, looking forward to receiving your input! Any questions, do let us > know. > > Best, > Sheetal & Poncelet. > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------------------------ > > This is to bring your attention to the Open Call to Identify High Level > Track Facilitators from Civil Society for the High-level Policy Sessions > for WSIS Forum 2017. This format of HLTFs was really appreciated last year > as it gave a chance for stakeholders to interact better with ministers and > other high levels. > > > > At the WSIS Forum 2017, the High-Level Policy Sessions of the High-level > Track (HLT) will take place on the 13 and 14 June. > > > > The Policy Sessions will be moderated by High-Level Track Facilitators > (HLTF) nominated and identified by each stakeholder type i.e Government, > Private Sector, Civil Society, Technical/ Academic community and > International Organization. > > > Please note that all HLTFs are to cover their own expenses for travel, > accommodation and insurance. The main task of the HLTF is to capture the > vision, identify emerging trends, opportunities and challenges shared by > the leaders of their session. > > > > The concluding session of the HLT will take place on the 14 of June. > During the concluding session of the HLT the WSIS Forum 2017 Chairman will > provide an Executive Summary, giving a platform for all the HLTFs to submit > the outcomes of their respective policy session. These will be captured in > a publication entitled “WSIS Forum 2017: Policy Statements and Executive > Brief”. > > > > > > > > -- > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258 0337| M: +44 (0)7739569514 <+44%207739%20569514> > | > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258 0337| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Wed Jan 25 05:24:53 2017 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:24:53 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva In-Reply-To: <08da0df2-1f5a-d7e4-d5ff-b15e839d8f9c@apc.org> References: <08da0df2-1f5a-d7e4-d5ff-b15e839d8f9c@apc.org> Message-ID: <5a0b4d2f-e8d0-e1f7-3186-53743f9a2d0d@apc.org> Dear all I am in Geneva for the second meeting of the CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for Development) Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC). APC's and other inputs from members of the Working Group and from observers are available on the WGEC site: http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=1215 CGI.br produced a synthesis document of the inputs which you can access here: http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/WGEC2016_m2_synthesis_en.pdf The provisional agenda is here: http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/cstd2017_WGEC_2_Agenda_en.pdf Any comments or suggestions welcome. I will try to keep you posted. Remote participation is only open to people who registered in advance. You can try to register here as observers: https://reg.unog.ch/event/17618/ Meeting starts tomorrow. Best Anriette ----------------------------------------- Anriette Esterhuysen Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org www.apc.org IM: ae_apc From wisdom.dk at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 07:11:44 2017 From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:11:44 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] IGF Best Practice Forums and intersessional stream Message-ID: Dear Internet Governance Stakeholders, We are glad to let you know that the IGF has just published all of the tangible outcomes from its intersessional activities conducted in 2016. These outputs include: - BPF Gender: Outcome resource 2016 (access and gender) & recommendations roadmap (online abuse and gender-based violence); - BPF on Internet exchange points (IXPs) ; - BPF on commercial and economic incentives to deploy IPv6 ; - BPF Cybersecurity (‘Building Confidence and Security in the use of Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) through Enhanced Cooperation and Collaboration’); and - Policy Options for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s) (Phase II). These resources are the outputs from bottom-up, inclusive, and community-driven activities of the IGF that took place over the course of 2016 (for more information about these initiatives, please see the *Notes *at the end of this email). The IGF, along with the facilitators and rapporteurs for all of the respective intersessional activities, are grateful for the invaluable support given and time invested in these activities by numerous stakeholders and volunteers. We would also like to recognise the dedication of the coordinators, facilitators, and lead experts who supported the IGF’s intersessional work over the past year, including Aaron Hughes, Constance Bommelaer, Douglas Onyango, Izumi Okutani, Jac SM Kee, Maarten Van Horenbeeck, Marco Hogewoning, Markus Kummer, Salanienta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Sumon A. Sabir, Renata Aquino Ribeiro, Segun Olugbile, among many others. *What can you do with the IGF’s intersessional resources?* We encourage all stakeholders to share these resources with their respective communities to ensure that the IGF resource outputs also become useful inputs into other processes of relevance to the Internet and its governance in 2017 and beyond. We hope these resources will not only be useful for policymakers and other stakeholders, but will also continue to symbolise the IGF community’s belief that multistakeholder collaboration is fundamental in effectively addressing pertinent Internet policy challenges. *What’s next for the IGF’s intersessional activities?* All outputs from the IGF’s intersessional activities are intended to be living documents that can be updated at any time. At the first Open Consultations and IGF multistakeholder advisory group (MAG) meeting in March 2017, stakeholders will discuss potential themes for the next cohort of intersessional activities, including what will happen with the 2016 BPFs and their outputs. The IGF Secretariat invites stakeholders to submit written contributions to the current public consultation stock-taking exercise. In these contributions, stakeholders are also welcome to send recommendations and proposed themes for intersessional activities in 2017. Written inputs should be sent totakingstock at intgovforum.org by Friday 27 January. Kind regards, IGF Secretariat *NOTES* *About the IGF* The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) serves to bring people together from various stakeholder groups as equals in discussions on public policy issues relating to the Internet. While the IGF has no negotiated outcomes, it serves the important function of informing and inspiring those with policymaking power in both public and private sectors. The IGF facilitates a common understanding of how to maximise Internet opportunities and address risks and challenges that arise. One of the ways in which it does so is through its intersessional activities, which are conducted following recommendations from the UN CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF and form part of a broader effort by the IGF community to produce more tangible outputs to “enhance the impact of the IGF on global Internet governance and policy”. *About the IGF’s intersessional activities* The IGF Best Practice Forums (BPFs) continue to offer unique platforms to investigate topical Internet policy challenges by collecting community input and experiences in a flexible and bottom-up manner. Through their substantive outreach efforts and continued calls for input and contributions, the BPFs have already enabled more diverse and varied participation in IGF processes, including from a richer variety of regions and stakeholder groups. By continuously involving new people in their work, the various BPFs also contributed to enlarging the global footprint of the IGF. BPFs worked throughout the year in an open and inclusive way via open mailing lists, regular virtual meetings, and BPF workshops during the 11th IGF meeting in Guadalajara, Mexico, from 6 to 9 December 2016. *About the BPF Gender* The BPF Gender’s second publication, entitled ‘Overcoming Barriers to Enable Women’s Meaningful Internet Access ’, builds on its work in 2015, when it also published an extensive resource on online abuse and gender-based violence. In 2016, the BPF furthermore produced a user-friendly infographicroadmap for addressing online abuse and gender-based violence, based on the key recommendations for diverse stakeholder groups from its 2015 report. The BPF Gender is also partnering with ITU and UN Women’s EQUALS partnership, a global initiative aimed at addressing gender inequality, to raise awareness of its outputs. Further details of this collaboration will soon be announced. *About the BPF Cybersecurity* The 2016 IGF BPF on Cybersecurity built upon the previous work of the IGF CSIRTS and SPAM BPFs. Its work was also guided by the WSIS +10 review process which produced an outcome document with a strong focus on "building confidence and security in the use of information and communications technologies", making an IGF BPF related to cybersecurity even more relevant. The 2016 discussions and output report addressed cooperation and collaboration on cybersecurity issues between stakeholder groups as an overarching theme. *About the BPF on Internet exchange points (IXPs)* The BPF *Contributing to the Success and Continued Development of Internet exchange points (IXPs)* collected best current practices that have proven to contribute to building strong and successful IXPs. Exchanging traffic at an IXP has a number of benefits that can contribute to a more affordable, stable, faster and more reliable Internet of a higher quality in a region. The success of an IXP will be measured by its ability to sustainably contribute to the development of its local Internet ecosystem. The BPF on IXPs focused on the management and operation of an IXP and identified factors that can contribute to success. *About the BPF IPv6* IPv6 is the Internet’s addressing system that was developed to deal with IPv4 exhaustion and to make the Internet future-proof. The fast growing number of networks that already supports IPv6 today proofs that IPv6 is a technically feasible option for business. The BPF *Understanding the commercial and economic incentives behind a successful IPv6 deployment* collected case studies on commercial experiences with IPv6 deployment to better understand challenges and incentives, and provide an opportunity to learn from each other. *About Policy Options for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s) - Phase II* In 2016, the IGF furthered its seminal work on *Policy Options for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s) *by investigating challenges and opportunities for addressing and overcoming barriers to meaningful Internet access, promoting meaningful access in diverse contexts and regions, and ensuring that meaningful access also supports the achievement of the UN sustainable development goals. Read the report here . *WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)* E-government and Open Government Data Platforms Specialist National Information Technology Agency (NITA)/ Ghana Open Data Initiative Project. ICANN Fellow / Member, UN IGF MAG Member, ISOC Member, Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) Member, Diplo Foundation Member, OGP Open Data WG Member, GODAN Memember, ITAG Member Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh wisdom.dk at gmail.com Skype: wisdom_dk facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From judith at jhellerstein.com Wed Jan 25 22:34:31 2017 From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 22:34:31 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Cameroon Shuts down the Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org From raquino at gmail.com Thu Jan 26 08:20:06 2017 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:20:06 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] LACNIC IT Women webinars Message-ID: Hi folks Sending a reminder and a description of a new monthly project involving LACNIC members Many folks from there collaborate here too - Kudos to you too And we hope to see you on our webinars and in LACNIC Thanks Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 12:52:04 -0300 From: Agustina Zamit To: it-women at lacnic.net Subject: [It-women] Thursday 26th January 3pm UTC / Webinar. Hi everyone, Some reminders for our kick off webinar: *Schedule: January 26th - 3PM UTC** * What does it mean to be in IT Women in LACNIC? Who are we and how can we contribute to the organization? *Registration:* please complete your information to receive the webinar's link. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WXXXolWCa8vNug_CVVcZtVzA2OjH0UVTdKEgZ3ovCo8/edit?usp=sharing *Agenda:* Keep in mind the collaborative agenda remains open. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lM1w5fx-rSV_jiiELZbPJMp6QEH33G6MJQ8LQK4Bdpg/edit?usp=sharing Best, Agustina ----------- Estimadas, Algunos recordatorios para nuestro primer webinar. Fecha: Jueves 26 de Enero. 3PM UTC Tema de inicio: Que significa pertenecer a IT Women en LACNIC? y como podemos contribuir a la organizaci?n? *Registro:* Les pedimos que completen sus datos en el siguiente link para recibir el enlace de ingreso al webinar y facilitar la organizaci?n de la reuni?n. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WXXXolWCa8vNug_CVVcZtVzA2OjH0UVTdKEgZ3ovCo8/edit?usp=sharing *Agenda:* La agenda colaborativa permanece abierta, las invitamos a incluir sugerencias o temas. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lM1w5fx-rSV_jiiELZbPJMp6QEH33G6MJQ8LQK4Bdpg/edit?usp=sharing Saludos, Agustina From deji at accessnow.org Thu Jan 26 09:36:58 2017 From: deji at accessnow.org (Deji Bryce Olukotun) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 09:36:58 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Cameroon Shuts down the Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you, Arsène for the introduction and the summary. Judith, as Arsène explained, the #KeepitOn coalition (111 organizations from 51 countries) is pushing back against the shutdown. Our efforts are being led by Julie Owono from Internet Without Borders . At present, we are fighting the shutdown in several ways: - open letter to government officials and agencies to restore access - media outreach - Tweet action at Cameroonian officials (please support!) - outreach to telcos operating in the country, including a statement from the Global Network Initiative (Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Investors, academics) - outreach to international officials at the UN and AU - coordination with local groups in Cameroon - coordinating with CDN's and other measurement entities We welcome any ideas or suggestions about how to get the internet turned back on. With each passing day, people are at increased risk of human rights violations and the economy is losing money. We'll reach out to ISOC to coordinate as well. Best, Deji On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Arsène Tungali wrote: > Hi Judith, > > Thanks for sharing this with us. What's going on in Cameroon is just a > shame. For colleagues who have never experienced Internet shutdown, please > understand that it is a nightmare. > > On this note about Cameroon, several organizations including Access Now > and Internet Without Borders > are > doing a lot of advocacy and statements > , > letters have been sent to officials in Cameroon to ask them to bring back > the Internet. A hashtag about this has been started and you can take action > as well: #BringBackkOutInternet > . > > You can learn more about the #KeepItOn > campaign here > . > > Eduard Snowden sent in a tweet > where he said: "*This > is the future of repression. If we do not fight it there, it will happen > here*" and I cannot agree more with him because it is just going from one > country to another. Over 8 countries in Africa, including mine the DRC, > have experienced shutdown and no one knows who is next. Acces Now has > reported 15 Internet shutdowns across > the world in 2015 and 56 in 2016 > > If there is any question about all the statements and campaigns, I am > happy to help or convey your questions since I am involved, on a personal > capacity, in these movements advocating and fighting Internet shutdowns > across Africa. > > Regards, > Arsene > > PS: Copied is Deji Olukotun who works on Advocacy for Access Now. > > > ------------------------ > **Arsène Tungali** > Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international > *, > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum > * > Tel: +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967> > GPG: 523644A0 > *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* > > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow > > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil > > & Mexico > ) > - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger > - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles > & Marrakech > > ). AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius > > )* - *IGFSA Member - The HuffingtonPost UK > > > 2017-01-26 5:34 GMT+02:00 Judith Hellerstein : > >> HI All, >> >> Just passing on a note from Mafor Edwan of ISOC Cameroon about the >> Cameroonian Government shut down of the Internet in his country. >> >> I am at a loss for words of yet another country that has cut off Internet >> Access for its citizens. Thanks to ISOC Cameroon for all their efforts to >> resolve this crisis, even though they have not been successful, I am glad >> that they have tried. I am a passionate believer in an open Internet. One >> that is available to all. By connecting the world, working with others, and >> advocating for equal access to the Internet, We can make the world a better >> place. >> Edwan hopes people can share this word about this and hopefully some one >> can reach the President and tell him what a bad idea this is. I told him I >> would share it around. Hope others can do the same >> >> Best, >> Judith >> >> _________________________________________________________________________ >> Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO >> Hellerstein & Associates >> 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 >> Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein >> E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com >> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ >> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >> >> >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] FYI- Constance's blog post about the >> G20 - and the updated Internet Governance timeline >> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 21:49:53 -0500 >> From: Queen Mother >> To: Dan York >> CC: ISOC Chapter Delegates >> , Carl Gahnberg >> >> >> Good evening Fellow ISOC Delegates, >> >> I bring you sad news about the state of internet access in my home >> country Cameroon. >> I have sobbed uncontrollably for weeks as the govt of my country tortures >> and mimes her citizens and recently has cut off the ability to send >> financial support to our families through western union and has now cut off >> the internet. >> >> Please if you can read the articles below. >> >> Cameroon Cuts Internet in English-speaking Regions >> >> http://www.voanews.com/a/cameroon-cuts-internet-in-english- >> speaking-regions/3682688.html >> >> How Cameroon pressured mobile operators to shut down the internet and >> stifle dissent >> >> https://qz.com/893401/cameroon-pressured-mtn-and-other- >> operators-to-shut-down-internet-in-bamenda-buea-regions/ >> >> Thank you. >> Mafor edwan >> Vice President #2 >> ISOC Cameroon >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed >>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society >>> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > -- Deji Bryce Olukotun Senior Global Advocacy Manager Access Now | accessnow.org tel: +1 415-935-4572 | @dejiridoo PGP: 0x6012CDA8 Fingerprint: 3AEE 4194 F70E C806 A810 857A 6AD5 8F48 6012 CDA8 *Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter on digital rights, the Access Now Express: *https://www.accessnow.org/campaign/#sign-up -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From raquino at gmail.com Thu Jan 26 09:45:52 2017 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:45:52 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Cameroon Shuts down the Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Indeed, this is a terrible situation, which can happen in any country, which is why everyone should take action. I'd think bringing in ISOC and other organizations will help deepen these efforts. On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Deji Bryce Olukotun wrote: > Thank you, Arsène for the introduction and the summary. > > Judith, as Arsène explained, the #KeepitOn coalition > (111 organizations from 51 countries) is > pushing back against the shutdown. Our efforts are being led by Julie Owono > from Internet Without Borders > > . > > At present, we are fighting the shutdown in several ways: > - open letter to government officials and agencies to restore access > - media outreach > - Tweet action at Cameroonian officials > > (please support!) > - outreach to telcos operating in the country, including a statement from > the Global Network Initiative > (Microsoft, > Google, Facebook, Investors, academics) > - outreach to international officials at the UN and AU > - coordination with local groups in Cameroon > - coordinating with CDN's and other measurement entities > > We welcome any ideas or suggestions about how to get the internet turned > back on. With each passing day, people are at increased risk of human > rights violations and the economy is losing money. We'll reach out to ISOC > to coordinate as well. > > Best, > Deji > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Arsène Tungali > wrote: > >> Hi Judith, >> >> Thanks for sharing this with us. What's going on in Cameroon is just a >> shame. For colleagues who have never experienced Internet shutdown, please >> understand that it is a nightmare. >> >> On this note about Cameroon, several organizations including Access Now >> and Internet Without Borders >> are >> doing a lot of advocacy and statements >> , >> letters have been sent to officials in Cameroon to ask them to bring back >> the Internet. A hashtag about this has been started and you can take action >> as well: #BringBackkOutInternet >> . >> >> You can learn more about the #KeepItOn >> campaign here >> . >> >> Eduard Snowden sent in a tweet >> where he said: "*This >> is the future of repression. If we do not fight it there, it will happen >> here*" and I cannot agree more with him because it is just going from >> one country to another. Over 8 countries in Africa, including mine the DRC, >> have experienced shutdown and no one knows who is next. Acces Now has >> reported 15 Internet shutdowns >> across the world in 2015 and 56 in 2016 >> >> If there is any question about all the statements and campaigns, I am >> happy to help or convey your questions since I am involved, on a personal >> capacity, in these movements advocating and fighting Internet shutdowns >> across Africa. >> >> Regards, >> Arsene >> >> PS: Copied is Deji Olukotun who works on Advocacy for Access Now. >> >> >> ------------------------ >> **Arsène Tungali** >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >> *, >> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum >> * >> Tel: +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967> >> GPG: 523644A0 >> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* >> >> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow >> >> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil >> >> & Mexico >> ) >> - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger >> - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles >> & Marrakech >> >> ). AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius >> >> )* - *IGFSA Member - The HuffingtonPost UK >> >> >> 2017-01-26 5:34 GMT+02:00 Judith Hellerstein : >> >>> HI All, >>> >>> Just passing on a note from Mafor Edwan of ISOC Cameroon about the >>> Cameroonian Government shut down of the Internet in his country. >>> >>> I am at a loss for words of yet another country that has cut off >>> Internet Access for its citizens. Thanks to ISOC Cameroon for all their >>> efforts to resolve this crisis, even though they have not been successful, >>> I am glad that they have tried. I am a passionate believer in an open >>> Internet. One that is available to all. By connecting the world, working >>> with others, and advocating for equal access to the Internet, We can make >>> the world a better place. >>> Edwan hopes people can share this word about this and hopefully some one >>> can reach the President and tell him what a bad idea this is. I told him I >>> would share it around. Hope others can do the same >>> >>> Best, >>> Judith >>> >>> _________________________________________________________________________ >>> Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO >>> Hellerstein & Associates >>> 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 >>> Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein >>> E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com >>> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ >>> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] FYI- Constance's blog post about the >>> G20 - and the updated Internet Governance timeline >>> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 21:49:53 -0500 >>> From: Queen Mother >>> To: Dan York >>> CC: ISOC Chapter Delegates >>> , Carl Gahnberg >>> >>> >>> Good evening Fellow ISOC Delegates, >>> >>> I bring you sad news about the state of internet access in my home >>> country Cameroon. >>> I have sobbed uncontrollably for weeks as the govt of my country >>> tortures and mimes her citizens and recently has cut off the ability to >>> send financial support to our families through western union and has now >>> cut off the internet. >>> >>> Please if you can read the articles below. >>> >>> Cameroon Cuts Internet in English-speaking Regions >>> >>> http://www.voanews.com/a/cameroon-cuts-internet-in-english-s >>> peaking-regions/3682688.html >>> >>> How Cameroon pressured mobile operators to shut down the internet and >>> stifle dissent >>> >>> https://qz.com/893401/cameroon-pressured-mtn-and-other-opera >>> tors-to-shut-down-internet-in-bamenda-buea-regions/ >>> >>> Thank you. >>> Mafor edwan >>> Vice President #2 >>> ISOC Cameroon >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed >>>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society >>>> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org >>>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Deji Bryce Olukotun > Senior Global Advocacy Manager > Access Now | accessnow.org > > tel: +1 415-935-4572 <+1%20415-935-4572> | @dejiridoo > PGP: 0x6012CDA8 > Fingerprint: 3AEE 4194 F70E C806 A810 857A 6AD5 8F48 6012 CDA8 > > *Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter on digital rights, the Access Now > Express: *https://www.accessnow.org/campaign/#sign-up > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Fri Jan 27 04:34:56 2017 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:34:56 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <08da0df2-1f5a-d7e4-d5ff-b15e839d8f9c@apc.org> <5a0b4d2f-e8d0-e1f7-3186-53743f9a2d0d@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear Arsene (apologies for cross posting) Thanks for this. The first day went relatively well, if very slowly. Follow @sgdickinson for updates. We talked mostly about the 'characteristics' of enhanced cooperation. Representing civil society in any unified way is not really possible as not all the civil society participants share the same position. We do share concerns and values and there is a good working spirit between those of us who are here (Parminder Jeet Singh, Richard Hill, Carlos Afonso, Lea Kaspar, Jovan Kurbalija and also observers such as Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, Puneet Nagaraj and Marilia Maricel). We have not had a civil society meeting of any kind yet. That we have different positions (e.g. on what mechanisms are needed for enhanced cooperation, and whether it is about cooperation between governments, or between governments and other stakeholders) is also not a bad thing in my view. And there are some views we have in common. But we cannot say there is a united civil society position at this point. Cooperation between governments is important. Cooperation among all stakeholders is also important. Civil society influence is essential. Preventing capture from any one government or group of governments or stakeholder group, e.g. business, is also important. I am hoping that discussing how we see enhanced cooperation and how and where governments should talk about internet-related public policy, even if we have different emphases and proposals would be useful. Last word ... Geneva is cold! Anriette On 25/01/2017 13:11, Arsène Tungali wrote: > Thanks Anriette, > > Please do keep us posted of anything relevant to CS. And should you need anything from us, do not hesitate > > Go and represent! > > Arsene > ----------------- > Arsène Tungali, > @arsenebaguma > +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > >> On Jan 25, 2017, at 12:24 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >> Dear all >> >> I am in Geneva for the second meeting of the CSTD (Commission on Science >> and Technology for Development) Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation >> (WGEC). >> >> APC's and other inputs from members of the Working Group and from >> observers are available on the WGEC site: >> http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=1215 >> >> CGI.br produced a synthesis document of the inputs which you can access >> here: >> http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/WGEC2016_m2_synthesis_en.pdf >> >> The provisional agenda is here: >> http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/cstd2017_WGEC_2_Agenda_en.pdf >> >> Any comments or suggestions welcome. I will try to keep you posted. >> Remote participation is only open to people who registered in advance. >> You can try to register here as observers: https://reg.unog.ch/event/17618/ >> >> Meeting starts tomorrow. >> >> Best >> >> Anriette >> >> ----------------------------------------- >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> Executive Director >> Association for Progressive Communications >> anriette at apc.org >> www.apc.org >> IM: ae_apc >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ----------------------------------------- Anriette Esterhuysen Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org www.apc.org IM: ae_apc From lists at digitaldissidents.org Wed Jan 4 10:00:13 2017 From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 16:00:13 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Invitation Webinar Community TLDs and Human Rights January 18 - 15:00 UTC Message-ID: <789b8d53-80e6-1552-29fb-a3386632d2a0@digitaldissidents.org> Dear all, On behalf of the ARTICLE 19, the Council of Europe, and the Cross Community Working Party on ICANNs Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect Human Rights I am very happy to invite you to a ** webinar on Community top-level domains (TLDs) and human rights ** * January 18 - 15:00 UTC at https://participate.icann.org/ncsg/ * In this webinar we will present and discuss the main findings from the Council of Europe report on Community Based gTLDs and Human Rights [0] with: Facilitators: Niels ten Oever Head of Digital at Article 19 Chair of the CCWP HR Rapporteur for CCWG WS2 Human Rights sub-team Patrick Penninckx Head of Information Society Department, Council of Europe Key findings: Eve Salomon, Co-Author of the report International consultant and legal expert on media law and human rights Kinanya Pijl Co-Author of the report PhD Candidate, European University, Florence Discussants: Mark Carvell GAC Vice-Chair Co-Chair GAC WG on Human Rights and International Law Chris Disspain ICANN Board Member Jamie Baxter Dotgay LLC Cherine Chalaby ICANN Board Member Avri Dora Internet Researcher Co-Chair Subsequent gTLD procedures WG We're greatly looking forward to your participation. Feel free to share this invitation widely among your constituencies and communities. All the best, Niels ten Oever [0] https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53772653/Report%20on%20Community%20TLD%27s.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1478169857000&api=v2 Please find the AC room and dial in details here: Adobe Connect room: https://participate.icann.org/ncsg/ Passcodes/Pin codes: Participant passcode: CCWP HR For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. Dial in numbers: ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA BANGALORE: 91-80-61275204 INDIA MUMBAI: 91-22-61501629 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-466 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SLOVENIA 0-800-81310 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 PS Sorry for cross-posting -- 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: ICANN 2017 webinar community TLDs.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 296044 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From mike.oghia at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 05:01:26 2017 From: mike.oghia at gmail.com (Michael Oghia) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:01:26 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <08da0df2-1f5a-d7e4-d5ff-b15e839d8f9c@apc.org> <5a0b4d2f-e8d0-e1f7-3186-53743f9a2d0d@apc.org> Message-ID: Thank you for updating us Anriette, I really appreciate it. Best, -Michael __________________ Michael J. Oghia iGmena communications manager Independent #netgov consultant & editor Belgrade, Serbia Skype: mikeoghia Twitter *|* LinkedIn On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Arsene (apologies for cross posting) > > Thanks for this. The first day went relatively well, if very slowly. > > Follow @sgdickinson for updates. > > We talked mostly about the 'characteristics' of enhanced cooperation. > > Representing civil society in any unified way is not really possible as > not all the civil society participants share the same position. We do > share concerns and values and there is a good working spirit between > those of us who are here (Parminder Jeet Singh, Richard Hill, Carlos > Afonso, Lea Kaspar, Jovan Kurbalija and also observers such as Wolfgang > Kleinwaechter, Puneet Nagaraj and Marilia Maricel). We have not had a > civil society meeting of any kind yet. > > That we have different positions (e.g. on what mechanisms are needed for > enhanced cooperation, and whether it is about cooperation between > governments, or between governments and other stakeholders) is also not > a bad thing in my view. And there are some views we have in common. But > we cannot say there is a united civil society position at this point. > > Cooperation between governments is important. > > Cooperation among all stakeholders is also important. > > Civil society influence is essential. > > Preventing capture from any one government or group of governments or > stakeholder group, e.g. business, is also important. > > I am hoping that discussing how we see enhanced cooperation and how and > where governments should talk about internet-related public policy, even > if we have different emphases and proposals would be useful. > > Last word ... Geneva is cold! > > Anriette > > > On 25/01/2017 13:11, Arsène Tungali wrote: > > Thanks Anriette, > > > > Please do keep us posted of anything relevant to CS. And should you need > anything from us, do not hesitate > > > > Go and represent! > > > > Arsene > > ----------------- > > Arsène Tungali, > > @arsenebaguma > > +243 993810967 > > GPG: 523644A0 > > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > > >> On Jan 25, 2017, at 12:24 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > >> > >> Dear all > >> > >> I am in Geneva for the second meeting of the CSTD (Commission on Science > >> and Technology for Development) Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > >> (WGEC). > >> > >> APC's and other inputs from members of the Working Group and from > >> observers are available on the WGEC site: > >> http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=1215 > >> > >> CGI.br produced a synthesis document of the inputs which you can access > >> here: > >> http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/WGEC2016_ > m2_synthesis_en.pdf > >> > >> The provisional agenda is here: > >> http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/cstd2017_ > WGEC_2_Agenda_en.pdf > >> > >> Any comments or suggestions welcome. I will try to keep you posted. > >> Remote participation is only open to people who registered in advance. > >> You can try to register here as observers: https://reg.unog.ch/event/ > 17618/ > >> > >> Meeting starts tomorrow. > >> > >> Best > >> > >> Anriette > >> > >> ----------------------------------------- > >> Anriette Esterhuysen > >> Executive Director > >> Association for Progressive Communications > >> anriette at apc.org > >> www.apc.org > >> IM: ae_apc > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > ----------------------------------------- > Anriette Esterhuysen > Executive Director > Association for Progressive Communications > anriette at apc.org > www.apc.org > IM: ae_apc > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iza at anr.org Fri Jan 27 09:34:14 2017 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 23:34:14 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <08da0df2-1f5a-d7e4-d5ff-b15e839d8f9c@apc.org> <5a0b4d2f-e8d0-e1f7-3186-53743f9a2d0d@apc.org> Message-ID: I also thank you, Anriette and all those who are in cold Geneva, working hard for this rather difficult to tackle issue of Enhanced cooperation, still. Please keep the good work,and share your views on where it is going further, if any. izumi 2017-01-27 18:34 GMT+09:00 Anriette Esterhuysen : > Dear Arsene (apologies for cross posting) > > Thanks for this. The first day went relatively well, if very slowly. > > Follow @sgdickinson for updates. > > We talked mostly about the 'characteristics' of enhanced cooperation. > > Representing civil society in any unified way is not really possible as > not all the civil society participants share the same position. We do > share concerns and values and there is a good working spirit between > those of us who are here (Parminder Jeet Singh, Richard Hill, Carlos > Afonso, Lea Kaspar, Jovan Kurbalija and also observers such as Wolfgang > Kleinwaechter, Puneet Nagaraj and Marilia Maricel). We have not had a > civil society meeting of any kind yet. > > That we have different positions (e.g. on what mechanisms are needed for > enhanced cooperation, and whether it is about cooperation between > governments, or between governments and other stakeholders) is also not > a bad thing in my view. And there are some views we have in common. But > we cannot say there is a united civil society position at this point. > > Cooperation between governments is important. > > Cooperation among all stakeholders is also important. > > Civil society influence is essential. > > Preventing capture from any one government or group of governments or > stakeholder group, e.g. business, is also important. > > I am hoping that discussing how we see enhanced cooperation and how and > where governments should talk about internet-related public policy, even > if we have different emphases and proposals would be useful. > > Last word ... Geneva is cold! > > Anriette > > > On 25/01/2017 13:11, Arsène Tungali wrote: > > Thanks Anriette, > > > > Please do keep us posted of anything relevant to CS. And should you need > anything from us, do not hesitate > > > > Go and represent! > > > > Arsene > > ----------------- > > Arsène Tungali, > > @arsenebaguma > > +243 993810967 > > GPG: 523644A0 > > Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > > > > Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) > > > >> On Jan 25, 2017, at 12:24 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > >> > >> Dear all > >> > >> I am in Geneva for the second meeting of the CSTD (Commission on Science > >> and Technology for Development) Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > >> (WGEC). > >> > >> APC's and other inputs from members of the Working Group and from > >> observers are available on the WGEC site: > >> http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=1215 > >> > >> CGI.br produced a synthesis document of the inputs which you can access > >> here: > >> http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/WGEC2016_ > m2_synthesis_en.pdf > >> > >> The provisional agenda is here: > >> http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/cstd2017_ > WGEC_2_Agenda_en.pdf > >> > >> Any comments or suggestions welcome. I will try to keep you posted. > >> Remote participation is only open to people who registered in advance. > >> You can try to register here as observers: https://reg.unog.ch/event/ > 17618/ > >> > >> Meeting starts tomorrow. > >> > >> Best > >> > >> Anriette > >> > >> ----------------------------------------- > >> Anriette Esterhuysen > >> Executive Director > >> Association for Progressive Communications > >> anriette at apc.org > >> www.apc.org > >> IM: ae_apc > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > ----------------------------------------- > Anriette Esterhuysen > Executive Director > Association for Progressive Communications > anriette at apc.org > www.apc.org > IM: ae_apc > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Fri Jan 27 10:22:31 2017 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 16:22:31 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801D3B2A5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <08da0df2-1f5a-d7e4-d5ff-b15e839d8f9c@apc.org> <5a0b4d2f-e8d0-e1f7-3186-53743f9a2d0d@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801D3B2A5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <06BFEAAB-49C7-4949-974A-40B10B9ECB3D@consensus.pro> I think expectations should be low. To be honest, the intergovernmental “action” on most issues has migrated to those processes where there is a mandate for a given area of work - trade to the WTO, INTERPOL/UNODC for crime, etc. > On 27 Jan 2017, at 15:38, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > I am afraid that we won´t see big progress. Too many delegates fight the battles of yesterday. It needs much more political will (from all stakeholders) to look beyond the good language of Tunis and to draft a "enhanced Internet Governance Agenda 2025". > > w > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU > Gesendet: Fr 27.01.2017 15:34 > An: Anriette Esterhuysen > Cc: governance; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; APC Members > Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva > > I also thank you, Anriette and all those who are in cold Geneva, working > hard for this rather difficult to tackle issue of Enhanced cooperation, > still. > > Please keep the good work,and share your views on where it is going > further, if any. > > izumi > > 2017-01-27 18:34 GMT+09:00 Anriette Esterhuysen : > >> Dear Arsene (apologies for cross posting) >> >> Thanks for this. The first day went relatively well, if very slowly. >> >> Follow @sgdickinson for updates. >> >> We talked mostly about the 'characteristics' of enhanced cooperation. >> >> Representing civil society in any unified way is not really possible as >> not all the civil society participants share the same position. We do >> share concerns and values and there is a good working spirit between >> those of us who are here (Parminder Jeet Singh, Richard Hill, Carlos >> Afonso, Lea Kaspar, Jovan Kurbalija and also observers such as Wolfgang >> Kleinwaechter, Puneet Nagaraj and Marilia Maricel). We have not had a >> civil society meeting of any kind yet. >> >> That we have different positions (e.g. on what mechanisms are needed for >> enhanced cooperation, and whether it is about cooperation between >> governments, or between governments and other stakeholders) is also not >> a bad thing in my view. And there are some views we have in common. But >> we cannot say there is a united civil society position at this point. >> >> Cooperation between governments is important. >> >> Cooperation among all stakeholders is also important. >> >> Civil society influence is essential. >> >> Preventing capture from any one government or group of governments or >> stakeholder group, e.g. business, is also important. >> >> I am hoping that discussing how we see enhanced cooperation and how and >> where governments should talk about internet-related public policy, even >> if we have different emphases and proposals would be useful. >> >> Last word ... Geneva is cold! >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 25/01/2017 13:11, Arsène Tungali wrote: >>> Thanks Anriette, >>> >>> Please do keep us posted of anything relevant to CS. And should you need >> anything from us, do not hesitate >>> >>> Go and represent! >>> >>> Arsene >>> ----------------- >>> Arsène Tungali, >>> @arsenebaguma >>> +243 993810967 >>> GPG: 523644A0 >>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) >>> >>>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 12:24 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen >> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> I am in Geneva for the second meeting of the CSTD (Commission on Science >>>> and Technology for Development) Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation >>>> (WGEC). >>>> >>>> APC's and other inputs from members of the Working Group and from >>>> observers are available on the WGEC site: >>>> http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=1215 >>>> >>>> CGI.br produced a synthesis document of the inputs which you can access >>>> here: >>>> http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/WGEC2016_ >> m2_synthesis_en.pdf >>>> >>>> The provisional agenda is here: >>>> http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/cstd2017_ >> WGEC_2_Agenda_en.pdf >>>> >>>> Any comments or suggestions welcome. I will try to keep you posted. >>>> Remote participation is only open to people who registered in advance. >>>> You can try to register here as observers: https://reg.unog.ch/event/ >> 17618/ >>>> >>>> Meeting starts tomorrow. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> ----------------------------------------- >>>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>>> Executive Director >>>> Association for Progressive Communications >>>> anriette at apc.org >>>> www.apc.org >>>> IM: ae_apc >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> -- >> ----------------------------------------- >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> Executive Director >> Association for Progressive Communications >> anriette at apc.org >> www.apc.org >> IM: ae_apc >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- >>> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Fri Jan 27 12:08:34 2017 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:08:34 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <08da0df2-1f5a-d7e4-d5ff-b15e839d8f9c@apc.org> <5a0b4d2f-e8d0-e1f7-3186-53743f9a2d0d@apc.org> Message-ID: <97ba08df-cab6-3dba-1de0-bf181ec2131d@apc.org> Dear all The second meeting of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation is coming to an end. We have some consensus on characteristics of enhanced cooperation, e.g.: Transparent Inclusive Consideration of under-represented groups Result-oriented Responsive to innovation There are many more. These are just examples. I will share when they are circulated. This afternoon we discussed recommendations. Some members put forward specific recommendations, others focused on the types of recommendations they believe the group should make (which is in line with the question that was put to members and observers prior to this meeting). Here too there is some agreement. E.g. on participation of developing countries There are divergent views on whether we need new mechanisms, and how formal these mechanisms should be, and what their role should be. The impact of the IANA transition having taken place is clear in that there has not been much focus on ICANN. Some reference has been made to unfinished issues around ICANN jurisdiction and problems with the GAC. But they were made in passing and there appears to be consensus that we are talking about broader issues. I am happy to say that there is broad agreement that all policy processes should involve other stakeholders. The differences lie in whether they are just consulted, or whether they are part of the decision-making processes :) Not a new issue of course. There has also been debate on whether we should move beyond the Tunis Agenda or not. Currently we are talking about next steps. There will be another meeting in May, and another in October. We are also discussing how to move forward in terms of discussing recommendations and producing input documents for the next meeting. The spirit in the room remains polite and constructive with the exception of one moment when there was a tense exchange between a member and the chair, but that diffused pretty quickly. Meeting structure could have been more organised, perhaps, but all in all it did not go badly, and the chair did a very good job. Anriette From wangarikabiru at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 27 12:38:08 2017 From: wangarikabiru at yahoo.co.uk (WANGARI KABIRU) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 17:38:08 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva In-Reply-To: <06BFEAAB-49C7-4949-974A-40B10B9ECB3D@consensus.pro> References: <08da0df2-1f5a-d7e4-d5ff-b15e839d8f9c@apc.org> <5a0b4d2f-e8d0-e1f7-3186-53743f9a2d0d@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801D3B2A5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <06BFEAAB-49C7-4949-974A-40B10B9ECB3D@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <1260683256.4328330.1485538688317@mail.yahoo.com> Warm greetings Anriette, In the morning there was reference in the semblance that enhanced cooperation is a government area not for the IGF...MAG.Would you kindly shed light.  The comments;-  that statistics in developing countries are a result of tradeoffs and thus not (necessarily) reliable- how an entity is considered multi-stakeholder in one forum and in other spheres not viewed as such. Taking into account multi-stakholderism is a key tenet in Internet Governance Many thanks for the briefs. Be blessed. Regards/Wangari --- Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the Light, We are Restored Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The Kingdom of God on Earth". On Friday, 27 January 2017, 18:22, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: I think expectations should be low. To be honest, the intergovernmental “action” on most issues has migrated to those processes where there is a mandate for a given area of work - trade to the WTO, INTERPOL/UNODC for crime, etc.  On 27 Jan 2017, at 15:38, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: I am afraid that we won´t  see big progress. Too many delegates fight the battles of yesterday. It needs much more political will (from all stakeholders) to look beyond the good language of Tunis and to draft a "enhanced Internet Governance Agenda 2025".  w -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU Gesendet: Fr 27.01.2017 15:34 An: Anriette Esterhuysen Cc: governance; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; APC Members Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva I also thank you, Anriette and all those who are in cold Geneva, working hard for this rather difficult to tackle issue of Enhanced cooperation, still. Please keep the good work,and share your views on where it is going further, if any. izumi 2017-01-27 18:34 GMT+09:00 Anriette Esterhuysen : Dear Arsene (apologies for cross posting) Thanks for this. The first day went relatively well, if very slowly. Follow @sgdickinson for updates. We talked mostly about the 'characteristics' of enhanced cooperation. Representing civil society in any unified way is not really possible as not all the civil society participants share the same position. We do share concerns and values and there is a good working spirit between those of us who are here (Parminder Jeet Singh, Richard Hill, Carlos Afonso, Lea Kaspar, Jovan Kurbalija and also observers such as Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, Puneet Nagaraj and Marilia Maricel). We have not had a civil society meeting of any kind yet. That we have different positions (e.g. on what mechanisms are needed for enhanced cooperation, and whether it is about cooperation between governments, or between governments and other stakeholders) is also not a bad thing in my view. And there are some views we have in common. But we cannot say there is a united civil society position at this point. Cooperation between governments is important. Cooperation among all stakeholders is also important. Civil society influence is essential. Preventing capture from any one government or group of governments or stakeholder group, e.g. business, is also important. I am hoping that discussing how we see enhanced cooperation and how and where governments should talk about internet-related public policy, even if we have different emphases and proposals would be useful. Last word ... Geneva is cold! Anriette On 25/01/2017 13:11, Arsène Tungali wrote: Thanks Anriette, Please do keep us posted of anything relevant to CS. And should you need anything from us, do not hesitate Go and represent! Arsene ----------------- Arsène Tungali, @arsenebaguma +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos) On Jan 25, 2017, at 12:24 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: Dear all I am in Geneva for the second meeting of the CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for Development) Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC). APC's and other inputs from members of the Working Group and from observers are available on the WGEC site: http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=1215 CGI.br produced a synthesis document of the inputs which you can access here: http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/WGEC2016_ m2_synthesis_en.pdf The provisional agenda is here: http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/cstd2017_ WGEC_2_Agenda_en.pdf Any comments or suggestions welcome. I will try to keep you posted. Remote participation is only open to people who registered in advance. You can try to register here as observers: https://reg.unog.ch/event/ 17618/ Meeting starts tomorrow. Best Anriette ----------------------------------------- Anriette Esterhuysen Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org www.apc.org IM: ae_apc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:    governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:    http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ----------------------------------------- Anriette Esterhuysen Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org www.apc.org IM: ae_apc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits --  Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kichango at gmail.com Sun Jan 29 12:57:51 2017 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 17:57:51 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Please Cameroon did not shut down the Internet !!! In-Reply-To: References: <4B4986C9-C64C-4F29-92FB-2A16DBF968A5@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks all trying to report out of Cameroon. Like others, I was struck by the implications from Janvier's reporting, or rather his attempt at a "mise au point" which completely missed the mark, I'm sorry. Government is blocking Internet access only in 2 regions out of 8, so the situation is not that bad as the whole Cameroon being shutdown and we should chill? Oh, and money remittance operations to those 2 regions are also suspended, but not a big deal really? And you say that's done by the government for the sake of the whole population in those 2 regions? How's that? We just need to swallow that assertion made by you or the government and keep moving, nothing to see here? Interesting enough, the other 6 regions don't need that security and safety which is supposed to be found in shutting down the Internet (do you really think if there was a real terrorism threat from a section of the population accessing the Internet, that threat will go away by maintaining access only for their neighbors?) It's all in the (government) motivation, isn't it? If one cannot question the actual government's motivation in taking such extreme measures then it's going to be hard to come to a consensus on lasting peaceful solutions. I myself was born francophone and still a national of the same African francophone country of birth, and I can relate to that notion of "pleins pouvoirs"-- not to say "pouvoir absolu"-- found in some of our countries, which Joash was referring to. But I would urge ISOC Cameroon to try to relate also to the global culture of individual rights, particularly in the age of the Internet. Then whatever you'll be able to accept as the right of any Cameroonian, should be the right of all Cameroonians without distinction of language, ethnicity, religion, political views or location, etc. And, addressing the government here, I personally can't even begin to understand what is so difficult to understand in the notion that being a bilingual country is an asset, an advantage rather than a threat or drawback. So yes, we get it, not the whole of Cameroon is cut off from the Internet. But no, that doesn't make it any more acceptable that "only" a couple of regions are targeted by what seems like a punishment for a "crime de lèse majesté". Now the question on our table here is what we, global civil society coalitions, can do about a situation like this. I recall working for a short while at APC on those universal periodic reviews (hope I'm not messing up with that heavily acronym based terminology) at the UN Human Rights Council, and Cameroon was up for review at some point. Has any progress been made since? Any other course of action to look into? Thanks, Mawaki On Jan 28, 2017 4:37 PM, "Mwendwa Kivuva" wrote: It is quite unfortunate the situation in Cameroon, especially how people argue out human rights issues when the pinching shoe is on the neighbors leg, when their "enemy", imagined or real, is being persecuted. ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh On 28 January 2017 at 18:19, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > Dear All > > I am right here in Douala Cameroun. And when I read Janvier, I will want > many people to understand one thing. Mister Janvier is francophone. To many > francophones, rights belong to authorities and not peoples . People must > fear not respect authorities because the said authorities have all powers > (they call it in french (plein pouvoirs) to do and undo on every citizen. > > To him, a Sous Prefet can ask for internet to be suspended in some part of > Cameroon, he is in his right as an authority. Currently, a Supreme Court > Atorney General, Mr Paul Ayah Abine is arrested and is in detention without > due process. The same is the case another Magistrate in Buea who was > arrested and ferried to Yaounde a day ago. Their crime; for supporting the > anglophone call for a federation. > > To the likes of Janvier, it is the Government that gives liberty (C'est le > gouvernement qui donne la liberté in French) > > The civilized world must act against such egregious obscurantism > > Agien Nyangkwe > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Evelyn Namara > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> As a person who has been on the side of the shutdown, it is not right and >> justifiable to shutdown the Internet, even for a few regions. >> Mr. Janvier, your comments in this email hit me so hard. As a person who >> has some level of authority, you should be concerned and fight for all >> rights of all citizens. >> >> The 6 million plus people who make up the 2 regions that are deprived of >> the Internet also matter. Everyone matters, and like the Internet Society >> always says "The Internet is for everybody". >> >> Let's all fight and make leaders accountable. >> >> I stand with the people of Cameroun. >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Joash Moitui >> wrote: >> >>> Thank you all. >>> >>> This is a vital interesting topic. Having lived in Cameroon for 3 years, >>> I would say that the shutdown in these two region is no different from >>> shutdowns witnessed in Uganda and Gambia for instance. It is simply the >>> political elite using their political influence to prevent the human rights >>> violations calling for federation in these areas. The two areas made up of >>> Anglophones, who have been marginalized largely because of their language >>> and their calls for federation have been met by internet shutdown and full >>> force of security agents. It is this that the Cameroon government does not >>> want to be easily distributed within the social media. >>> >>> Joash >>> >>> On 27 Jan 2017, at 10:56, Nonhlanhla Chanza >>> wrote: >>> >>> I still weep blood for those two regions. I have never been convinced by >>> the argument that there might be circumstances that justifies a shutdown. >>> So many places in turmoil and war in the world but people have access still >>> to the Internet. >>> On 26 Jan 2017 17:59, "Janvier NGNOULAYE" wrote: >>> >>>> Hi to all, >>>> It seems to me that the problem of access to Internet in Cameroon is >>>> very much amplified here on the Net. There are 10 regions in Cameroon, the >>>> problem of access to the Internet is only concerning 2 Regions. These 2 >>>> regions actually has some political or social crisis. The government and >>>> other stakeholders in these 2 areas are looking for suitable solutions. >>>> Meanwhile, the government has seen fit to cut these two regions of Internet >>>> access and Western Union money transfer services, for the sake of the >>>> entire population of these 2 regions. >>>> Internet works well everywhere else in the other 8 regions. I'm sending >>>> this mail from Yaounde in Cameroon. >>>> So the situation is not a disaster as some seem to publish on the Net. >>>> The ISOC Chapter can only encourage the government and the other >>>> stakeholders to seek lasting peace solutions, even if it involves a >>>> temporary suspension of Internet and Western Union services. >>>> >>>> ISOC Cameroon Chapter >>>> President >>>> >>>> 2017-01-26 15:45 GMT+01:00 Renata Aquino Ribeiro : >>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> Indeed, this is a terrible situation, which can happen in any country, >>>>> which is why everyone should take action. >>>>> I'd think bringing in ISOC and other organizations will help deepen >>>>> these efforts. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Deji Bryce Olukotun < >>>>> deji at accessnow.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, Arsène for the introduction and the summary. >>>>>> >>>>>> Judith, as Arsène explained, the #KeepitOn coalition >>>>>> (111 organizations from 51 >>>>>> countries) is pushing back against the shutdown. Our efforts are being led >>>>>> by Julie Owono from Internet Without Borders >>>>>> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> At present, we are fighting the shutdown in several ways: >>>>>> - open letter to government officials and agencies to restore access >>>>>> - media outreach >>>>>> - Tweet action at Cameroonian officials >>>>>> >>>>>> (please support!) >>>>>> - outreach to telcos operating in the country, including a statement >>>>>> from the Global Network Initiative >>>>>> (Microsoft, >>>>>> Google, Facebook, Investors, academics) >>>>>> - outreach to international officials at the UN and AU >>>>>> - coordination with local groups in Cameroon >>>>>> - coordinating with CDN's and other measurement entities >>>>>> >>>>>> We welcome any ideas or suggestions about how to get the internet >>>>>> turned back on. With each passing day, people are at increased risk of >>>>>> human rights violations and the economy is losing money. We'll reach out to >>>>>> ISOC to coordinate as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Deji >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Arsène Tungali < >>>>>> arsenebaguma at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Judith, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for sharing this with us. What's going on in Cameroon is just >>>>>>> a shame. For colleagues who have never experienced Internet shutdown, >>>>>>> please understand that it is a nightmare. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On this note about Cameroon, several organizations including Access >>>>>>> Now and Internet Without Borders >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> doing a lot of advocacy and statements >>>>>>> , >>>>>>> letters have been sent to officials in Cameroon to ask them to bring back >>>>>>> the Internet. A hashtag about this has been started and you can take action >>>>>>> as well: #BringBackkOutInternet >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can learn more about the #KeepItOn >>>>>>> campaign here >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Eduard Snowden sent in a tweet >>>>>>> where he >>>>>>> said: "*This is the future of repression. If we do not fight it >>>>>>> there, it will happen here*" and I cannot agree more with him >>>>>>> because it is just going from one country to another. Over 8 countries in >>>>>>> Africa, including mine the DRC, have experienced shutdown and no one knows >>>>>>> who is next. Acces Now has reported >>>>>>> 15 Internet shutdowns across >>>>>>> the world in 2015 and 56 in 2016 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If there is any question about all the statements and campaigns, I >>>>>>> am happy to help or convey your questions since I am involved, on a >>>>>>> personal capacity, in these movements advocating and fighting Internet >>>>>>> shutdowns across Africa. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Arsene >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PS: Copied is Deji Olukotun who works on Advocacy for Access Now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------ >>>>>>> **Arsène Tungali** >>>>>>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >>>>>>> *, >>>>>>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa >>>>>>> Forum * >>>>>>> Tel: +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967> >>>>>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>>>>> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil >>>>>>> >>>>>>> & Mexico >>>>>>> ) >>>>>>> - AFRISIG 2016 - >>>>>>> Blogger - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles >>>>>>> & Marrakech >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ). AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius >>>>>>> >>>>>>> )* - *IGFSA Member - The HuffingtonPost UK >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2017-01-26 5:34 GMT+02:00 Judith Hellerstein < >>>>>>> judith at jhellerstein.com>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> HI All, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just passing on a note from Mafor Edwan of ISOC Cameroon about the >>>>>>>> Cameroonian Government shut down of the Internet in his country. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am at a loss for words of yet another country that has cut off >>>>>>>> Internet Access for its citizens. Thanks to ISOC Cameroon for all their >>>>>>>> efforts to resolve this crisis, even though they have not been successful, >>>>>>>> I am glad that they have tried. I am a passionate believer in an open >>>>>>>> Internet. One that is available to all. By connecting the world, working >>>>>>>> with others, and advocating for equal access to the Internet, We can make >>>>>>>> the world a better place. >>>>>>>> Edwan hopes people can share this word about this and hopefully >>>>>>>> some one can reach the President and tell him what a bad idea this is. I >>>>>>>> told him I would share it around. Hope others can do the same >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> Judith >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO >>>>>>>> Hellerstein & Associates >>>>>>>> 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 >>>>>>>> Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein >>>>>>>> E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com >>>>>>>> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ >>>>>>>> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] FYI- Constance's blog post about >>>>>>>> the G20 - and the updated Internet Governance timeline >>>>>>>> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 21:49:53 -0500 >>>>>>>> From: Queen Mother >>>>>>>> To: Dan York >>>>>>>> CC: ISOC Chapter Delegates >>>>>>>> , Carl Gahnberg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Good evening Fellow ISOC Delegates, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I bring you sad news about the state of internet access in my home >>>>>>>> country Cameroon. >>>>>>>> I have sobbed uncontrollably for weeks as the govt of my country >>>>>>>> tortures and mimes her citizens and recently has cut off the ability to >>>>>>>> send financial support to our families through western union and has now >>>>>>>> cut off the internet. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please if you can read the articles below. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cameroon Cuts Internet in English-speaking Regions >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.voanews.com/a/cameroon-cuts-internet-in-english-s >>>>>>>> peaking-regions/3682688.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How Cameroon pressured mobile operators to shut down the internet >>>>>>>> and stifle dissent >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://qz.com/893401/cameroon-pressured-mtn-and-other-opera >>>>>>>> tors-to-shut-down-internet-in-bamenda-buea-regions/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>>> Mafor edwan >>>>>>>> Vice President #2 >>>>>>>> ISOC Cameroon >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically >>>>>>>>> subscribed >>>>>>>>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet >>>>>>>>> Society >>>>>>>>> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Deji Bryce Olukotun >>>>>> Senior Global Advocacy Manager >>>>>> Access Now | accessnow.org >>>>>> >>>>>> tel: +1 415-935-4572 <+1%20415-935-4572> | @dejiridoo >>>>>> PGP: 0x6012CDA8 >>>>>> Fingerprint: 3AEE 4194 F70E C806 A810 857A 6AD5 8F48 6012 CDA8 >>>>>> >>>>>> *Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter on digital rights, the >>>>>> Access Now Express: *https://www.accessnow.org/campaign/#sign-up >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Evelyn Namara | T: +256 754 440893 <+256%20754%20440893> | E: >> enamara at riseup.net | Twitter: @enamara >> | Skype: enamara >> >> PGP: B94D 3950 38D6 914A E054 D6C5 E82E 0F66 DC01 E30D >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Aaron Agien NYANGKWE > P.O.Box 5213 > Douala-Cameroon > Tel. 237 673 42 71 27 > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Sun Jan 29 13:33:54 2017 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:33:54 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Please Cameroon did not shut down the Internet !!! In-Reply-To: References: <4B4986C9-C64C-4F29-92FB-2A16DBF968A5@gmail.com> Message-ID: Well Stated Mawaki +1 , all I can add is Cameroon should try and revert the decision as soon as possible based on the principles of the "African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedom". http://africaninternetrights.org/ Poncelet On 29 January 2017 at 18:57, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Thanks all trying to report out of Cameroon. > > Like others, I was struck by the implications from Janvier's reporting, or > rather his attempt at a "mise au point" which completely missed the mark, > I'm sorry. > > Government is blocking Internet access only in 2 regions out of 8, so the > situation is not that bad as the whole Cameroon being shutdown and we > should chill? > > Oh, and money remittance operations to those 2 regions are also suspended, > but not a big deal really? > > And you say that's done by the government for the sake of the whole > population in those 2 regions? How's that? We just need to swallow that > assertion made by you or the government and keep moving, nothing to see > here? > > Interesting enough, the other 6 regions don't need that security and > safety which is supposed to be found in shutting down the Internet (do you > really think if there was a real terrorism threat from a section of the > population accessing the Internet, that threat will go away by maintaining > access only for their neighbors?) It's all in the (government) motivation, > isn't it? If one cannot question the actual government's motivation in > taking such extreme measures then it's going to be hard to come to a > consensus on lasting peaceful solutions. > > I myself was born francophone and still a national of the same African > francophone country of birth, and I can relate to that notion of "pleins > pouvoirs"-- not to say "pouvoir absolu"-- found in some of our countries, > which Joash was referring to. But I would urge ISOC Cameroon to try to > relate also to the global culture of individual rights, particularly in the > age of the Internet. Then whatever you'll be able to accept as the right of > any Cameroonian, should be the right of all Cameroonians without > distinction of language, ethnicity, religion, political views or location, > etc. > > And, addressing the government here, I personally can't even begin to > understand what is so difficult to understand in the notion that being a > bilingual country is an asset, an advantage rather than a threat or > drawback. > > So yes, we get it, not the whole of Cameroon is cut off from the Internet. > But no, that doesn't make it any more acceptable that "only" a couple of > regions are targeted by what seems like a punishment for a "crime de lèse > majesté". > > Now the question on our table here is what we, global civil society > coalitions, can do about a situation like this. I recall working for a > short while at APC on those universal periodic reviews (hope I'm not > messing up with that heavily acronym based terminology) at the UN Human > Rights Council, and Cameroon was up for review at some point. Has any > progress been made since? Any other course of action to look into? > > Thanks, > > Mawaki > > > On Jan 28, 2017 4:37 PM, "Mwendwa Kivuva" > wrote: > > It is quite unfortunate the situation in Cameroon, especially how people > argue out human rights issues when the pinching shoe is on the neighbors > leg, when their "enemy", imagined or real, is being persecuted. > > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya > twitter.com/lordmwesh > > > > On 28 January 2017 at 18:19, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > wrote: > >> Dear All >> >> I am right here in Douala Cameroun. And when I read Janvier, I will want >> many people to understand one thing. Mister Janvier is francophone. To many >> francophones, rights belong to authorities and not peoples . People must >> fear not respect authorities because the said authorities have all powers >> (they call it in french (plein pouvoirs) to do and undo on every citizen. >> >> To him, a Sous Prefet can ask for internet to be suspended in some part >> of Cameroon, he is in his right as an authority. Currently, a Supreme Court >> Atorney General, Mr Paul Ayah Abine is arrested and is in detention without >> due process. The same is the case another Magistrate in Buea who was >> arrested and ferried to Yaounde a day ago. Their crime; for supporting the >> anglophone call for a federation. >> >> To the likes of Janvier, it is the Government that gives liberty (C'est >> le gouvernement qui donne la liberté in French) >> >> The civilized world must act against such egregious obscurantism >> >> Agien Nyangkwe >> >> On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Evelyn Namara >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> As a person who has been on the side of the shutdown, it is not right >>> and justifiable to shutdown the Internet, even for a few regions. >>> Mr. Janvier, your comments in this email hit me so hard. As a person who >>> has some level of authority, you should be concerned and fight for all >>> rights of all citizens. >>> >>> The 6 million plus people who make up the 2 regions that are deprived of >>> the Internet also matter. Everyone matters, and like the Internet Society >>> always says "The Internet is for everybody". >>> >>> Let's all fight and make leaders accountable. >>> >>> I stand with the people of Cameroun. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Joash Moitui >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you all. >>>> >>>> This is a vital interesting topic. Having lived in Cameroon for 3 >>>> years, I would say that the shutdown in these two region is no different >>>> from shutdowns witnessed in Uganda and Gambia for instance. It is simply >>>> the political elite using their political influence to prevent the human >>>> rights violations calling for federation in these areas. The two areas made >>>> up of Anglophones, who have been marginalized largely because of their >>>> language and their calls for federation have been met by internet shutdown >>>> and full force of security agents. It is this that the Cameroon government >>>> does not want to be easily distributed within the social media. >>>> >>>> Joash >>>> >>>> On 27 Jan 2017, at 10:56, Nonhlanhla Chanza >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I still weep blood for those two regions. I have never been convinced >>>> by the argument that there might be circumstances that justifies a >>>> shutdown. So many places in turmoil and war in the world but people have >>>> access still to the Internet. >>>> On 26 Jan 2017 17:59, "Janvier NGNOULAYE" wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi to all, >>>>> It seems to me that the problem of access to Internet in Cameroon is >>>>> very much amplified here on the Net. There are 10 regions in Cameroon, the >>>>> problem of access to the Internet is only concerning 2 Regions. These 2 >>>>> regions actually has some political or social crisis. The government and >>>>> other stakeholders in these 2 areas are looking for suitable solutions. >>>>> Meanwhile, the government has seen fit to cut these two regions of Internet >>>>> access and Western Union money transfer services, for the sake of the >>>>> entire population of these 2 regions. >>>>> Internet works well everywhere else in the other 8 regions. I'm >>>>> sending this mail from Yaounde in Cameroon. >>>>> So the situation is not a disaster as some seem to publish on the >>>>> Net. The ISOC Chapter can only encourage the government and the other >>>>> stakeholders to seek lasting peace solutions, even if it involves a >>>>> temporary suspension of Internet and Western Union services. >>>>> >>>>> ISOC Cameroon Chapter >>>>> President >>>>> >>>>> 2017-01-26 15:45 GMT+01:00 Renata Aquino Ribeiro : >>>>> >>>>>> Hi >>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed, this is a terrible situation, which can happen in any >>>>>> country, which is why everyone should take action. >>>>>> I'd think bringing in ISOC and other organizations will help deepen >>>>>> these efforts. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Deji Bryce Olukotun < >>>>>> deji at accessnow.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you, Arsène for the introduction and the summary. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Judith, as Arsène explained, the #KeepitOn coalition >>>>>>> (111 organizations from 51 >>>>>>> countries) is pushing back against the shutdown. Our efforts are being led >>>>>>> by Julie Owono from Internet Without Borders >>>>>>> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At present, we are fighting the shutdown in several ways: >>>>>>> - open letter to government officials and agencies to restore access >>>>>>> - media outreach >>>>>>> - Tweet action at Cameroonian officials >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (please support!) >>>>>>> - outreach to telcos operating in the country, including a statement >>>>>>> from the Global Network Initiative >>>>>>> (Microsoft, >>>>>>> Google, Facebook, Investors, academics) >>>>>>> - outreach to international officials at the UN and AU >>>>>>> - coordination with local groups in Cameroon >>>>>>> - coordinating with CDN's and other measurement entities >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We welcome any ideas or suggestions about how to get the internet >>>>>>> turned back on. With each passing day, people are at increased risk of >>>>>>> human rights violations and the economy is losing money. We'll reach out to >>>>>>> ISOC to coordinate as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Deji >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Arsène Tungali < >>>>>>> arsenebaguma at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Judith, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing this with us. What's going on in Cameroon is >>>>>>>> just a shame. For colleagues who have never experienced Internet shutdown, >>>>>>>> please understand that it is a nightmare. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On this note about Cameroon, several organizations including Access >>>>>>>> Now and Internet Without Borders >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> doing a lot of advocacy and statements >>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>> letters have been sent to officials in Cameroon to ask them to bring back >>>>>>>> the Internet. A hashtag about this has been started and you can take action >>>>>>>> as well: #BringBackkOutInternet >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You can learn more about the #KeepItOn >>>>>>>> campaign here >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Eduard Snowden sent in a tweet >>>>>>>> where he >>>>>>>> said: "*This is the future of repression. If we do not fight it >>>>>>>> there, it will happen here*" and I cannot agree more with him >>>>>>>> because it is just going from one country to another. Over 8 countries in >>>>>>>> Africa, including mine the DRC, have experienced shutdown and no one knows >>>>>>>> who is next. Acces Now has reported >>>>>>>> 15 Internet shutdowns across >>>>>>>> the world in 2015 and 56 in 2016 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If there is any question about all the statements and campaigns, I >>>>>>>> am happy to help or convey your questions since I am involved, on a >>>>>>>> personal capacity, in these movements advocating and fighting Internet >>>>>>>> shutdowns across Africa. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Arsene >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> PS: Copied is Deji Olukotun who works on Advocacy for Access Now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------ >>>>>>>> **Arsène Tungali** >>>>>>>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >>>>>>>> *, >>>>>>>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa >>>>>>>> Forum * >>>>>>>> Tel: +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967> >>>>>>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>>>>>> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> & Mexico >>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>> - AFRISIG 2016 - >>>>>>>> Blogger - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles >>>>>>>> & Marrakech >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ). AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> )* - *IGFSA Member - The HuffingtonPost UK >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2017-01-26 5:34 GMT+02:00 Judith Hellerstein < >>>>>>>> judith at jhellerstein.com>: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> HI All, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Just passing on a note from Mafor Edwan of ISOC Cameroon about the >>>>>>>>> Cameroonian Government shut down of the Internet in his country. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am at a loss for words of yet another country that has cut off >>>>>>>>> Internet Access for its citizens. Thanks to ISOC Cameroon for all their >>>>>>>>> efforts to resolve this crisis, even though they have not been successful, >>>>>>>>> I am glad that they have tried. I am a passionate believer in an open >>>>>>>>> Internet. One that is available to all. By connecting the world, working >>>>>>>>> with others, and advocating for equal access to the Internet, We can make >>>>>>>>> the world a better place. >>>>>>>>> Edwan hopes people can share this word about this and hopefully >>>>>>>>> some one can reach the President and tell him what a bad idea this is. I >>>>>>>>> told him I would share it around. Hope others can do the same >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> Judith >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO >>>>>>>>> Hellerstein & Associates >>>>>>>>> 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 >>>>>>>>> Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein >>>>>>>>> E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com >>>>>>>>> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ >>>>>>>>> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] FYI- Constance's blog post about >>>>>>>>> the G20 - and the updated Internet Governance timeline >>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 21:49:53 -0500 >>>>>>>>> From: Queen Mother >>>>>>>>> To: Dan York >>>>>>>>> CC: ISOC Chapter Delegates >>>>>>>>> , Carl Gahnberg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Good evening Fellow ISOC Delegates, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I bring you sad news about the state of internet access in my home >>>>>>>>> country Cameroon. >>>>>>>>> I have sobbed uncontrollably for weeks as the govt of my country >>>>>>>>> tortures and mimes her citizens and recently has cut off the ability to >>>>>>>>> send financial support to our families through western union and has now >>>>>>>>> cut off the internet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please if you can read the articles below. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cameroon Cuts Internet in English-speaking Regions >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.voanews.com/a/cameroon-cuts-internet-in-english-s >>>>>>>>> peaking-regions/3682688.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How Cameroon pressured mobile operators to shut down the internet >>>>>>>>> and stifle dissent >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://qz.com/893401/cameroon-pressured-mtn-and-other-opera >>>>>>>>> tors-to-shut-down-internet-in-bamenda-buea-regions/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>>>> Mafor edwan >>>>>>>>> Vice President #2 >>>>>>>>> ISOC Cameroon >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically >>>>>>>>>> subscribed >>>>>>>>>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet >>>>>>>>>> Society >>>>>>>>>> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Deji Bryce Olukotun >>>>>>> Senior Global Advocacy Manager >>>>>>> Access Now | accessnow.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> tel: +1 415-935-4572 <+1%20415-935-4572> | @dejiridoo >>>>>>> PGP: 0x6012CDA8 >>>>>>> Fingerprint: 3AEE 4194 F70E C806 A810 857A 6AD5 8F48 6012 CDA8 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter on digital rights, the >>>>>>> Access Now Express: *https://www.accessnow.org/campaign/#sign-up >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> Evelyn Namara | T: +256 754 440893 <+256%20754%20440893> | E: >>> enamara at riseup.net | Twitter: @enamara >>> | Skype: enamara >>> >>> PGP: B94D 3950 38D6 914A E054 D6C5 E82E 0F66 DC01 E30D >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Aaron Agien NYANGKWE >> P.O.Box 5213 >> Douala-Cameroon >> Tel. 237 673 42 71 27 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From judith at jhellerstein.com Sun Jan 29 13:57:49 2017 From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 13:57:49 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Please Cameroon did not shut down the Internet !!! In-Reply-To: References: <4B4986C9-C64C-4F29-92FB-2A16DBF968A5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2C6DCBEC-7000-4ABC-B6B7-04D8DF3691BA@jhellerstein.com> Hi Mawaki, Very well said. I too was unhappy with Janvier's comment. Thanks for putting it so eloquently. I am glad to have started such a great discussion of these critical issues. It is through discussion that we can help solve problems and come up with creative solutions Best, Judith Sent from my iPad Judith at jhellerstein.com Skype ID: judithhellerstein > On Jan 29, 2017, at 1:33 PM, Poncelet Ileleji wrote: > > Well Stated Mawaki +1 , all I can add is Cameroon should try and revert the decision as soon as possible based on the principles of the "African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedom". http://africaninternetrights.org/ > > Poncelet > >> On 29 January 2017 at 18:57, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> Thanks all trying to report out of Cameroon. >> >> Like others, I was struck by the implications from Janvier's reporting, or rather his attempt at a "mise au point" which completely missed the mark, I'm sorry. >> >> Government is blocking Internet access only in 2 regions out of 8, so the situation is not that bad as the whole Cameroon being shutdown and we should chill? >> >> Oh, and money remittance operations to those 2 regions are also suspended, but not a big deal really? >> >> And you say that's done by the government for the sake of the whole population in those 2 regions? How's that? We just need to swallow that assertion made by you or the government and keep moving, nothing to see here? >> >> Interesting enough, the other 6 regions don't need that security and safety which is supposed to be found in shutting down the Internet (do you really think if there was a real terrorism threat from a section of the population accessing the Internet, that threat will go away by maintaining access only for their neighbors?) It's all in the (government) motivation, isn't it? If one cannot question the actual government's motivation in taking such extreme measures then it's going to be hard to come to a consensus on lasting peaceful solutions. >> >> I myself was born francophone and still a national of the same African francophone country of birth, and I can relate to that notion of "pleins pouvoirs"-- not to say "pouvoir absolu"-- found in some of our countries, which Joash was referring to. But I would urge ISOC Cameroon to try to relate also to the global culture of individual rights, particularly in the age of the Internet. Then whatever you'll be able to accept as the right of any Cameroonian, should be the right of all Cameroonians without distinction of language, ethnicity, religion, political views or location, etc. >> >> And, addressing the government here, I personally can't even begin to understand what is so difficult to understand in the notion that being a bilingual country is an asset, an advantage rather than a threat or drawback. >> >> So yes, we get it, not the whole of Cameroon is cut off from the Internet. But no, that doesn't make it any more acceptable that "only" a couple of regions are targeted by what seems like a punishment for a "crime de lèse majesté". >> >> Now the question on our table here is what we, global civil society coalitions, can do about a situation like this. I recall working for a short while at APC on those universal periodic reviews (hope I'm not messing up with that heavily acronym based terminology) at the UN Human Rights Council, and Cameroon was up for review at some point. Has any progress been made since? Any other course of action to look into? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> On Jan 28, 2017 4:37 PM, "Mwendwa Kivuva" wrote: >> It is quite unfortunate the situation in Cameroon, especially how people argue out human rights issues when the pinching shoe is on the neighbors leg, when their "enemy", imagined or real, is being persecuted. >> >> ______________________ >> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya >> twitter.com/lordmwesh >> >> >> >>> On 28 January 2017 at 18:19, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: >>> Dear All >>> >>> I am right here in Douala Cameroun. And when I read Janvier, I will want many people to understand one thing. Mister Janvier is francophone. To many francophones, rights belong to authorities and not peoples . People must fear not respect authorities because the said authorities have all powers (they call it in french (plein pouvoirs) to do and undo on every citizen. >>> >>> To him, a Sous Prefet can ask for internet to be suspended in some part of Cameroon, he is in his right as an authority. Currently, a Supreme Court Atorney General, Mr Paul Ayah Abine is arrested and is in detention without due process. The same is the case another Magistrate in Buea who was arrested and ferried to Yaounde a day ago. Their crime; for supporting the anglophone call for a federation. >>> >>> To the likes of Janvier, it is the Government that gives liberty (C'est le gouvernement qui donne la liberté in French) >>> >>> The civilized world must act against such egregious obscurantism >>> >>> Agien Nyangkwe >>> >>>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Evelyn Namara wrote: >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> As a person who has been on the side of the shutdown, it is not right and justifiable to shutdown the Internet, even for a few regions. >>>> Mr. Janvier, your comments in this email hit me so hard. As a person who has some level of authority, you should be concerned and fight for all >>>> rights of all citizens. >>>> >>>> The 6 million plus people who make up the 2 regions that are deprived of the Internet also matter. Everyone matters, and like the Internet Society always says "The Internet is for everybody". >>>> >>>> Let's all fight and make leaders accountable. >>>> >>>> I stand with the people of Cameroun. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Joash Moitui wrote: >>>>> Thank you all. >>>>> >>>>> This is a vital interesting topic. Having lived in Cameroon for 3 years, I would say that the shutdown in these two region is no different from shutdowns witnessed in Uganda and Gambia for instance. It is simply the political elite using their political influence to prevent the human rights violations calling for federation in these areas. The two areas made up of Anglophones, who have been marginalized largely because of their language and their calls for federation have been met by internet shutdown and full force of security agents. It is this that the Cameroon government does not want to be easily distributed within the social media. >>>>> >>>>> Joash >>>>> >>>>>> On 27 Jan 2017, at 10:56, Nonhlanhla Chanza wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I still weep blood for those two regions. I have never been convinced by the argument that there might be circumstances that justifies a shutdown. So many places in turmoil and war in the world but people have access still to the Internet. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 26 Jan 2017 17:59, "Janvier NGNOULAYE" wrote: >>>>>>> Hi to all, >>>>>>> It seems to me that the problem of access to Internet in Cameroon is very much amplified here on the Net. There are 10 regions in Cameroon, the problem of access to the Internet is only concerning 2 Regions. These 2 regions actually has some political or social crisis. The government and other stakeholders in these 2 areas are looking for suitable solutions. Meanwhile, the government has seen fit to cut these two regions of Internet access and Western Union money transfer services, for the sake of the entire population of these 2 regions. >>>>>>> Internet works well everywhere else in the other 8 regions. I'm sending this mail from Yaounde in Cameroon. >>>>>>> So the situation is not a disaster as some seem to publish on the Net. The ISOC Chapter can only encourage the government and the other stakeholders to seek lasting peace solutions, even if it involves a temporary suspension of Internet and Western Union services. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ISOC Cameroon Chapter >>>>>>> President >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2017-01-26 15:45 GMT+01:00 Renata Aquino Ribeiro : >>>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Indeed, this is a terrible situation, which can happen in any country, which is why everyone should take action. >>>>>>>> I'd think bringing in ISOC and other organizations will help deepen these efforts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Deji Bryce Olukotun wrote: >>>>>>>>> Thank you, Arsène for the introduction and the summary. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Judith, as Arsène explained, the #KeepitOn coalition (111 organizations from 51 countries) is pushing back against the shutdown. Our efforts are being led by Julie Owono from Internet Without Borders. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At present, we are fighting the shutdown in several ways: >>>>>>>>> - open letter to government officials and agencies to restore access >>>>>>>>> - media outreach >>>>>>>>> - Tweet action at Cameroonian officials (please support!) >>>>>>>>> - outreach to telcos operating in the country, including a statement from the Global Network Initiative (Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Investors, academics) >>>>>>>>> - outreach to international officials at the UN and AU >>>>>>>>> - coordination with local groups in Cameroon >>>>>>>>> - coordinating with CDN's and other measurement entities >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We welcome any ideas or suggestions about how to get the internet turned back on. With each passing day, people are at increased risk of human rights violations and the economy is losing money. We'll reach out to ISOC to coordinate as well. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> Deji >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Arsène Tungali wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi Judith, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing this with us. What's going on in Cameroon is just a shame. For colleagues who have never experienced Internet shutdown, please understand that it is a nightmare. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On this note about Cameroon, several organizations including Access Now and Internet Without Borders are doing a lot of advocacy and statements, letters have been sent to officials in Cameroon to ask them to bring back the Internet. A hashtag about this has been started and you can take action as well: #BringBackkOutInternet. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You can learn more about the #KeepItOn campaign here. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Eduard Snowden sent in a tweet where he said: "This is the future of repression. If we do not fight it there, it will happen here" and I cannot agree more with him because it is just going from one country to another. Over 8 countries in Africa, including mine the DRC, have experienced shutdown and no one knows who is next. Acces Now has reported 15 Internet shutdowns across the world in 2015 and 56 in 2016 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If there is any question about all the statements and campaigns, I am happy to help or convey your questions since I am involved, on a personal capacity, in these movements advocating and fighting Internet shutdowns across Africa. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>> Arsene >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> PS: Copied is Deji Olukotun who works on Advocacy for Access Now. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> *Arsène Tungali* >>>>>>>>>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international, >>>>>>>>>> CEO, Smart Services Sarl, Mabingwa Forum >>>>>>>>>> Tel: +243 993810967 >>>>>>>>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>>>>>>>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles & Marrakech). AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius) - IGFSA Member - The HuffingtonPost UK >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2017-01-26 5:34 GMT+02:00 Judith Hellerstein : >>>>>>>>>>> HI All, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Just passing on a note from Mafor Edwan of ISOC Cameroon about the Cameroonian Government shut down of the Internet in his country. >>>>>>>>>>> I am at a loss for words of yet another country that has cut off Internet Access for its citizens. Thanks to ISOC Cameroon for all their efforts to resolve this crisis, even though they have not been successful, I am glad that they have tried. I am a passionate believer in an open Internet. One that is available to all. By connecting the world, working with others, and advocating for equal access to the Internet, We can make the world a better place. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Edwan hopes people can share this word about this and hopefully some one can reach the President and tell him what a bad idea this is. I told him I would share it around. Hope others can do the same >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>> Judith >>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO >>>>>>>>>>> Hellerstein & Associates >>>>>>>>>>> 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 >>>>>>>>>>> Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein >>>>>>>>>>> E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com >>>>>>>>>>> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ >>>>>>>>>>> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] FYI- Constance's blog post about the G20 - and the updated Internet Governance timeline >>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 21:49:53 -0500 >>>>>>>>>>> From: Queen Mother >>>>>>>>>>> To: Dan York >>>>>>>>>>> CC: ISOC Chapter Delegates , Carl Gahnberg >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Good evening Fellow ISOC Delegates, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I bring you sad news about the state of internet access in my home country Cameroon. >>>>>>>>>>> I have sobbed uncontrollably for weeks as the govt of my country tortures and mimes her citizens and recently has cut off the ability to send financial support to our families through western union and has now cut off the internet. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Please if you can read the articles below. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Cameroon Cuts Internet in English-speaking Regions >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.voanews.com/a/cameroon-cuts-internet-in-english-speaking-regions/3682688.html >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> How Cameroon pressured mobile operators to shut down the internet and stifle dissent >>>>>>>>>>> https://qz.com/893401/cameroon-pressured-mtn-and-other-operators-to-shut-down-internet-in-bamenda-buea-regions/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>>>>>> Mafor edwan >>>>>>>>>>> Vice President #2 >>>>>>>>>>> ISOC Cameroon >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed >>>>>>>>>>>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society >>>>>>>>>>>> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Deji Bryce Olukotun >>>>>>>>> Senior Global Advocacy Manager >>>>>>>>> Access Now | accessnow.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> tel: +1 415-935-4572 | @dejiridoo >>>>>>>>> PGP: 0x6012CDA8 >>>>>>>>> Fingerprint: 3AEE 4194 F70E C806 A810 857A 6AD5 8F48 6012 CDA8 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter on digital rights, the Access Now Express: https://www.accessnow.org/campaign/#sign-up >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> Evelyn Namara | T: +256 754 440893 | E: enamara at riseup.net | Twitter: @enamara | Skype: enamara >>>> >>>> PGP: B94D 3950 38D6 914A E054 D6C5 E82E 0F66 DC01 E30D >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Aaron Agien NYANGKWE >>> P.O.Box 5213 >>> Douala-Cameroon >>> Tel. 237 673 42 71 27 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > www.ymca.gm > http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > www,insistglobal.com > www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 00:23:32 2017 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 06:23:32 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Please Cameroon did not shut down the Internet !!! In-Reply-To: References: <4B4986C9-C64C-4F29-92FB-2A16DBF968A5@gmail.com> Message-ID: Here I was thinking one can continue to encourage international organisations to throw in their voices against Internet freedom like the one happening in Cameroon but the local efforts is very important. I encourage ISOC Cameroon to restrategise and ensure not to be seen as a pro govt group on matters that concerns Internet shutdown - an injury to one should be injury to all. Wisdom to you and your executive Janvier! Cheers! Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Jan 29, 2017 6:58 PM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: > Thanks all trying to report out of Cameroon. > > Like others, I was struck by the implications from Janvier's reporting, or > rather his attempt at a "mise au point" which completely missed the mark, > I'm sorry. > > Government is blocking Internet access only in 2 regions out of 8, so the > situation is not that bad as the whole Cameroon being shutdown and we > should chill? > > Oh, and money remittance operations to those 2 regions are also suspended, > but not a big deal really? > > And you say that's done by the government for the sake of the whole > population in those 2 regions? How's that? We just need to swallow that > assertion made by you or the government and keep moving, nothing to see > here? > > Interesting enough, the other 6 regions don't need that security and > safety which is supposed to be found in shutting down the Internet (do you > really think if there was a real terrorism threat from a section of the > population accessing the Internet, that threat will go away by maintaining > access only for their neighbors?) It's all in the (government) motivation, > isn't it? If one cannot question the actual government's motivation in > taking such extreme measures then it's going to be hard to come to a > consensus on lasting peaceful solutions. > > I myself was born francophone and still a national of the same African > francophone country of birth, and I can relate to that notion of "pleins > pouvoirs"-- not to say "pouvoir absolu"-- found in some of our countries, > which Joash was referring to. But I would urge ISOC Cameroon to try to > relate also to the global culture of individual rights, particularly in the > age of the Internet. Then whatever you'll be able to accept as the right of > any Cameroonian, should be the right of all Cameroonians without > distinction of language, ethnicity, religion, political views or location, > etc. > > And, addressing the government here, I personally can't even begin to > understand what is so difficult to understand in the notion that being a > bilingual country is an asset, an advantage rather than a threat or > drawback. > > So yes, we get it, not the whole of Cameroon is cut off from the Internet. > But no, that doesn't make it any more acceptable that "only" a couple of > regions are targeted by what seems like a punishment for a "crime de lèse > majesté". > > Now the question on our table here is what we, global civil society > coalitions, can do about a situation like this. I recall working for a > short while at APC on those universal periodic reviews (hope I'm not > messing up with that heavily acronym based terminology) at the UN Human > Rights Council, and Cameroon was up for review at some point. Has any > progress been made since? Any other course of action to look into? > > Thanks, > > Mawaki > > > On Jan 28, 2017 4:37 PM, "Mwendwa Kivuva" > wrote: > > It is quite unfortunate the situation in Cameroon, especially how people > argue out human rights issues when the pinching shoe is on the neighbors > leg, when their "enemy", imagined or real, is being persecuted. > > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya > twitter.com/lordmwesh > > > > On 28 January 2017 at 18:19, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > wrote: > >> Dear All >> >> I am right here in Douala Cameroun. And when I read Janvier, I will want >> many people to understand one thing. Mister Janvier is francophone. To many >> francophones, rights belong to authorities and not peoples . People must >> fear not respect authorities because the said authorities have all powers >> (they call it in french (plein pouvoirs) to do and undo on every citizen. >> >> To him, a Sous Prefet can ask for internet to be suspended in some part >> of Cameroon, he is in his right as an authority. Currently, a Supreme Court >> Atorney General, Mr Paul Ayah Abine is arrested and is in detention without >> due process. The same is the case another Magistrate in Buea who was >> arrested and ferried to Yaounde a day ago. Their crime; for supporting the >> anglophone call for a federation. >> >> To the likes of Janvier, it is the Government that gives liberty (C'est >> le gouvernement qui donne la liberté in French) >> >> The civilized world must act against such egregious obscurantism >> >> Agien Nyangkwe >> >> On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Evelyn Namara >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> As a person who has been on the side of the shutdown, it is not right >>> and justifiable to shutdown the Internet, even for a few regions. >>> Mr. Janvier, your comments in this email hit me so hard. As a person who >>> has some level of authority, you should be concerned and fight for all >>> rights of all citizens. >>> >>> The 6 million plus people who make up the 2 regions that are deprived of >>> the Internet also matter. Everyone matters, and like the Internet Society >>> always says "The Internet is for everybody". >>> >>> Let's all fight and make leaders accountable. >>> >>> I stand with the people of Cameroun. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Joash Moitui >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you all. >>>> >>>> This is a vital interesting topic. Having lived in Cameroon for 3 >>>> years, I would say that the shutdown in these two region is no different >>>> from shutdowns witnessed in Uganda and Gambia for instance. It is simply >>>> the political elite using their political influence to prevent the human >>>> rights violations calling for federation in these areas. The two areas made >>>> up of Anglophones, who have been marginalized largely because of their >>>> language and their calls for federation have been met by internet shutdown >>>> and full force of security agents. It is this that the Cameroon government >>>> does not want to be easily distributed within the social media. >>>> >>>> Joash >>>> >>>> On 27 Jan 2017, at 10:56, Nonhlanhla Chanza >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I still weep blood for those two regions. I have never been convinced >>>> by the argument that there might be circumstances that justifies a >>>> shutdown. So many places in turmoil and war in the world but people have >>>> access still to the Internet. >>>> On 26 Jan 2017 17:59, "Janvier NGNOULAYE" wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi to all, >>>>> It seems to me that the problem of access to Internet in Cameroon is >>>>> very much amplified here on the Net. There are 10 regions in Cameroon, the >>>>> problem of access to the Internet is only concerning 2 Regions. These 2 >>>>> regions actually has some political or social crisis. The government and >>>>> other stakeholders in these 2 areas are looking for suitable solutions. >>>>> Meanwhile, the government has seen fit to cut these two regions of Internet >>>>> access and Western Union money transfer services, for the sake of the >>>>> entire population of these 2 regions. >>>>> Internet works well everywhere else in the other 8 regions. I'm >>>>> sending this mail from Yaounde in Cameroon. >>>>> So the situation is not a disaster as some seem to publish on the >>>>> Net. The ISOC Chapter can only encourage the government and the other >>>>> stakeholders to seek lasting peace solutions, even if it involves a >>>>> temporary suspension of Internet and Western Union services. >>>>> >>>>> ISOC Cameroon Chapter >>>>> President >>>>> >>>>> 2017-01-26 15:45 GMT+01:00 Renata Aquino Ribeiro : >>>>> >>>>>> Hi >>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed, this is a terrible situation, which can happen in any >>>>>> country, which is why everyone should take action. >>>>>> I'd think bringing in ISOC and other organizations will help deepen >>>>>> these efforts. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Deji Bryce Olukotun < >>>>>> deji at accessnow.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you, Arsène for the introduction and the summary. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Judith, as Arsène explained, the #KeepitOn coalition >>>>>>> (111 organizations from 51 >>>>>>> countries) is pushing back against the shutdown. Our efforts are being led >>>>>>> by Julie Owono from Internet Without Borders >>>>>>> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At present, we are fighting the shutdown in several ways: >>>>>>> - open letter to government officials and agencies to restore access >>>>>>> - media outreach >>>>>>> - Tweet action at Cameroonian officials >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (please support!) >>>>>>> - outreach to telcos operating in the country, including a statement >>>>>>> from the Global Network Initiative >>>>>>> (Microsoft, >>>>>>> Google, Facebook, Investors, academics) >>>>>>> - outreach to international officials at the UN and AU >>>>>>> - coordination with local groups in Cameroon >>>>>>> - coordinating with CDN's and other measurement entities >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We welcome any ideas or suggestions about how to get the internet >>>>>>> turned back on. With each passing day, people are at increased risk of >>>>>>> human rights violations and the economy is losing money. We'll reach out to >>>>>>> ISOC to coordinate as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Deji >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Arsène Tungali < >>>>>>> arsenebaguma at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Judith, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing this with us. What's going on in Cameroon is >>>>>>>> just a shame. For colleagues who have never experienced Internet shutdown, >>>>>>>> please understand that it is a nightmare. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On this note about Cameroon, several organizations including Access >>>>>>>> Now and Internet Without Borders >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> doing a lot of advocacy and statements >>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>> letters have been sent to officials in Cameroon to ask them to bring back >>>>>>>> the Internet. A hashtag about this has been started and you can take action >>>>>>>> as well: #BringBackkOutInternet >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You can learn more about the #KeepItOn >>>>>>>> campaign here >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Eduard Snowden sent in a tweet >>>>>>>> where he >>>>>>>> said: "*This is the future of repression. If we do not fight it >>>>>>>> there, it will happen here*" and I cannot agree more with him >>>>>>>> because it is just going from one country to another. Over 8 countries in >>>>>>>> Africa, including mine the DRC, have experienced shutdown and no one knows >>>>>>>> who is next. Acces Now has reported >>>>>>>> 15 Internet shutdowns across >>>>>>>> the world in 2015 and 56 in 2016 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If there is any question about all the statements and campaigns, I >>>>>>>> am happy to help or convey your questions since I am involved, on a >>>>>>>> personal capacity, in these movements advocating and fighting Internet >>>>>>>> shutdowns across Africa. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Arsene >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> PS: Copied is Deji Olukotun who works on Advocacy for Access Now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------ >>>>>>>> **Arsène Tungali** >>>>>>>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >>>>>>>> *, >>>>>>>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa >>>>>>>> Forum * >>>>>>>> Tel: +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967> >>>>>>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>>>>>> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> & Mexico >>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>> - AFRISIG 2016 - >>>>>>>> Blogger - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles >>>>>>>> & Marrakech >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ). AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> )* - *IGFSA Member - The HuffingtonPost UK >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2017-01-26 5:34 GMT+02:00 Judith Hellerstein < >>>>>>>> judith at jhellerstein.com>: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> HI All, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Just passing on a note from Mafor Edwan of ISOC Cameroon about the >>>>>>>>> Cameroonian Government shut down of the Internet in his country. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am at a loss for words of yet another country that has cut off >>>>>>>>> Internet Access for its citizens. Thanks to ISOC Cameroon for all their >>>>>>>>> efforts to resolve this crisis, even though they have not been successful, >>>>>>>>> I am glad that they have tried. I am a passionate believer in an open >>>>>>>>> Internet. One that is available to all. By connecting the world, working >>>>>>>>> with others, and advocating for equal access to the Internet, We can make >>>>>>>>> the world a better place. >>>>>>>>> Edwan hopes people can share this word about this and hopefully >>>>>>>>> some one can reach the President and tell him what a bad idea this is. I >>>>>>>>> told him I would share it around. Hope others can do the same >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> Judith >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO >>>>>>>>> Hellerstein & Associates >>>>>>>>> 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 >>>>>>>>> Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein >>>>>>>>> E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com >>>>>>>>> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ >>>>>>>>> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] FYI- Constance's blog post about >>>>>>>>> the G20 - and the updated Internet Governance timeline >>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 21:49:53 -0500 >>>>>>>>> From: Queen Mother >>>>>>>>> To: Dan York >>>>>>>>> CC: ISOC Chapter Delegates >>>>>>>>> , Carl Gahnberg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Good evening Fellow ISOC Delegates, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I bring you sad news about the state of internet access in my home >>>>>>>>> country Cameroon. >>>>>>>>> I have sobbed uncontrollably for weeks as the govt of my country >>>>>>>>> tortures and mimes her citizens and recently has cut off the ability to >>>>>>>>> send financial support to our families through western union and has now >>>>>>>>> cut off the internet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please if you can read the articles below. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cameroon Cuts Internet in English-speaking Regions >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.voanews.com/a/cameroon-cuts-internet-in-english-s >>>>>>>>> peaking-regions/3682688.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How Cameroon pressured mobile operators to shut down the internet >>>>>>>>> and stifle dissent >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://qz.com/893401/cameroon-pressured-mtn-and-other-opera >>>>>>>>> tors-to-shut-down-internet-in-bamenda-buea-regions/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>>>> Mafor edwan >>>>>>>>> Vice President #2 >>>>>>>>> ISOC Cameroon >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically >>>>>>>>>> subscribed >>>>>>>>>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet >>>>>>>>>> Society >>>>>>>>>> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Deji Bryce Olukotun >>>>>>> Senior Global Advocacy Manager >>>>>>> Access Now | accessnow.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> tel: +1 415-935-4572 <+1%20415-935-4572> | @dejiridoo >>>>>>> PGP: 0x6012CDA8 >>>>>>> Fingerprint: 3AEE 4194 F70E C806 A810 857A 6AD5 8F48 6012 CDA8 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter on digital rights, the >>>>>>> Access Now Express: *https://www.accessnow.org/campaign/#sign-up >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> Evelyn Namara | T: +256 754 440893 <+256%20754%20440893> | E: >>> enamara at riseup.net | Twitter: @enamara >>> | Skype: enamara >>> >>> PGP: B94D 3950 38D6 914A E054 D6C5 E82E 0F66 DC01 E30D >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Aaron Agien NYANGKWE >> P.O.Box 5213 >> Douala-Cameroon >> Tel. 237 673 42 71 27 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Mon Jan 30 08:16:22 2017 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:16:22 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva In-Reply-To: <1260683256.4328330.1485538688317@mail.yahoo.com> References: <08da0df2-1f5a-d7e4-d5ff-b15e839d8f9c@apc.org> <5a0b4d2f-e8d0-e1f7-3186-53743f9a2d0d@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801D3B2A5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <06BFEAAB-49C7-4949-974A-40B10B9ECB3D@consensus.pro> <1260683256.4328330.1485538688317@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Wangari Apologies for delay in responding. It is an interesting question, and it goes to the heart of the enhanced cooperation debate, which in many ways is at the heart of the internet governance debate that has been ongoing since 2003. The term was first used in 2005 - and it means different things to different people, and the text in the Tunis Agenda where it is first references in a formal UN agreement, can also be interpreted in different ways. For the last decade it has been used as a political football.. in one of those matches in which it is not clear if anyone actually scores any goals. In fact, for some of the players, the objective of the match has been to avoid anyone scoring any goals :) This is a good recent piece by David Souter: https://www.apc.org/en/blog/inside-information-society-enhanced-cooperation-en I quote from it: "‘Enhanced cooperation’, like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), was part of the compromise on the future of the Internet at WSIS in 2005. Agreement could not be reached on the governance of critical Internet resources, including the domain name system. ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), for some governments, was little more than an adjunct of the United States. Some wanted the Internet brought within the ambit of an intergovernmental (or multilateral) agency such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Others were, as they remain, determined to keep the Internet free from intergovernmental oversight. As well as dividing governments, this was (and is) therefore a tussle between multilateral and multistakeholder approaches to the Internet. The term worked at the time because of its creative ambiguity: like many UN outcomes it meant different things to different folks. But the contests that it overlay were, and still are, unresolved. Several UN initiatives and working groups have failed to reach consensus on it since the Summit. Some governments (and civil society activists) claim that nothing’s changed since WSIS: that governments, particularly developing country governments, can’t play a substantive role in Internet decisions because there is no proper intergovernmental forum. Others suggest that diverse multistakeholder initiatives represent a lot of ‘enhanced cooperation’ that’s already taking place." So in response to your question, it is not a new thing that for several governments, the meaning of enhanced cooperation is "cooperation between governments". And the term 'equal footing' means that all governments should have equal access and voice in these processes. They generally quote paragraph 69 of the Tunis Agenda: "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues." And their position is that the IGF has nothing to do with this type of cooperation. Personally, I think this is misinterpreting the Tunis Agenda. If you read the two previous paragraphs, 67 and 68, there is a clear reference to the IGF (referred to in the Tunis Agenda as "the forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue". I quote: "67. We agree, inter alia, to invite the UN Secretary-General to convene a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue. 68. We recognize that all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the Internet. We also recognize the need for development of public policy by governments in consultation with all stakeholders. 69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues." My interpretation would be that these paragraphs talks about the forum, about involvement of all stakeholders, and about the need for governments to be able to play their role in international public policy. These area all important and legitimate and they don't need to be mutually exclusive. But there are different views, and there was a General Assembly resolution in 2011 or 2012 which stated that the IGF and enhanced cooperation are two separate processes. I do think governments have a legitimate point in saying that they need a space where they can talk about 'cross cutting' internet-related public policy issues. Specific issues are being addressed in places like the Human Rights Council (for internet and human rights issues) or in WIPO (for copyright related issues, for example). And I also think that developing countries are not sufficiently empowered or influential in most internet-related policy discussions. I just don't believe that setting up a new intergovernmental mechanism is the right solution to this problem. And it is one that is high risk for civil society. But others in the WGEC have different views. Warm greetings and thanks for following the meeting! Anriette On 27/01/2017 19:38, WANGARI KABIRU wrote: > Warm greetings Anriette, > > In the morning there was reference in the semblance that enhanced > cooperation is a government area not for the IGF...MAG. > Would you kindly shed light. > > > The comments; > - that statistics in developing countries are a result of tradeoffs and > thus not (necessarily) reliable > - how an entity is considered multi-stakeholder in one forum and in > other spheres not viewed as such. Taking into account > multi-stakholderism is a key tenet in Internet Governance > > Many thanks for the briefs. > > Be blessed. > > Regards/Wangari > > --- > Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the Light, We are Restored > Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The Kingdom of God > on Earth". > > > -- ----------------------------------------- Anriette Esterhuysen Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org www.apc.org IM: ae_apc From melanie at publicknowledge.org Wed Jan 4 15:01:58 2017 From: melanie at publicknowledge.org (Melanie Penagos) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 15:01:58 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] CALL FOR APPLICANTS: PK Open Internet Course - Class of 2017 Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Happy New Year! Public Knowledge is happy to announce that the third round of our Open Internet Course is set to launch on February 6, 2017. You can check out our description page here . Last summer, our course hosted 30 participants, including advocates, students, policymakers, and journalists from various countries throughout Latin America. The third round will feature new resources and updated reading materials, as well as interactive webinars from a new host of digital rights experts. The application period is now open and we will continue to accept applications until January 20. *Those of you who are interested are encouraged to apply as soon as possible! *Please help us spread the word by sharing the English/Spanish version of the call for applicants, which can be found here . You can help us reach the broadest possible audience by tweeting this or the following suggestions: . at PublicKnowledge 's Open Internet Course for #DigitalRights advocates is accepting applications from now - Jan. 20 http://bit.ly/1A3A5G3 The next @publicknowledge #OpenInternet Course is starting on 2/6. Apply today! Applications accepted until Jan. 20 http://bit.ly/2ibhibu La convocatoria para el próximo curso de Internet Libre y Abierto por @publicknowledge ya empezó, apliquen hoy! http://bit.ly/2ibhibu El curso Internet Libre y Abierto esta aceptando aplicaciones para la clase del 2017 hasta 20 de enero, aplique aquí http://bit.ly/2hRxy5b The final online version of the course is currently only available in Spanish and requires a commitment of approximately 5-7 hours per week/module. Participants can take longer if they wish to go more in depth, since every module has additional suggested readings and assignments. The course is targeted towards new activists, advocates, young professionals, policymakers, and others who are interested in gaining an introduction to cutting edge issues at the intersection of internet policy and advocacy. Topics to be covered in the course include, among others, strategic planning, campaigning, internet governance, human rights online, net neutrality, and spectrum management. The primary goal of the course is to help train a new generation of advocates to work on creating and maintaining an open internet for all. Help us spread the word with our blog post , press release , and podcast . The direct link to the course registration form can also be accessed here . Please send questions to opencourse at publicknowledge.org. Thank you for your applications and support! Kind regards, Melanie -- *Melanie Penagos* *International Policy Associate* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * +1 (202) 861-0020 ext. 122 | skype: melanie.penagos | @ampenagos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Mon Jan 30 10:33:31 2017 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:33:31 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <08da0df2-1f5a-d7e4-d5ff-b15e839d8f9c@apc.org> <5a0b4d2f-e8d0-e1f7-3186-53743f9a2d0d@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801D3B2A5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <06BFEAAB-49C7-4949-974A-40B10B9ECB3D@consensus.pro> <1260683256.4328330.1485538688317@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: + 1 Anriette - very nicely summarized. On 30/01/2017 14:16, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Wangari > > Apologies for delay in responding. > > It is an interesting question, and it goes to the heart of the enhanced > cooperation debate, which in many ways is at the heart of the internet > governance debate that has been ongoing since 2003. > > The term was first used in 2005 - and it means different things to > different people, and the text in the Tunis Agenda where it is first > references in a formal UN agreement, can also be interpreted in > different ways. > > For the last decade it has been used as a political football.. in one of > those matches in which it is not clear if anyone actually scores any > goals. In fact, for some of the players, the objective of the match has > been to avoid anyone scoring any goals :) > > This is a good recent piece by David Souter: > https://www.apc.org/en/blog/inside-information-society-enhanced-cooperation-en > > I quote from it: > > "‘Enhanced cooperation’, like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), was > part of the compromise on the future of the Internet at WSIS in 2005. > Agreement could not be reached on the governance of critical Internet > resources, including the domain name system. ICANN (the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), for some governments, was > little more than an adjunct of the United States. Some wanted the > Internet brought within the ambit of an intergovernmental (or > multilateral) agency such as the International Telecommunication Union > (ITU). Others were, as they remain, determined to keep the Internet free > from intergovernmental oversight. As well as dividing governments, this > was (and is) therefore a tussle between multilateral and > multistakeholder approaches to the Internet. > > The term worked at the time because of its creative ambiguity: like many > UN outcomes it meant different things to different folks. But the > contests that it overlay were, and still are, unresolved. Several UN > initiatives and working groups have failed to reach consensus on it > since the Summit. Some governments (and civil society activists) claim > that nothing’s changed since WSIS: that governments, particularly > developing country governments, can’t play a substantive role in > Internet decisions because there is no proper intergovernmental forum. > Others suggest that diverse multistakeholder initiatives represent a lot > of ‘enhanced cooperation’ that’s already taking place." > > So in response to your question, it is not a new thing that for several > governments, the meaning of enhanced cooperation is "cooperation between > governments". And the term 'equal footing' means that all governments > should have equal access and voice in these processes. > > They generally quote paragraph 69 of the Tunis Agenda: > > "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the > future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their > roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues > pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and > operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy > issues." > > And their position is that the IGF has nothing to do with this type of > cooperation. > > Personally, I think this is misinterpreting the Tunis Agenda. If you > read the two previous paragraphs, 67 and 68, there is a clear reference > to the IGF (referred to in the Tunis Agenda as "the forum for > multi-stakeholder policy dialogue". I quote: > > "67. We agree, inter alia, to invite the UN Secretary-General to convene > a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue. > > 68. We recognize that all governments should have an equal role and > responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring > the stability, security and continuity of the Internet. We also > recognize the need for development of public policy by governments in > consultation with all stakeholders. > > 69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the > future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their > roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues > pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and > operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy > issues." > > My interpretation would be that these paragraphs talks about the forum, > about involvement of all stakeholders, and about the need for > governments to be able to play their role in international public policy. > > These area all important and legitimate and they don't need to be > mutually exclusive. > > But there are different views, and there was a General Assembly > resolution in 2011 or 2012 which stated that the IGF and enhanced > cooperation are two separate processes. > > I do think governments have a legitimate point in saying that they need > a space where they can talk about 'cross cutting' internet-related > public policy issues. Specific issues are being addressed in places like > the Human Rights Council (for internet and human rights issues) or in > WIPO (for copyright related issues, for example). > > And I also think that developing countries are not sufficiently > empowered or influential in most internet-related policy discussions. > > I just don't believe that setting up a new intergovernmental mechanism > is the right solution to this problem. And it is one that is high risk > for civil society. > > But others in the WGEC have different views. > > Warm greetings and thanks for following the meeting! > > Anriette > > > > On 27/01/2017 19:38, WANGARI KABIRU wrote: >> Warm greetings Anriette, >> >> In the morning there was reference in the semblance that enhanced >> cooperation is a government area not for the IGF...MAG. >> Would you kindly shed light. >> >> >> The comments; >> - that statistics in developing countries are a result of tradeoffs and >> thus not (necessarily) reliable >> - how an entity is considered multi-stakeholder in one forum and in >> other spheres not viewed as such. Taking into account >> multi-stakholderism is a key tenet in Internet Governance >> >> Many thanks for the briefs. >> >> Be blessed. >> >> Regards/Wangari >> >> --- >> Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the Light, We are Restored >> Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The Kingdom of God >> on Earth". >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wangarikabiru at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 30 10:37:34 2017 From: wangarikabiru at yahoo.co.uk (WANGARI KABIRU) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:37:34 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <08da0df2-1f5a-d7e4-d5ff-b15e839d8f9c@apc.org> <5a0b4d2f-e8d0-e1f7-3186-53743f9a2d0d@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801D3B2A5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <06BFEAAB-49C7-4949-974A-40B10B9ECB3D@consensus.pro> <1260683256.4328330.1485538688317@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1409939853.27071400.1485790654481@mail.yahoo.com> Many thanks Anriette for the brief and the references are clarifying! Be blessed. Regards/Wangari --- Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the Light, We are Restored Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The Kingdom of God on Earth". On Monday, 30 January 2017, 16:16, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: Dear Wangari Apologies for delay in responding. It is an interesting question, and it goes to the heart of the enhanced cooperation debate, which in many ways is at the heart of the internet governance debate that has been ongoing since 2003. The term was first used in 2005 - and it means different things to different people, and the text in the Tunis Agenda where it is first references in a formal UN agreement, can also be interpreted in different ways. For the last decade it has been used as a political football.. in one of those matches in which it is not clear if anyone actually scores any goals. In fact, for some of the players, the objective of the match has been to avoid anyone scoring any goals :) This is a good recent piece by David Souter: https://www.apc.org/en/blog/inside-information-society-enhanced-cooperation-en I quote from it: "‘Enhanced cooperation’, like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), was part of the compromise on the future of the Internet at WSIS in 2005. Agreement could not be reached on the governance of critical Internet resources, including the domain name system. ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), for some governments, was little more than an adjunct of the United States. Some wanted the Internet brought within the ambit of an intergovernmental (or multilateral) agency such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Others were, as they remain, determined to keep the Internet free from intergovernmental oversight. As well as dividing governments, this was (and is) therefore a tussle between multilateral and multistakeholder approaches to the Internet. The term worked at the time because of its creative ambiguity: like many UN outcomes it meant different things to different folks. But the contests that it overlay were, and still are, unresolved. Several UN initiatives and working groups have failed to reach consensus on it since the Summit. Some governments (and civil society activists) claim that nothing’s changed since WSIS: that governments, particularly developing country governments, can’t play a substantive role in Internet decisions because there is no proper intergovernmental forum. Others suggest that diverse multistakeholder initiatives represent a lot of ‘enhanced cooperation’ that’s already taking place." So in response to your question, it is not a new thing that for several governments, the meaning of enhanced cooperation is "cooperation between governments". And the term 'equal footing' means that all governments should have equal access and voice in these processes. They generally quote paragraph 69 of the Tunis Agenda: "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues." And their position is that the IGF has nothing to do with this type of cooperation. Personally, I think this is misinterpreting the Tunis Agenda. If you read the two previous paragraphs, 67 and 68, there is a clear reference to the IGF (referred to in the Tunis Agenda as "the forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue". I quote: "67. We agree, inter alia, to invite the UN Secretary-General to convene a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue. 68. We recognize that all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the Internet. We also recognize the need for development of public policy by governments in consultation with all stakeholders. 69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues." My interpretation would be that these paragraphs talks about the forum, about involvement of all stakeholders, and about the need for governments to be able to play their role in international public policy. These area all important and legitimate and they don't need to be mutually exclusive. But there are different views, and there was a General Assembly resolution in 2011 or 2012 which stated that the IGF and enhanced cooperation are two separate processes. I do think governments have a legitimate point in saying that they need a space where they can talk about 'cross cutting' internet-related public policy issues. Specific issues are being addressed in places like the Human Rights Council (for internet and human rights issues) or in WIPO (for copyright related issues, for example). And I also think that developing countries are not sufficiently empowered or influential in most internet-related policy discussions. I just don't believe that setting up a new intergovernmental mechanism is the right solution to this problem. And it is one that is high risk for civil society. But others in the WGEC have different views. Warm greetings and thanks for following the meeting! Anriette On 27/01/2017 19:38, WANGARI KABIRU wrote: > Warm greetings Anriette, > > In the morning there was reference in the semblance that enhanced > cooperation is a government area not for the IGF...MAG. > Would you kindly shed light. > > > The comments; > -  that statistics in developing countries are a result of tradeoffs and > thus not (necessarily) reliable > - how an entity is considered multi-stakeholder in one forum and in > other spheres not viewed as such. Taking into account > multi-stakholderism is a key tenet in Internet Governance > > Many thanks for the briefs. > > Be blessed. > > Regards/Wangari >  > --- > Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the Light, We are Restored > Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The Kingdom of God > on Earth". > > > -- ----------------------------------------- Anriette Esterhuysen Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org www.apc.org IM: ae_apc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 11:46:12 2017 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:46:12 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Please Cameroon did not shut down the Internet !!! In-Reply-To: References: <4B4986C9-C64C-4F29-92FB-2A16DBF968A5@gmail.com> Message-ID: Edit - as I figure the first paragraph may read different meaning ;-) Here I was thinking one can continue to encourage international organisations to throw in their voices against Internet freedom "infringement" like the one happening in Cameroon but the local effort is very important. I encourage ISOC Cameroon to restrategise and ensure not to be seen as a pro govt group on matters that concerns Internet shutdown - an injury to one should be injury to all. Wisdom to you and your executive Janvier! Cheers! Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Jan 30, 2017 06:23, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > Here I was thinking one can continue to encourage international > organisations to throw in their voices against Internet freedom like the > one happening in Cameroon but the local efforts is very important. > > I encourage ISOC Cameroon to restrategise and ensure not to be seen as a > pro govt group on matters that concerns Internet shutdown - an injury to > one should be injury to all. Wisdom to you and your executive Janvier! > > Cheers! > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On Jan 29, 2017 6:58 PM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: > >> Thanks all trying to report out of Cameroon. >> >> Like others, I was struck by the implications from Janvier's reporting, >> or rather his attempt at a "mise au point" which completely missed the >> mark, I'm sorry. >> >> Government is blocking Internet access only in 2 regions out of 8, so the >> situation is not that bad as the whole Cameroon being shutdown and we >> should chill? >> >> Oh, and money remittance operations to those 2 regions are also >> suspended, but not a big deal really? >> >> And you say that's done by the government for the sake of the whole >> population in those 2 regions? How's that? We just need to swallow that >> assertion made by you or the government and keep moving, nothing to see >> here? >> >> Interesting enough, the other 6 regions don't need that security and >> safety which is supposed to be found in shutting down the Internet (do you >> really think if there was a real terrorism threat from a section of the >> population accessing the Internet, that threat will go away by maintaining >> access only for their neighbors?) It's all in the (government) motivation, >> isn't it? If one cannot question the actual government's motivation in >> taking such extreme measures then it's going to be hard to come to a >> consensus on lasting peaceful solutions. >> >> I myself was born francophone and still a national of the same African >> francophone country of birth, and I can relate to that notion of "pleins >> pouvoirs"-- not to say "pouvoir absolu"-- found in some of our countries, >> which Joash was referring to. But I would urge ISOC Cameroon to try to >> relate also to the global culture of individual rights, particularly in the >> age of the Internet. Then whatever you'll be able to accept as the right of >> any Cameroonian, should be the right of all Cameroonians without >> distinction of language, ethnicity, religion, political views or location, >> etc. >> >> And, addressing the government here, I personally can't even begin to >> understand what is so difficult to understand in the notion that being a >> bilingual country is an asset, an advantage rather than a threat or >> drawback. >> >> So yes, we get it, not the whole of Cameroon is cut off from the >> Internet. But no, that doesn't make it any more acceptable that "only" a >> couple of regions are targeted by what seems like a punishment for a "crime >> de lèse majesté". >> >> Now the question on our table here is what we, global civil society >> coalitions, can do about a situation like this. I recall working for a >> short while at APC on those universal periodic reviews (hope I'm not >> messing up with that heavily acronym based terminology) at the UN Human >> Rights Council, and Cameroon was up for review at some point. Has any >> progress been made since? Any other course of action to look into? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> On Jan 28, 2017 4:37 PM, "Mwendwa Kivuva" >> wrote: >> >> It is quite unfortunate the situation in Cameroon, especially how people >> argue out human rights issues when the pinching shoe is on the neighbors >> leg, when their "enemy", imagined or real, is being persecuted. >> >> ______________________ >> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya >> twitter.com/lordmwesh >> >> >> >> On 28 January 2017 at 18:19, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron < >> nyangkweagien at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear All >>> >>> I am right here in Douala Cameroun. And when I read Janvier, I will want >>> many people to understand one thing. Mister Janvier is francophone. To many >>> francophones, rights belong to authorities and not peoples . People must >>> fear not respect authorities because the said authorities have all powers >>> (they call it in french (plein pouvoirs) to do and undo on every citizen. >>> >>> To him, a Sous Prefet can ask for internet to be suspended in some part >>> of Cameroon, he is in his right as an authority. Currently, a Supreme Court >>> Atorney General, Mr Paul Ayah Abine is arrested and is in detention without >>> due process. The same is the case another Magistrate in Buea who was >>> arrested and ferried to Yaounde a day ago. Their crime; for supporting the >>> anglophone call for a federation. >>> >>> To the likes of Janvier, it is the Government that gives liberty (C'est >>> le gouvernement qui donne la liberté in French) >>> >>> The civilized world must act against such egregious obscurantism >>> >>> Agien Nyangkwe >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Evelyn Namara >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> As a person who has been on the side of the shutdown, it is not right >>>> and justifiable to shutdown the Internet, even for a few regions. >>>> Mr. Janvier, your comments in this email hit me so hard. As a person >>>> who has some level of authority, you should be concerned and fight for all >>>> rights of all citizens. >>>> >>>> The 6 million plus people who make up the 2 regions that are deprived >>>> of the Internet also matter. Everyone matters, and like the Internet >>>> Society always says "The Internet is for everybody". >>>> >>>> Let's all fight and make leaders accountable. >>>> >>>> I stand with the people of Cameroun. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Joash Moitui >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thank you all. >>>>> >>>>> This is a vital interesting topic. Having lived in Cameroon for 3 >>>>> years, I would say that the shutdown in these two region is no different >>>>> from shutdowns witnessed in Uganda and Gambia for instance. It is simply >>>>> the political elite using their political influence to prevent the human >>>>> rights violations calling for federation in these areas. The two areas made >>>>> up of Anglophones, who have been marginalized largely because of their >>>>> language and their calls for federation have been met by internet shutdown >>>>> and full force of security agents. It is this that the Cameroon government >>>>> does not want to be easily distributed within the social media. >>>>> >>>>> Joash >>>>> >>>>> On 27 Jan 2017, at 10:56, Nonhlanhla Chanza < >>>>> nonhlanhlachanza at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I still weep blood for those two regions. I have never been convinced >>>>> by the argument that there might be circumstances that justifies a >>>>> shutdown. So many places in turmoil and war in the world but people have >>>>> access still to the Internet. >>>>> On 26 Jan 2017 17:59, "Janvier NGNOULAYE" wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi to all, >>>>>> It seems to me that the problem of access to Internet in Cameroon is >>>>>> very much amplified here on the Net. There are 10 regions in Cameroon, the >>>>>> problem of access to the Internet is only concerning 2 Regions. These 2 >>>>>> regions actually has some political or social crisis. The government and >>>>>> other stakeholders in these 2 areas are looking for suitable solutions. >>>>>> Meanwhile, the government has seen fit to cut these two regions of Internet >>>>>> access and Western Union money transfer services, for the sake of the >>>>>> entire population of these 2 regions. >>>>>> Internet works well everywhere else in the other 8 regions. I'm >>>>>> sending this mail from Yaounde in Cameroon. >>>>>> So the situation is not a disaster as some seem to publish on the >>>>>> Net. The ISOC Chapter can only encourage the government and the other >>>>>> stakeholders to seek lasting peace solutions, even if it involves a >>>>>> temporary suspension of Internet and Western Union services. >>>>>> >>>>>> ISOC Cameroon Chapter >>>>>> President >>>>>> >>>>>> 2017-01-26 15:45 GMT+01:00 Renata Aquino Ribeiro : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Indeed, this is a terrible situation, which can happen in any >>>>>>> country, which is why everyone should take action. >>>>>>> I'd think bringing in ISOC and other organizations will help deepen >>>>>>> these efforts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Deji Bryce Olukotun < >>>>>>> deji at accessnow.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you, Arsène for the introduction and the summary. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Judith, as Arsène explained, the #KeepitOn coalition >>>>>>>> (111 organizations from 51 >>>>>>>> countries) is pushing back against the shutdown. Our efforts are being led >>>>>>>> by Julie Owono from Internet Without Borders >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At present, we are fighting the shutdown in several ways: >>>>>>>> - open letter to government officials and agencies to restore access >>>>>>>> - media outreach >>>>>>>> - Tweet action at Cameroonian officials >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (please support!) >>>>>>>> - outreach to telcos operating in the country, including a statement >>>>>>>> from the Global Network Initiative >>>>>>>> (Microsoft, >>>>>>>> Google, Facebook, Investors, academics) >>>>>>>> - outreach to international officials at the UN and AU >>>>>>>> - coordination with local groups in Cameroon >>>>>>>> - coordinating with CDN's and other measurement entities >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We welcome any ideas or suggestions about how to get the internet >>>>>>>> turned back on. With each passing day, people are at increased risk of >>>>>>>> human rights violations and the economy is losing money. We'll reach out to >>>>>>>> ISOC to coordinate as well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> Deji >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Arsène Tungali < >>>>>>>> arsenebaguma at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Judith, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing this with us. What's going on in Cameroon is >>>>>>>>> just a shame. For colleagues who have never experienced Internet shutdown, >>>>>>>>> please understand that it is a nightmare. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On this note about Cameroon, several organizations including >>>>>>>>> Access Now and Internet Without Borders >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> doing a lot of advocacy and statements >>>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>>> letters have been sent to officials in Cameroon to ask them to bring back >>>>>>>>> the Internet. A hashtag about this has been started and you can take action >>>>>>>>> as well: #BringBackkOutInternet >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You can learn more about the #KeepItOn >>>>>>>>> campaign here >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Eduard Snowden sent in a tweet >>>>>>>>> where he >>>>>>>>> said: "*This is the future of repression. If we do not fight it >>>>>>>>> there, it will happen here*" and I cannot agree more with him >>>>>>>>> because it is just going from one country to another. Over 8 countries in >>>>>>>>> Africa, including mine the DRC, have experienced shutdown and no one knows >>>>>>>>> who is next. Acces Now has reported >>>>>>>>> 15 Internet shutdowns across >>>>>>>>> the world in 2015 and 56 in 2016 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If there is any question about all the statements and campaigns, I >>>>>>>>> am happy to help or convey your questions since I am involved, on a >>>>>>>>> personal capacity, in these movements advocating and fighting Internet >>>>>>>>> shutdowns across Africa. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Arsene >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PS: Copied is Deji Olukotun who works on Advocacy for Access Now. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------ >>>>>>>>> **Arsène Tungali** >>>>>>>>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >>>>>>>>> *, >>>>>>>>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa >>>>>>>>> Forum * >>>>>>>>> Tel: +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967> >>>>>>>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>>>>>>> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> & Mexico >>>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>>> - AFRISIG 2016 - >>>>>>>>> Blogger - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles >>>>>>>>> & >>>>>>>>> Marrakech >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ). AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> )* - *IGFSA Member - The HuffingtonPost UK >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2017-01-26 5:34 GMT+02:00 Judith Hellerstein < >>>>>>>>> judith at jhellerstein.com>: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> HI All, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Just passing on a note from Mafor Edwan of ISOC Cameroon about >>>>>>>>>> the Cameroonian Government shut down of the Internet in his country. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am at a loss for words of yet another country that has cut off >>>>>>>>>> Internet Access for its citizens. Thanks to ISOC Cameroon for all their >>>>>>>>>> efforts to resolve this crisis, even though they have not been successful, >>>>>>>>>> I am glad that they have tried. I am a passionate believer in an open >>>>>>>>>> Internet. One that is available to all. By connecting the world, working >>>>>>>>>> with others, and advocating for equal access to the Internet, We can make >>>>>>>>>> the world a better place. >>>>>>>>>> Edwan hopes people can share this word about this and hopefully >>>>>>>>>> some one can reach the President and tell him what a bad idea this is. I >>>>>>>>>> told him I would share it around. Hope others can do the same >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>> Judith >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO >>>>>>>>>> Hellerstein & Associates >>>>>>>>>> 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 >>>>>>>>>> Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein >>>>>>>>>> E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com >>>>>>>>>> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ >>>>>>>>>> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] FYI- Constance's blog post >>>>>>>>>> about the G20 - and the updated Internet Governance timeline >>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 21:49:53 -0500 >>>>>>>>>> From: Queen Mother >>>>>>>>>> To: Dan York >>>>>>>>>> CC: ISOC Chapter Delegates >>>>>>>>>> , Carl Gahnberg >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Good evening Fellow ISOC Delegates, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I bring you sad news about the state of internet access in my >>>>>>>>>> home country Cameroon. >>>>>>>>>> I have sobbed uncontrollably for weeks as the govt of my country >>>>>>>>>> tortures and mimes her citizens and recently has cut off the ability to >>>>>>>>>> send financial support to our families through western union and has now >>>>>>>>>> cut off the internet. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please if you can read the articles below. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Cameroon Cuts Internet in English-speaking Regions >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.voanews.com/a/cameroon-cuts-internet-in-english-s >>>>>>>>>> peaking-regions/3682688.html >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> How Cameroon pressured mobile operators to shut down the internet >>>>>>>>>> and stifle dissent >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://qz.com/893401/cameroon-pressured-mtn-and-other-opera >>>>>>>>>> tors-to-shut-down-internet-in-bamenda-buea-regions/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>>>>> Mafor edwan >>>>>>>>>> Vice President #2 >>>>>>>>>> ISOC Cameroon >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically >>>>>>>>>>> subscribed >>>>>>>>>>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet >>>>>>>>>>> Society >>>>>>>>>>> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Deji Bryce Olukotun >>>>>>>> Senior Global Advocacy Manager >>>>>>>> Access Now | accessnow.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> tel: +1 415-935-4572 <+1%20415-935-4572> | @dejiridoo >>>>>>>> PGP: 0x6012CDA8 >>>>>>>> Fingerprint: 3AEE 4194 F70E C806 A810 857A 6AD5 8F48 6012 CDA8 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter on digital rights, the >>>>>>>> Access Now Express: *https://www.accessnow.org/campaign/#sign-up >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> Evelyn Namara | T: +256 754 440893 <+256%20754%20440893> | E: >>>> enamara at riseup.net | Twitter: @enamara >>>> | Skype: enamara >>>> >>>> PGP: B94D 3950 38D6 914A E054 D6C5 E82E 0F66 DC01 E30D >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Aaron Agien NYANGKWE >>> P.O.Box 5213 >>> Douala-Cameroon >>> Tel. 237 673 42 71 27 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 30 11:46:53 2017 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 22:16:53 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva In-Reply-To: <1409939853.27071400.1485790654481@mail.yahoo.com> References: <08da0df2-1f5a-d7e4-d5ff-b15e839d8f9c@apc.org> <5a0b4d2f-e8d0-e1f7-3186-53743f9a2d0d@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801D3B2A5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <06BFEAAB-49C7-4949-974A-40B10B9ECB3D@consensus.pro> <1260683256.4328330.1485538688317@mail.yahoo.com> <1409939853.27071400.1485790654481@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <885d58c9-a888-20aa-6ad1-3c91bc64b10f@itforchange.net> Hi All Let me share my views and assessment about the WG on Enhanced Cooperation, of which I was nominated by civil society to be a member. First of all, the central issue of what has been called as "enhanced cooperation" in Tunis Agenda is the need for developing international Internet related public policies. The central issue is not cooperation among whom - only governments, or across stakeholders' this is a secondary and a follow-up issue. What we therefore need to agree first is whether or not there is a need for developing international Internet-related public policies; in the same way that WHO does for health, UNESCO for education, UNEP for environment, UNDP for development, and so on. Do note that these UN agencies do not "control" the respective sectors worldwide, just because they are UN agencies tasked with dealing with these sectors internationally. I say this because the bogie of "control" of the Internet gets raised immediately as one proposes a similar UN body for looking into international public policy aspects for the Internet. For instance, education is almost as sensitive a sector, politically and culturally, as the Internet, but UNESCO is universally acknowledged to have done very good and useful work internationally in this sector - especially for developing countries - without "controlling" education. Now, if we agree that international Internet related public policies indeed need to be developed -- then we can come to question of who should do so. Public policy is a specific political construct. Every policy is not public policy - for instance, technical policies as developed by technical bodies is not public policy unless they are so designated by an authorised public body. Public policies are definitionally developed by government, or those who represent people or groups of people -- however imperfect be the process of such representation. The first para of the Wikipedia entry on "public policy" defines it as "*Public policy* is the principled guide to action taken by the administrative executive branches of the state with regard to a class of issues, in a manner consistent with law and institutional customs ." and the second para as; "Other scholars define public policy as a system of "courses of action, regulatory measures, laws , and funding priorities concerning a given topic promulgated by a governmental entity or its representatives." I hope we do not mean to redefine what is public policy. To get to the core of this issue; corporations cannot sit with governments on an equal footing to make public policy, which is what many people actually advocate here. We need to make our position clear on this one central issue, as civil society actors associated with IG. It is time we come out clean on this, and leave obfuscations behind. If we can agree on this one issue I am sure we can agree on all. Participation in public policy making, as inputting, advising, developing its initial discourse (as with the IGF) is an entirely different matter. That comes AFTER there comes into existence a mechanism for public policy making. For instance, there would be absolutely no point in developing an extensive public consultation, inputting, policy discussions, etc around health policies in a country if there existed no actual mechanism for making any such policy. That is the situation at the global level on Internet issues. We have well-developed mechanism for public policy dialogue on Internet issues in the form of the IGF, but have no place to actually develop such public policies. This renders the policy dialogue space itself increasingly less and less useful, as has been happening with the IGF. It was the express intent of Tunis Agenda to create a multistakeholder policy dialogue space (the IGF) and a governmental policy making space (the proposed new mechanism for "enhanced cooperation") as two distinct but conjoined institutional mechanisms. Any mis-conception in this regard was cleared by subsequent UN resolutions that expressly said that the IGF and "enhanced cooperation" were distinct but complementing spaces. The intended institutional design could not be clearer -- although I do admit that exactly how governments should develop International Internet-related public policies remain a contested issue. But this contestation is made much worse by actors who - for whatever reasons - keep confusing and conflating (1) pre- public policy development processes of inputs, advice, dialogue, etc, and (2) actual public policy development processes (where, as said, one certainly can not have corporations sit on equal footing with govs to make public policy). One earnestly hopes that it is time that we get out of this confusion/ conflation which has no basis in democratic political theory. Public policy has a specific political meaning and we cannot afford to use this term loosely. It is the very basis of democratic thinking, in that public policy can only be made by representatives of people, and groups of people. Corporations certainly have no vote here. On the other hand, everyone must be consulted, given a chance to input and participate in pre public policy dialogues, which happens at the IGF.. If we indeed agree to come out of this very problematic confusion/ conflation, we can then actually discuss what would be the best means to develop international Internet-related public policies, the real and in fact the only pertinent question under the "enhanced cooperation" related discussions. And this alone is the subject matter for the consideration of the WG on Enhanced Cooperation. Having given the needed background, I will describe what is happening at the WGEC in another email, in a short while. parminder On Monday 30 January 2017 09:07 PM, WANGARI KABIRU wrote: > Many thanks Anriette for the brief and the references are clarifying! > > Be blessed. > > Regards/Wangari > > --- > Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the Light, We are > Restored Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The > Kingdom of God on Earth". > > > On Monday, 30 January 2017, 16:16, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > > > Dear Wangari > > Apologies for delay in responding. > > It is an interesting question, and it goes to the heart of the enhanced > cooperation debate, which in many ways is at the heart of the internet > governance debate that has been ongoing since 2003. > > The term was first used in 2005 - and it means different things to > different people, and the text in the Tunis Agenda where it is first > references in a formal UN agreement, can also be interpreted in > different ways. > > For the last decade it has been used as a political football.. in one of > those matches in which it is not clear if anyone actually scores any > goals. In fact, for some of the players, the objective of the match has > been to avoid anyone scoring any goals :) > > This is a good recent piece by David Souter: > https://www.apc.org/en/blog/inside-information-society-enhanced-cooperation-en > > I quote from it: > > "‘Enhanced cooperation’, like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), was > part of the compromise on the future of the Internet at WSIS in 2005. > Agreement could not be reached on the governance of critical Internet > resources, including the domain name system. ICANN (the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), for some governments, was > little more than an adjunct of the United States. Some wanted the > Internet brought within the ambit of an intergovernmental (or > multilateral) agency such as the International Telecommunication Union > (ITU). Others were, as they remain, determined to keep the Internet free > from intergovernmental oversight. As well as dividing governments, this > was (and is) therefore a tussle between multilateral and > multistakeholder approaches to the Internet. > > The term worked at the time because of its creative ambiguity: like many > UN outcomes it meant different things to different folks. But the > contests that it overlay were, and still are, unresolved. Several UN > initiatives and working groups have failed to reach consensus on it > since the Summit. Some governments (and civil society activists) claim > that nothing’s changed since WSIS: that governments, particularly > developing country governments, can’t play a substantive role in > Internet decisions because there is no proper intergovernmental forum. > Others suggest that diverse multistakeholder initiatives represent a lot > of ‘enhanced cooperation’ that’s already taking place." > > So in response to your question, it is not a new thing that for several > governments, the meaning of enhanced cooperation is "cooperation between > governments". And the term 'equal footing' means that all governments > should have equal access and voice in these processes. > > They generally quote paragraph 69 of the Tunis Agenda: > > "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the > future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their > roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues > pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and > operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy > issues." > > And their position is that the IGF has nothing to do with this type of > cooperation. > > Personally, I think this is misinterpreting the Tunis Agenda. If you > read the two previous paragraphs, 67 and 68, there is a clear reference > to the IGF (referred to in the Tunis Agenda as "the forum for > multi-stakeholder policy dialogue". I quote: > > "67. We agree, inter alia, to invite the UN Secretary-General to convene > a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue. > > 68. We recognize that all governments should have an equal role and > responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring > the stability, security and continuity of the Internet. We also > recognize the need for development of public policy by governments in > consultation with all stakeholders. > > 69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the > future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their > roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues > pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and > operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy > issues." > > My interpretation would be that these paragraphs talks about the forum, > about involvement of all stakeholders, and about the need for > governments to be able to play their role in international public policy. > > These area all important and legitimate and they don't need to be > mutually exclusive. > > But there are different views, and there was a General Assembly > resolution in 2011 or 2012 which stated that the IGF and enhanced > cooperation are two separate processes. > > I do think governments have a legitimate point in saying that they need > a space where they can talk about 'cross cutting' internet-related > public policy issues. Specific issues are being addressed in places like > the Human Rights Council (for internet and human rights issues) or in > WIPO (for copyright related issues, for example). > > And I also think that developing countries are not sufficiently > empowered or influential in most internet-related policy discussions. > > I just don't believe that setting up a new intergovernmental mechanism > is the right solution to this problem. And it is one that is high risk > for civil society. > > But others in the WGEC have different views. > > Warm greetings and thanks for following the meeting! > > Anriette > > > > On 27/01/2017 19:38, WANGARI KABIRU wrote: > > Warm greetings Anriette, > > > > In the morning there was reference in the semblance that enhanced > > cooperation is a government area not for the IGF...MAG. > > Would you kindly shed light. > > > > > > The comments; > > - that statistics in developing countries are a result of tradeoffs and > > thus not (necessarily) reliable > > - how an entity is considered multi-stakeholder in one forum and in > > other spheres not viewed as such. Taking into account > > multi-stakholderism is a key tenet in Internet Governance > > > > Many thanks for the briefs. > > > > Be blessed. > > > > Regards/Wangari > > > > --- > > Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the Light, We are Restored > > Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The Kingdom of God > > on Earth". > > > > > > > -- > ----------------------------------------- > Anriette Esterhuysen > Executive Director > Association for Progressive Communications > anriette at apc.org > www.apc.org > IM: ae_apc > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 30 12:21:57 2017 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 22:51:57 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva In-Reply-To: <885d58c9-a888-20aa-6ad1-3c91bc64b10f@itforchange.net> References: <08da0df2-1f5a-d7e4-d5ff-b15e839d8f9c@apc.org> <5a0b4d2f-e8d0-e1f7-3186-53743f9a2d0d@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801D3B2A5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <06BFEAAB-49C7-4949-974A-40B10B9ECB3D@consensus.pro> <1260683256.4328330.1485538688317@mail.yahoo.com> <1409939853.27071400.1485790654481@mail.yahoo.com> <885d58c9-a888-20aa-6ad1-3c91bc64b10f@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <7698d4ee-0f42-6958-bce2-915d27efbf41@itforchange.net> In the first meeting of the WGEC, in Sept 2016, the group simply came up with two questions, one was about what are the high level characteristics of "enhanced cooperation" and second asking what kind of recommendations the group can come up with. The second meeting last week looked into the responses and discussed them. The responses about the kind of recommendations that WGEC can come up with ranged from (1) seeking a new UN based mechanism/ body for developing Internet related public policies, to (2) hinting on some looser coordination mechanisms among many agencies that deal with some Internet related public policies issues, to (3) arguing that all that is needed is to develop some required qualities, like transparency, accountability, etc for bodies which already do various kinds of policy work in this area. Hopefully, as argued in my previous email, if we can indeed pull ourselves out of many age old confusions and inappropriate conflations in this area, this above takes us to the core of the issue. I understand that there a few possible positions different actors can take on this matter, but one should if possible commit to one or the other, and come out with clear institutional mechanism corresponding to that position (unless of course none is intended, which should be clearly stated). We have spent too much time in this morass, and going forward with greater clarity and responsibility would be highly desirable. We owe it to the world, which is being deeply impacted by the Internet phenomenon, which keep raising important and urgent public policy issues that beg to be addressed. I see the following possible positions in this matter. 1. No international Internet related public policies are required. 2. Even if they are required, different global bodies are already dealing with then adequately. In this regard either nothing more needs to be done, or, the WGEC can simply develop a series of desirable qualities or characteristics that all such institution/ processes must posses. Those holding such a view should, at this stage, come up with a precise method or mechanism they will like to follow to ensure that existing mechanisms/ processes do show such desired qualities, or at least how to persuade them to move in such a direction. 3. What is needed is some kind of a relatively loose coordination mechanism among the existing bodies etc dealing with Internet related international public policies. Those with such a view should come up with the precise mechanism that they have in mind for such coordination -- how does it work, where is it located, and so on. 4. A new committed institutional mechanism - in form of a new body/ agency - is needed for international internet-related public policies. Those with this view should give clear and precise proposals in this regard, where would such body be located, would it be a new one or a modified existing one, what would be its processes of taking in public inputs/ advices etc, what would be its relationship with the IGF, and so on. What I am tying to stress is that we need to be clear that this stage about what kind of global IG institutional architecture we want to see, especially in terms of international public policy processes, and come up with clear and precise institutional recommendations in this regard, with all the needed details. The above are some general categories with regard to possible positions on EC (enhanced cooperation). But we have seen some more specific proposals, or more appropriately hints or outlines of them. I would encourage those who have mentioned them to detail out what exactly is that they have in mind, how would it work etc. for instance, many have said here that an EC mechanism could be an extension of, under the umbrella of, or laterally conjoined with, the IGF process, taking place along with it. It will be useful to make a fully develop proposal ut of it, complete with the essential details. Some others hinted on the possibility of an EC mechanism under the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD). Similar elaboration would be useful in this case. Those who want a whole new relatively independent mechanism should similarly detail it out, as for instance my organisation has been doing for quite some time now. We again submitted it to the WGEC in response to the questionnaire. parminder On Monday 30 January 2017 10:16 PM, parminder wrote: > > Hi All > > Let me share my views and assessment about the WG on Enhanced > Cooperation, of which I was nominated by civil society to be a member. > > First of all, the central issue of what has been called as "enhanced > cooperation" in Tunis Agenda is the need for developing international > Internet related public policies. The central issue is not cooperation > among whom - only governments, or across stakeholders' this is a > secondary and a follow-up issue. > > What we therefore need to agree first is whether or not there is a > need for developing international Internet-related public policies; in > the same way that WHO does for health, UNESCO for education, UNEP for > environment, UNDP for development, and so on. > > Do note that these UN agencies do not "control" the respective sectors > worldwide, just because they are UN agencies tasked with dealing with > these sectors internationally. I say this because the bogie of > "control" of the Internet gets raised immediately as one proposes a > similar UN body for looking into international public policy aspects > for the Internet. For instance, education is almost as sensitive a > sector, politically and culturally, as the Internet, but UNESCO is > universally acknowledged to have done very good and useful work > internationally in this sector - especially for developing countries - > without "controlling" education. > > Now, if we agree that international Internet related public policies > indeed need to be developed -- then we can come to question of who > should do so. > > Public policy is a specific political construct. Every policy is not > public policy - for instance, technical policies as developed by > technical bodies is not public policy unless they are so designated by > an authorised public body. > > Public policies are definitionally developed by government, or those > who represent people or groups of people -- however imperfect be the > process of such representation. > > The first para of the Wikipedia entry on "public policy" defines it as > > "*Public policy* is the principled guide to action taken by the > administrative executive branches > of the > state with > regard to a class of issues, in a manner consistent with law > and institutional customs > ." > > and the second para as; > > "Other scholars define public policy as a system of "courses of > action, regulatory > measures, laws , and funding > priorities concerning a > given topic promulgated by a governmental entity or its > representatives." > > I hope we do not mean to redefine what is public policy. To get to the > core of this issue; corporations cannot sit with governments on an > equal footing to make public policy, which is what many people > actually advocate here. We need to make our position clear on this one > central issue, as civil society actors associated with IG. It is time > we come out clean on this, and leave obfuscations behind. If we can > agree on this one issue I am sure we can agree on all. > > Participation in public policy making, as inputting, advising, > developing its initial discourse (as with the IGF) is an entirely > different matter. That comes AFTER there comes into existence a > mechanism for public policy making. For instance, there would be > absolutely no point in developing an extensive public consultation, > inputting, policy discussions, etc around health policies in a country > if there existed no actual mechanism for making any such policy. > > That is the situation at the global level on Internet issues. We have > well-developed mechanism for public policy dialogue on Internet issues > in the form of the IGF, but have no place to actually develop such > public policies. This renders the policy dialogue space itself > increasingly less and less useful, as has been happening with the IGF. > > It was the express intent of Tunis Agenda to create a multistakeholder > policy dialogue space (the IGF) and a governmental policy making space > (the proposed new mechanism for "enhanced cooperation") as two > distinct but conjoined institutional mechanisms. Any mis-conception in > this regard was cleared by subsequent UN resolutions that expressly > said that the IGF and "enhanced cooperation" were distinct but > complementing spaces. The intended institutional design could not be > clearer -- although I do admit that exactly how governments should > develop International Internet-related public policies remain a > contested issue. > > But this contestation is made much worse by actors who - for whatever > reasons - keep confusing and conflating (1) pre- public policy > development processes of inputs, advice, dialogue, etc, and (2) actual > public policy development processes (where, as said, one certainly can > not have corporations sit on equal footing with govs to make public > policy). > > One earnestly hopes that it is time that we get out of this confusion/ > conflation which has no basis in democratic political theory. Public > policy has a specific political meaning and we cannot afford to use > this term loosely. It is the very basis of democratic thinking, in > that public policy can only be made by representatives of people, and > groups of people. Corporations certainly have no vote here. > > On the other hand, everyone must be consulted, given a chance to input > and participate in pre public policy dialogues, which happens at the IGF.. > > If we indeed agree to come out of this very problematic confusion/ > conflation, we can then actually discuss what would be the best means > to develop international Internet-related public policies, the real > and in fact the only pertinent question under the "enhanced > cooperation" related discussions. And this alone is the subject matter > for the consideration of the WG on Enhanced Cooperation. > > Having given the needed background, I will describe what is happening > at the WGEC in another email, in a short while. > > parminder > > On Monday 30 January 2017 09:07 PM, WANGARI KABIRU wrote: >> Many thanks Anriette for the brief and the references are clarifying! >> >> Be blessed. >> >> Regards/Wangari >> >> --- >> Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the Light, We are >> Restored Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The >> Kingdom of God on Earth". >> >> >> On Monday, 30 January 2017, 16:16, Anriette Esterhuysen >> wrote: >> >> >> Dear Wangari >> >> Apologies for delay in responding. >> >> It is an interesting question, and it goes to the heart of the enhanced >> cooperation debate, which in many ways is at the heart of the internet >> governance debate that has been ongoing since 2003. >> >> The term was first used in 2005 - and it means different things to >> different people, and the text in the Tunis Agenda where it is first >> references in a formal UN agreement, can also be interpreted in >> different ways. >> >> For the last decade it has been used as a political football.. in one of >> those matches in which it is not clear if anyone actually scores any >> goals. In fact, for some of the players, the objective of the match has >> been to avoid anyone scoring any goals :) >> >> This is a good recent piece by David Souter: >> https://www.apc.org/en/blog/inside-information-society-enhanced-cooperation-en >> >> I quote from it: >> >> "‘Enhanced cooperation’, like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), was >> part of the compromise on the future of the Internet at WSIS in 2005. >> Agreement could not be reached on the governance of critical Internet >> resources, including the domain name system. ICANN (the Internet >> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), for some governments, was >> little more than an adjunct of the United States. Some wanted the >> Internet brought within the ambit of an intergovernmental (or >> multilateral) agency such as the International Telecommunication Union >> (ITU). Others were, as they remain, determined to keep the Internet free >> from intergovernmental oversight. As well as dividing governments, this >> was (and is) therefore a tussle between multilateral and >> multistakeholder approaches to the Internet. >> >> The term worked at the time because of its creative ambiguity: like many >> UN outcomes it meant different things to different folks. But the >> contests that it overlay were, and still are, unresolved. Several UN >> initiatives and working groups have failed to reach consensus on it >> since the Summit. Some governments (and civil society activists) claim >> that nothing’s changed since WSIS: that governments, particularly >> developing country governments, can’t play a substantive role in >> Internet decisions because there is no proper intergovernmental forum. >> Others suggest that diverse multistakeholder initiatives represent a lot >> of ‘enhanced cooperation’ that’s already taking place." >> >> So in response to your question, it is not a new thing that for several >> governments, the meaning of enhanced cooperation is "cooperation between >> governments". And the term 'equal footing' means that all governments >> should have equal access and voice in these processes. >> >> They generally quote paragraph 69 of the Tunis Agenda: >> >> "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the >> future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their >> roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues >> pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and >> operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy >> issues." >> >> And their position is that the IGF has nothing to do with this type of >> cooperation. >> >> Personally, I think this is misinterpreting the Tunis Agenda. If you >> read the two previous paragraphs, 67 and 68, there is a clear reference >> to the IGF (referred to in the Tunis Agenda as "the forum for >> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue". I quote: >> >> "67. We agree, inter alia, to invite the UN Secretary-General to convene >> a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue. >> >> 68. We recognize that all governments should have an equal role and >> responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring >> the stability, security and continuity of the Internet. We also >> recognize the need for development of public policy by governments in >> consultation with all stakeholders. >> >> 69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the >> future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their >> roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues >> pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and >> operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy >> issues." >> >> My interpretation would be that these paragraphs talks about the forum, >> about involvement of all stakeholders, and about the need for >> governments to be able to play their role in international public policy. >> >> These area all important and legitimate and they don't need to be >> mutually exclusive. >> >> But there are different views, and there was a General Assembly >> resolution in 2011 or 2012 which stated that the IGF and enhanced >> cooperation are two separate processes. >> >> I do think governments have a legitimate point in saying that they need >> a space where they can talk about 'cross cutting' internet-related >> public policy issues. Specific issues are being addressed in places like >> the Human Rights Council (for internet and human rights issues) or in >> WIPO (for copyright related issues, for example). >> >> And I also think that developing countries are not sufficiently >> empowered or influential in most internet-related policy discussions. >> >> I just don't believe that setting up a new intergovernmental mechanism >> is the right solution to this problem. And it is one that is high risk >> for civil society. >> >> But others in the WGEC have different views. >> >> Warm greetings and thanks for following the meeting! >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> On 27/01/2017 19:38, WANGARI KABIRU wrote: >> > Warm greetings Anriette, >> > >> > In the morning there was reference in the semblance that enhanced >> > cooperation is a government area not for the IGF...MAG. >> > Would you kindly shed light. >> > >> > >> > The comments; >> > - that statistics in developing countries are a result of >> tradeoffs and >> > thus not (necessarily) reliable >> > - how an entity is considered multi-stakeholder in one forum and in >> > other spheres not viewed as such. Taking into account >> > multi-stakholderism is a key tenet in Internet Governance >> > >> > Many thanks for the briefs. >> > >> > Be blessed. >> > >> > Regards/Wangari >> > >> > --- >> > Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the Light, We are >> Restored >> > Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The Kingdom of God >> > on Earth". >> > >> > >> > >> -- >> ----------------------------------------- >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> Executive Director >> Association for Progressive Communications >> anriette at apc.org >> www.apc.org >> IM: ae_apc >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 30 12:41:29 2017 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 23:11:29 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva In-Reply-To: <7698d4ee-0f42-6958-bce2-915d27efbf41@itforchange.net> References: <08da0df2-1f5a-d7e4-d5ff-b15e839d8f9c@apc.org> <5a0b4d2f-e8d0-e1f7-3186-53743f9a2d0d@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801D3B2A5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <06BFEAAB-49C7-4949-974A-40B10B9ECB3D@consensus.pro> <1260683256.4328330.1485538688317@mail.yahoo.com> <1409939853.27071400.1485790654481@mail.yahoo.com> <885d58c9-a888-20aa-6ad1-3c91bc64b10f@itforchange.net> <7698d4ee-0f42-6958-bce2-915d27efbf41@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Sorry, forgot to mention that although it appears that there is no further opportunity for formal public inputs into the process, civil society members of WGEC should be happy to take to the WGEC all specific institutional models that people may want to propose, individually, on an organisation's behalf, or as groups or coalitions. The next WGEC meeting in May 2017 will be discussing specific recommendations of this kind, possible stacked in a few categories. I proposed 4 categories in my below email. But the secretariat put the specific recommendations related inputs that were received in 7 categories as below, which would most likely be the way the discussions in the Sept meeting will proceed. I. PROPOSALS OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADDRESSING SPECIFIC EXISTENT INSTITUTIONS/PROCESSES/FORA II. RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE FOLLOW-UP TO THE PREVIOUS WGEC WORKING GROUP III. RECOMMENDATIONS OF PRIORITY OF FOCUS AREAS FOR FUTURE WORK IV. RECOMMENDATIONS ADDRESSING ON COORDINATION ASPECTS V. RECOMMENDATIONS ADDRESSED TO NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS VI. RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE CREATION OF NEW INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS/INSTRUMENTS VII. SUGGESTIONS REGARDING CHARACTERISTICS OF RECOMMENDATIONS Among the above, 1, 4 and 6 correspond to categories 2, 3 and 4 that I suggested below, which I think are the really important ones. parminder On Monday 30 January 2017 10:51 PM, parminder wrote: > > In the first meeting of the WGEC, in Sept 2016, the group simply came > up with two questions, one was about what are the high level > characteristics of "enhanced cooperation" and second asking what kind > of recommendations the group can come up with. The second meeting last > week looked into the responses and discussed them. > > The responses about the kind of recommendations that WGEC can come up > with ranged from (1) seeking a new UN based mechanism/ body for > developing Internet related public policies, to (2) hinting on some > looser coordination mechanisms among many agencies that deal with some > Internet related public policies issues, to (3) arguing that all that > is needed is to develop some required qualities, like transparency, > accountability, etc for bodies which already do various kinds of > policy work in this area. > > Hopefully, as argued in my previous email, if we can indeed pull > ourselves out of many age old confusions and inappropriate conflations > in this area, this above takes us to the core of the issue. I > understand that there a few possible positions different actors can > take on this matter, but one should if possible commit to one or the > other, and come out with clear institutional mechanism corresponding > to that position (unless of course none is intended, which should be > clearly stated). We have spent too much time in this morass, and going > forward with greater clarity and responsibility would be highly > desirable. We owe it to the world, which is being deeply impacted by > the Internet phenomenon, which keep raising important and urgent > public policy issues that beg to be addressed. > > I see the following possible positions in this matter. > > 1. No international Internet related public policies are required. > > 2. Even if they are required, different global bodies are already > dealing with then adequately. In this regard either nothing more needs > to be done, or, the WGEC can simply develop a series of desirable > qualities or characteristics that all such institution/ processes must > posses. Those holding such a view should, at this stage, come up with > a precise method or mechanism they will like to follow to ensure that > existing mechanisms/ processes do show such desired qualities, or at > least how to persuade them to move in such a direction. > > 3. What is needed is some kind of a relatively loose coordination > mechanism among the existing bodies etc dealing with Internet related > international public policies. Those with such a view should come up > with the precise mechanism that they have in mind for such > coordination -- how does it work, where is it located, and so on. > > 4. A new committed institutional mechanism - in form of a new body/ > agency - is needed for international internet-related public policies. > Those with this view should give clear and precise proposals in this > regard, where would such body be located, would it be a new one or a > modified existing one, what would be its processes of taking in public > inputs/ advices etc, what would be its relationship with the IGF, and > so on. > > What I am tying to stress is that we need to be clear that this stage > about what kind of global IG institutional architecture we want to > see, especially in terms of international public policy processes, and > come up with clear and precise institutional recommendations in this > regard, with all the needed details. > > The above are some general categories with regard to possible > positions on EC (enhanced cooperation). But we have seen some more > specific proposals, or more appropriately hints or outlines of them. I > would encourage those who have mentioned them to detail out what > exactly is that they have in mind, how would it work etc. for > instance, many have said here that an EC mechanism could be an > extension of, under the umbrella of, or laterally conjoined with, the > IGF process, taking place along with it. It will be useful to make a > fully develop proposal ut of it, complete with the essential details. > Some others hinted on the possibility of an EC mechanism under the > Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD). Similar > elaboration would be useful in this case. Those who want a whole new > relatively independent mechanism should similarly detail it out, as > for instance my organisation has been doing for quite some time now. > We again submitted it > to > the WGEC in response to the questionnaire. > > parminder > > > > On Monday 30 January 2017 10:16 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> Hi All >> >> Let me share my views and assessment about the WG on Enhanced >> Cooperation, of which I was nominated by civil society to be a member. >> >> First of all, the central issue of what has been called as "enhanced >> cooperation" in Tunis Agenda is the need for developing international >> Internet related public policies. The central issue is not >> cooperation among whom - only governments, or across stakeholders' >> this is a secondary and a follow-up issue. >> >> What we therefore need to agree first is whether or not there is a >> need for developing international Internet-related public policies; >> in the same way that WHO does for health, UNESCO for education, UNEP >> for environment, UNDP for development, and so on. >> >> Do note that these UN agencies do not "control" the respective >> sectors worldwide, just because they are UN agencies tasked with >> dealing with these sectors internationally. I say this because the >> bogie of "control" of the Internet gets raised immediately as one >> proposes a similar UN body for looking into international public >> policy aspects for the Internet. For instance, education is almost as >> sensitive a sector, politically and culturally, as the Internet, but >> UNESCO is universally acknowledged to have done very good and useful >> work internationally in this sector - especially for developing >> countries - without "controlling" education. >> >> Now, if we agree that international Internet related public policies >> indeed need to be developed -- then we can come to question of who >> should do so. >> >> Public policy is a specific political construct. Every policy is not >> public policy - for instance, technical policies as developed by >> technical bodies is not public policy unless they are so designated >> by an authorised public body. >> >> Public policies are definitionally developed by government, or those >> who represent people or groups of people -- however imperfect be the >> process of such representation. >> >> The first para of the Wikipedia entry on "public policy" defines it as >> >> "*Public policy* is the principled guide to action taken by the >> administrative executive branches >> of the >> state with >> regard to a class of issues, in a manner consistent with law >> and institutional customs >> ." >> >> and the second para as; >> >> "Other scholars define public policy as a system of "courses of >> action, regulatory >> measures, laws , and funding >> priorities concerning a >> given topic promulgated by a governmental entity or its >> representatives." >> >> I hope we do not mean to redefine what is public policy. To get to >> the core of this issue; corporations cannot sit with governments on >> an equal footing to make public policy, which is what many people >> actually advocate here. We need to make our position clear on this >> one central issue, as civil society actors associated with IG. It is >> time we come out clean on this, and leave obfuscations behind. If we >> can agree on this one issue I am sure we can agree on all. >> >> Participation in public policy making, as inputting, advising, >> developing its initial discourse (as with the IGF) is an entirely >> different matter. That comes AFTER there comes into existence a >> mechanism for public policy making. For instance, there would be >> absolutely no point in developing an extensive public consultation, >> inputting, policy discussions, etc around health policies in a >> country if there existed no actual mechanism for making any such policy. >> >> That is the situation at the global level on Internet issues. We have >> well-developed mechanism for public policy dialogue on Internet >> issues in the form of the IGF, but have no place to actually develop >> such public policies. This renders the policy dialogue space itself >> increasingly less and less useful, as has been happening with the IGF. >> >> It was the express intent of Tunis Agenda to create a >> multistakeholder policy dialogue space (the IGF) and a governmental >> policy making space (the proposed new mechanism for "enhanced >> cooperation") as two distinct but conjoined institutional mechanisms. >> Any mis-conception in this regard was cleared by subsequent UN >> resolutions that expressly said that the IGF and "enhanced >> cooperation" were distinct but complementing spaces. The intended >> institutional design could not be clearer -- although I do admit that >> exactly how governments should develop International Internet-related >> public policies remain a contested issue. >> >> But this contestation is made much worse by actors who - for whatever >> reasons - keep confusing and conflating (1) pre- public policy >> development processes of inputs, advice, dialogue, etc, and (2) >> actual public policy development processes (where, as said, one >> certainly can not have corporations sit on equal footing with govs to >> make public policy). >> >> One earnestly hopes that it is time that we get out of this >> confusion/ conflation which has no basis in democratic political >> theory. Public policy has a specific political meaning and we cannot >> afford to use this term loosely. It is the very basis of democratic >> thinking, in that public policy can only be made by representatives >> of people, and groups of people. Corporations certainly have no vote >> here. >> >> On the other hand, everyone must be consulted, given a chance to >> input and participate in pre public policy dialogues, which happens >> at the IGF.. >> >> If we indeed agree to come out of this very problematic confusion/ >> conflation, we can then actually discuss what would be the best means >> to develop international Internet-related public policies, the real >> and in fact the only pertinent question under the "enhanced >> cooperation" related discussions. And this alone is the subject >> matter for the consideration of the WG on Enhanced Cooperation. >> >> Having given the needed background, I will describe what is happening >> at the WGEC in another email, in a short while. >> >> parminder >> >> On Monday 30 January 2017 09:07 PM, WANGARI KABIRU wrote: >>> Many thanks Anriette for the brief and the references are clarifying! >>> >>> Be blessed. >>> >>> Regards/Wangari >>> >>> --- >>> Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the Light, We are >>> Restored Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The >>> Kingdom of God on Earth". >>> >>> >>> On Monday, 30 January 2017, 16:16, Anriette Esterhuysen >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Dear Wangari >>> >>> Apologies for delay in responding. >>> >>> It is an interesting question, and it goes to the heart of the enhanced >>> cooperation debate, which in many ways is at the heart of the internet >>> governance debate that has been ongoing since 2003. >>> >>> The term was first used in 2005 - and it means different things to >>> different people, and the text in the Tunis Agenda where it is first >>> references in a formal UN agreement, can also be interpreted in >>> different ways. >>> >>> For the last decade it has been used as a political football.. in one of >>> those matches in which it is not clear if anyone actually scores any >>> goals. In fact, for some of the players, the objective of the match has >>> been to avoid anyone scoring any goals :) >>> >>> This is a good recent piece by David Souter: >>> https://www.apc.org/en/blog/inside-information-society-enhanced-cooperation-en >>> >>> I quote from it: >>> >>> "‘Enhanced cooperation’, like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), was >>> part of the compromise on the future of the Internet at WSIS in 2005. >>> Agreement could not be reached on the governance of critical Internet >>> resources, including the domain name system. ICANN (the Internet >>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), for some governments, was >>> little more than an adjunct of the United States. Some wanted the >>> Internet brought within the ambit of an intergovernmental (or >>> multilateral) agency such as the International Telecommunication Union >>> (ITU). Others were, as they remain, determined to keep the Internet free >>> from intergovernmental oversight. As well as dividing governments, this >>> was (and is) therefore a tussle between multilateral and >>> multistakeholder approaches to the Internet. >>> >>> The term worked at the time because of its creative ambiguity: like many >>> UN outcomes it meant different things to different folks. But the >>> contests that it overlay were, and still are, unresolved. Several UN >>> initiatives and working groups have failed to reach consensus on it >>> since the Summit. Some governments (and civil society activists) claim >>> that nothing’s changed since WSIS: that governments, particularly >>> developing country governments, can’t play a substantive role in >>> Internet decisions because there is no proper intergovernmental forum. >>> Others suggest that diverse multistakeholder initiatives represent a lot >>> of ‘enhanced cooperation’ that’s already taking place." >>> >>> So in response to your question, it is not a new thing that for several >>> governments, the meaning of enhanced cooperation is "cooperation between >>> governments". And the term 'equal footing' means that all governments >>> should have equal access and voice in these processes. >>> >>> They generally quote paragraph 69 of the Tunis Agenda: >>> >>> "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the >>> future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their >>> roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues >>> pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and >>> operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy >>> issues." >>> >>> And their position is that the IGF has nothing to do with this type of >>> cooperation. >>> >>> Personally, I think this is misinterpreting the Tunis Agenda. If you >>> read the two previous paragraphs, 67 and 68, there is a clear reference >>> to the IGF (referred to in the Tunis Agenda as "the forum for >>> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue". I quote: >>> >>> "67. We agree, inter alia, to invite the UN Secretary-General to convene >>> a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue. >>> >>> 68. We recognize that all governments should have an equal role and >>> responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring >>> the stability, security and continuity of the Internet. We also >>> recognize the need for development of public policy by governments in >>> consultation with all stakeholders. >>> >>> 69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the >>> future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their >>> roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues >>> pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and >>> operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy >>> issues." >>> >>> My interpretation would be that these paragraphs talks about the forum, >>> about involvement of all stakeholders, and about the need for >>> governments to be able to play their role in international public >>> policy. >>> >>> These area all important and legitimate and they don't need to be >>> mutually exclusive. >>> >>> But there are different views, and there was a General Assembly >>> resolution in 2011 or 2012 which stated that the IGF and enhanced >>> cooperation are two separate processes. >>> >>> I do think governments have a legitimate point in saying that they need >>> a space where they can talk about 'cross cutting' internet-related >>> public policy issues. Specific issues are being addressed in places like >>> the Human Rights Council (for internet and human rights issues) or in >>> WIPO (for copyright related issues, for example). >>> >>> And I also think that developing countries are not sufficiently >>> empowered or influential in most internet-related policy discussions. >>> >>> I just don't believe that setting up a new intergovernmental mechanism >>> is the right solution to this problem. And it is one that is high risk >>> for civil society. >>> >>> But others in the WGEC have different views. >>> >>> Warm greetings and thanks for following the meeting! >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> On 27/01/2017 19:38, WANGARI KABIRU wrote: >>> > Warm greetings Anriette, >>> > >>> > In the morning there was reference in the semblance that enhanced >>> > cooperation is a government area not for the IGF...MAG. >>> > Would you kindly shed light. >>> > >>> > >>> > The comments; >>> > - that statistics in developing countries are a result of >>> tradeoffs and >>> > thus not (necessarily) reliable >>> > - how an entity is considered multi-stakeholder in one forum and in >>> > other spheres not viewed as such. Taking into account >>> > multi-stakholderism is a key tenet in Internet Governance >>> > >>> > Many thanks for the briefs. >>> > >>> > Be blessed. >>> > >>> > Regards/Wangari >>> > >>> > --- >>> > Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the Light, We are >>> Restored >>> > Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The Kingdom of God >>> > on Earth". >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- >>> ----------------------------------------- >>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>> Executive Director >>> Association for Progressive Communications >>> anriette at apc.org >>> www.apc.org >>> IM: ae_apc >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lea at gp-digital.org Mon Jan 30 13:36:33 2017 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 18:36:33 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <08da0df2-1f5a-d7e4-d5ff-b15e839d8f9c@apc.org> <5a0b4d2f-e8d0-e1f7-3186-53743f9a2d0d@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801D3B2A5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <06BFEAAB-49C7-4949-974A-40B10B9ECB3D@consensus.pro> <1260683256.4328330.1485538688317@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Anriette, all, (I'm writing here in my capacity as another CS-selected member of the WGEC who participated in last week's proceedings) This really is a great summary of the current debate - thank you for sharing it on the lists and for sharing David's blog post. I'm interested in understanding better two points you raise towards the end of your post (and which summarise how some stakeholders are framing the problem): 1) lack of space for governments to discuss cross-cutting internet-related pp issues and; 2) lack of sufficient empowerment/ influence in most internet-related policy discussions by developing country governments. The problem could of course be framed in different ways, depending on one's starting position and definition of EC. I just saw Parminder's email to that effect which is very thoughtful and can serve as a starting point for further discussion. But leaving that aside for the moment, I am interested in understanding better the two points identified above. This is because I've seen these arguments emerge in last week's discussions and would like to be able to engage with them 'on an equal footing' :). On the first point, and apologies if this comes off as naive, but what is behind the position that governments need a space where they can talk about 'cross cutting' internet-related public policy issues? What's driving it? I know for some governments it's partly (geo)political posturing, but beyond that, and especially for developing country governments - where should one look to better understand the substantive argument that supports this position? On the second point, which I've heard raised many times, I'd be interested to hear whether people think this is changing due to the proliferation of internet related pp issues across the international policy landscape (UNGA, HRC, AU, ITU, ASEAN...). True, in some processes this may indeed be the case (e.g. OECD, London Process?), but there are many others that increasingly deal with internet related PP where the voices of developing country governments are anything but powerless. In fact, in the three UNGA committees which deal with issues such as cybersecurity (1st committee), WSIS (2nd committee), and privacy (3rd committee), the G77 hold the majority vote. The situation is not much different in the ITU and a number of other bodies. Is this problem likely to loose its grounding or even relevance with the changing nature of the landscape? Thanks in advance for the openness in reading these questions. They are addressed to anyone who can shine light on them, and raised in the spirit of encouraging an informed debate on these issues. On a general note - I would really encourage people to engage in this debate if they are interested. Governments on the WGEC seem to hold rather polarising positions, and I think this opens the opportunity for civil society to play a bridging role in shaping the group's outcomes. With modalities allowing observers to actively participate in the meetings, you can engage directly or channel your views via others. In any case, looking forward to people's views and comments. Best wishes, Lea ps - I'm not on the IGC/APC lists so my posts don't go through there, but feel free to loop the lists back in for those who are on them On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:33 PM, matthew shears wrote: > + 1 Anriette - very nicely summarized. > > On 30/01/2017 14:16, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Dear Wangari > > Apologies for delay in responding. > > It is an interesting question, and it goes to the heart of the enhanced > cooperation debate, which in many ways is at the heart of the internet > governance debate that has been ongoing since 2003. > > The term was first used in 2005 - and it means different things to > different people, and the text in the Tunis Agenda where it is first > references in a formal UN agreement, can also be interpreted in > different ways. > > For the last decade it has been used as a political football.. in one of > those matches in which it is not clear if anyone actually scores any > goals. In fact, for some of the players, the objective of the match has > been to avoid anyone scoring any goals :) > > This is a good recent piece by David Souter:https://www.apc.org/en/blog/inside-information-society-enhanced-cooperation-en > > I quote from it: > > "‘Enhanced cooperation’, like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), was > part of the compromise on the future of the Internet at WSIS in 2005. > Agreement could not be reached on the governance of critical Internet > resources, including the domain name system. ICANN (the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), for some governments, was > little more than an adjunct of the United States. Some wanted the > Internet brought within the ambit of an intergovernmental (or > multilateral) agency such as the International Telecommunication Union > (ITU). Others were, as they remain, determined to keep the Internet free > from intergovernmental oversight. As well as dividing governments, this > was (and is) therefore a tussle between multilateral and > multistakeholder approaches to the Internet. > > The term worked at the time because of its creative ambiguity: like many > UN outcomes it meant different things to different folks. But the > contests that it overlay were, and still are, unresolved. Several UN > initiatives and working groups have failed to reach consensus on it > since the Summit. Some governments (and civil society activists) claim > that nothing’s changed since WSIS: that governments, particularly > developing country governments, can’t play a substantive role in > Internet decisions because there is no proper intergovernmental forum. > Others suggest that diverse multistakeholder initiatives represent a lot > of ‘enhanced cooperation’ that’s already taking place." > > So in response to your question, it is not a new thing that for several > governments, the meaning of enhanced cooperation is "cooperation between > governments". And the term 'equal footing' means that all governments > should have equal access and voice in these processes. > > They generally quote paragraph 69 of the Tunis Agenda: > > "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the > future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their > roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues > pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and > operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy > issues." > > And their position is that the IGF has nothing to do with this type of > cooperation. > > Personally, I think this is misinterpreting the Tunis Agenda. If you > read the two previous paragraphs, 67 and 68, there is a clear reference > to the IGF (referred to in the Tunis Agenda as "the forum for > multi-stakeholder policy dialogue". I quote: > > "67. We agree, inter alia, to invite the UN Secretary-General to convene > a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue. > > 68. We recognize that all governments should have an equal role and > responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring > the stability, security and continuity of the Internet. We also > recognize the need for development of public policy by governments in > consultation with all stakeholders. > > 69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the > future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their > roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues > pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and > operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy > issues." > > My interpretation would be that these paragraphs talks about the forum, > about involvement of all stakeholders, and about the need for > governments to be able to play their role in international public policy. > > These area all important and legitimate and they don't need to be > mutually exclusive. > > But there are different views, and there was a General Assembly > resolution in 2011 or 2012 which stated that the IGF and enhanced > cooperation are two separate processes. > > I do think governments have a legitimate point in saying that they need > a space where they can talk about 'cross cutting' internet-related > public policy issues. Specific issues are being addressed in places like > the Human Rights Council (for internet and human rights issues) or in > WIPO (for copyright related issues, for example). > > And I also think that developing countries are not sufficiently > empowered or influential in most internet-related policy discussions. > > I just don't believe that setting up a new intergovernmental mechanism > is the right solution to this problem. And it is one that is high risk > for civil society. > > But others in the WGEC have different views. > > Warm greetings and thanks for following the meeting! > > Anriette > > > > On 27/01/2017 19:38, WANGARI KABIRU wrote: > > Warm greetings Anriette, > > In the morning there was reference in the semblance that enhanced > cooperation is a government area not for the IGF...MAG. > Would you kindly shed light. > > > The comments; > - that statistics in developing countries are a result of tradeoffs and > thus not (necessarily) reliable > - how an entity is considered multi-stakeholder in one forum and in > other spheres not viewed as such. Taking into account > multi-stakholderism is a key tenet in Internet Governance > > Many thanks for the briefs. > > Be blessed. > > Regards/Wangari > > --- > Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the Light, We are Restored > Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The Kingdom of God > on Earth". > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > -- > ------------ > Matthew Shears > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 30 16:14:46 2017 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 02:44:46 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <08da0df2-1f5a-d7e4-d5ff-b15e839d8f9c@apc.org> <5a0b4d2f-e8d0-e1f7-3186-53743f9a2d0d@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801D3B2A5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <06BFEAAB-49C7-4949-974A-40B10B9ECB3D@consensus.pro> <1260683256.4328330.1485538688317@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2b0aeab1-1187-e67c-2b40-8008dce45af5@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 31 January 2017 12:06 AM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Dear Anriette, all, > > (I'm writing here in my capacity as another CS-selected member of the > WGEC who participated in last week's proceedings) > > This really is a great summary of the current debate - thank you for > sharing it on the lists and for sharing David's blog post. > > I'm interested in understanding better two points you raise towards > the end of your post (and which summarise how some stakeholders are > framing the problem): > > 1) lack of space for governments to discuss cross-cutting > internet-related pp issues and; > 2) lack of sufficient empowerment/ influence in most > internet-related policy discussions by developing country > governments. > > > The problem could of course be framed in different ways, depending on > one's starting position and definition of EC. I just saw Parminder's > email to that effect which is very thoughtful and can serve as a > starting point for further discussion. But leaving that aside for the > moment, I am interested in understanding better the two points > identified above. This is because I've seen these arguments emerge in > last week's discussions and would like to be able to engage with them > 'on an equal footing' :). > > On the first point, and apologies if this comes off as naive, but what > is behind the position that governments need a space where they can > talk about 'cross cutting' internet-related public policy issues? > What's driving it? I know for some governments it's partly > (geo)political posturing, but beyond that, and especially for > developing country governments - where should one look to better > understand the substantive argument that supports this position? Lea, let me see if I can engage with some of these points. First of all, governments want a space where they can not only "discuss" but also "develop" cross-cutting international Internet-related public policies. As for what is driving such a demand I think it should not be difficult to see knowing as most of us do here that OECD countries develop "international" Internet related public policies through OECD's Committee on Digital Economy Policies. This committee was re-mandated with a new name and mandate just a few years back. The process was in-putted into by civil society actors, most of them present here, without asking the OECD countires why do they need such an forum for Internet-related public policy development, whether it is just geo-political posturing, and so on. Why should these questions be addressed to developing countries who would simply like such "international" policies to be developed democratically with all countries participating equally when these questions do not get asked from OECD countries doing exactly the same work, in exactly the same inter-governmental manner? Just because the latter are the rich and powerful countries? (Pl do excuse the rhetoric.) > > On the second point, which I've heard raised many times, I'd be > interested to hear whether people think this is changing due to the > proliferation of internet related pp issues across the international > policy landscape (UNGA, HRC, AU, ITU, ASEAN...). True, in some > processes this may indeed be the case (e.g. OECD, London Process?), > but there are many others that increasingly deal with internet related > PP where the voices of developing country governments are anything but > powerless. In fact, in the three UNGA committees which deal with > issues such as cybersecurity (1st committee), WSIS (2nd committee), > and privacy (3rd committee), the G77 hold the majority vote. The > situation is not much different in the ITU and a number of other > bodies. Is this problem likely to loose its grounding or even > relevance with the changing nature of the landscape? You would notice that the processes that you mention as where developing countries do get excluded are those which are specifically committed to Internet-related policy issues, and those that you mention where developing countries have equal voice are old ones dealing with other general areas which may have some Internet related aspects/ areas. (ITU is a different case to which I will come presently.) So, the real question is, why rich countries need and prefer to have committed mechanisms just for Internet-related public policy issues but it is considered unnecessary to have such forums - with same specific/ committed mandate exclusively for internet policies - where developing countries can be equally present? Why does the logic change just because developing countries are added to the mix? And to deflect their demands, examples are given of existing forums that are focussed on very different matters, which though may have some Internet aspects (which today almost everything has? OECD has about 45 or so other committees, dealing with almost everything that can need dealing, and each of these areas having some Internet aspects that too get dealt by them; why did it then feel the need to have a committed Committee for Digital Economy Policies, just a few years back? As for ITU, please do remember how most CS groups here fought to keep Internet policy issues as far from ITU's work and mandate as possible, and how WCIT crashed not only on inclusion of Internet in the ITRs but even its inclusion as an appended resolution. So, when at ITU people do not want ITU to deal with the Internet, but when one asks for some other democratic body for the Internet, ITU is given as one place where Internet issues are being addressed. It is a bit unfair to be batting from both the sides. In any case, I do not think ITU is the right place for Internet related public policies, it is useful for many aspects of Internet related technical policies along with ICANN and other such technical policy bodies. > > Thanks in advance for the openness in reading these questions. They > are addressed to anyone who can shine light on them, and raised in the > spirit of encouraging an informed debate on these issues. Yes, I too am really interested in this debate. Thanks for your openness, parminder > > On a general note - I would really encourage people to engage in this > debate if they are interested. Governments on the WGEC seem to hold > rather polarising positions, and I think this opens the opportunity > for civil society to play a bridging role in shaping the group's > outcomes. With modalities allowing observers to actively participate > in the meetings, you can engage directly or channel your views via > others. > > In any case, looking forward to people's views and comments. > > Best wishes, > Lea > > ps - I'm not on the IGC/APC lists so my posts don't go through there, > but feel free to loop the lists back in for those who are on them > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:33 PM, matthew shears > wrote: > > + 1 Anriette - very nicely summarized. > > > On 30/01/2017 14:16, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Dear Wangari >> >> Apologies for delay in responding. >> >> It is an interesting question, and it goes to the heart of the enhanced >> cooperation debate, which in many ways is at the heart of the internet >> governance debate that has been ongoing since 2003. >> >> The term was first used in 2005 - and it means different things to >> different people, and the text in the Tunis Agenda where it is first >> references in a formal UN agreement, can also be interpreted in >> different ways. >> >> For the last decade it has been used as a political football.. in one of >> those matches in which it is not clear if anyone actually scores any >> goals. In fact, for some of the players, the objective of the match has >> been to avoid anyone scoring any goals :) >> >> This is a good recent piece by David Souter: >> https://www.apc.org/en/blog/inside-information-society-enhanced-cooperation-en >> >> >> I quote from it: >> >> "‘Enhanced cooperation’, like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), was >> part of the compromise on the future of the Internet at WSIS in 2005. >> Agreement could not be reached on the governance of critical Internet >> resources, including the domain name system. ICANN (the Internet >> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), for some governments, was >> little more than an adjunct of the United States. Some wanted the >> Internet brought within the ambit of an intergovernmental (or >> multilateral) agency such as the International Telecommunication Union >> (ITU). Others were, as they remain, determined to keep the Internet free >> from intergovernmental oversight. As well as dividing governments, this >> was (and is) therefore a tussle between multilateral and >> multistakeholder approaches to the Internet. >> >> The term worked at the time because of its creative ambiguity: like many >> UN outcomes it meant different things to different folks. But the >> contests that it overlay were, and still are, unresolved. Several UN >> initiatives and working groups have failed to reach consensus on it >> since the Summit. Some governments (and civil society activists) claim >> that nothing’s changed since WSIS: that governments, particularly >> developing country governments, can’t play a substantive role in >> Internet decisions because there is no proper intergovernmental forum. >> Others suggest that diverse multistakeholder initiatives represent a lot >> of ‘enhanced cooperation’ that’s already taking place." >> >> So in response to your question, it is not a new thing that for several >> governments, the meaning of enhanced cooperation is "cooperation between >> governments". And the term 'equal footing' means that all governments >> should have equal access and voice in these processes. >> >> They generally quote paragraph 69 of the Tunis Agenda: >> >> "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the >> future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their >> roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues >> pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and >> operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy >> issues." >> >> And their position is that the IGF has nothing to do with this type of >> cooperation. >> >> Personally, I think this is misinterpreting the Tunis Agenda. If you >> read the two previous paragraphs, 67 and 68, there is a clear reference >> to the IGF (referred to in the Tunis Agenda as "the forum for >> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue". I quote: >> >> "67. We agree, inter alia, to invite the UN Secretary-General to convene >> a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue. >> >> 68. We recognize that all governments should have an equal role and >> responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring >> the stability, security and continuity of the Internet. We also >> recognize the need for development of public policy by governments in >> consultation with all stakeholders. >> >> 69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the >> future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their >> roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues >> pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and >> operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy >> issues." >> >> My interpretation would be that these paragraphs talks about the forum, >> about involvement of all stakeholders, and about the need for >> governments to be able to play their role in international public policy. >> >> These area all important and legitimate and they don't need to be >> mutually exclusive. >> >> But there are different views, and there was a General Assembly >> resolution in 2011 or 2012 which stated that the IGF and enhanced >> cooperation are two separate processes. >> >> I do think governments have a legitimate point in saying that they need >> a space where they can talk about 'cross cutting' internet-related >> public policy issues. Specific issues are being addressed in places like >> the Human Rights Council (for internet and human rights issues) or in >> WIPO (for copyright related issues, for example). >> >> And I also think that developing countries are not sufficiently >> empowered or influential in most internet-related policy discussions. >> >> I just don't believe that setting up a new intergovernmental mechanism >> is the right solution to this problem. And it is one that is high risk >> for civil society. >> >> But others in the WGEC have different views. >> >> Warm greetings and thanks for following the meeting! >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> On 27/01/2017 19:38, WANGARI KABIRU wrote: >>> Warm greetings Anriette, >>> >>> In the morning there was reference in the semblance that enhanced >>> cooperation is a government area not for the IGF...MAG. >>> Would you kindly shed light. >>> >>> >>> The comments; >>> - that statistics in developing countries are a result of tradeoffs and >>> thus not (necessarily) reliable >>> - how an entity is considered multi-stakeholder in one forum and in >>> other spheres not viewed as such. Taking into account >>> multi-stakholderism is a key tenet in Internet Governance >>> >>> Many thanks for the briefs. >>> >>> Be blessed. >>> >>> Regards/Wangari >>> >>> --- >>> Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the Light, We are Restored >>> Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The Kingdom of God >>> on Earth". >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> > > -- > ------------ > Matthew Shears > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > + 44 771 2472987 > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wangarikabiru at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 31 02:07:41 2017 From: wangarikabiru at yahoo.co.uk (WANGARI KABIRU) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 07:07:41 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801D3B2B1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <08da0df2-1f5a-d7e4-d5ff-b15e839d8f9c@apc.org> <5a0b4d2f-e8d0-e1f7-3186-53743f9a2d0d@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801D3B2A5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <06BFEAAB-49C7-4949-974A-40B10B9ECB3D@consensus.pro> <1260683256.4328330.1485538688317@mail.yahoo.com> <1409939853.27071400.1485790654481@mail.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801D3B2B1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <781918454.27742697.1485846461601@mail.yahoo.com> Warm greetings Wolfgang, Thank you for this piece of your writing in 2013. "After seven years of endless discussion — including several UN reports and consultations in New York and Geneva - the 67th UN General Assembly decided to establish another "Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation" (WGEC) to find out, what could and should be done to implement the Tunis Agenda. The WGEC operates under the UNCSTD. It has about 40 members with 15 coming from the private sector, technical community and civil society. It started its work in May 2013. As a first step it did send out a questionnaire with 18 questions." There was commentary in this thread in line of interest in a UN body for the Internet (semblance to UNESCO for Education) - might this be the language that Governments are used to/understand considering what is public policy/administration today.Yet on the other hand, the Internet Governance drives for multistakeholderism - like WGEC membership. Blessed day. Regards/Wangari  --- Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the Light, We are Restored Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The Kingdom of God on Earth". On Monday, 30 January 2017, 19:49, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: Hi Wangari Kabiro, if you want to know the full background and the history of the language of "EC", here is an article I wrote a couple of years ago in CircleID: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131112_enhanced_cooperation_in_internet_governance_mystery_to_clarity/ What we have now (after the IANA transition) is the "Status Quo Minus": All governments are now on "equal footing": In the GAC, in the UN General Assembly, in the ITU or in UNESCO. With other words: Para. 69 is implemented. This is good for the Internet. But it is not good for some governments who do not like their advisory role in ICANN and want to heve a full oversight over Internet related public polcy issues. But please tell me, which "technical issue" in the Internet does not have a "public policy component"? Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: WANGARI KABIRU [mailto:wangarikabiru at yahoo.co.uk] Gesendet: Mo 30.01.2017 16:37 An: Anriette Esterhuysen; Nick Ashton-Hart; governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Cc: Izumi AIZU; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> APC Members Betreff: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Second WGEC meeting26-27 January 2017, Geneva Many thanks Anriette for the brief and the references are clarifying! Be blessed. Regards/Wangari --- Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the Light, We are Restored Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The Kingdom of God on Earth".     On Monday, 30 January 2017, 16:16, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: Dear Wangari Apologies for delay in responding. It is an interesting question, and it goes to the heart of the enhanced cooperation debate, which in many ways is at the heart of the internet governance debate that has been ongoing since 2003. The term was first used in 2005 - and it means different things to different people, and the text in the Tunis Agenda where it is first references in a formal UN agreement, can also be interpreted in different ways. For the last decade it has been used as a political football.. in one of those matches in which it is not clear if anyone actually scores any goals. In fact, for some of the players, the objective of the match has been to avoid anyone scoring any goals :) This is a good recent piece by David Souter: https://www.apc.org/en/blog/inside-information-society-enhanced-cooperation-en I quote from it: "'Enhanced cooperation', like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), was part of the compromise on the future of the Internet at WSIS in 2005. Agreement could not be reached on the governance of critical Internet resources, including the domain name system. ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), for some governments, was little more than an adjunct of the United States. Some wanted the Internet brought within the ambit of an intergovernmental (or multilateral) agency such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Others were, as they remain, determined to keep the Internet free from intergovernmental oversight. As well as dividing governments, this was (and is) therefore a tussle between multilateral and multistakeholder approaches to the Internet. The term worked at the time because of its creative ambiguity: like many UN outcomes it meant different things to different folks. But the contests that it overlay were, and still are, unresolved. Several UN initiatives and working groups have failed to reach consensus on it since the Summit. Some governments (and civil society activists) claim that nothing's changed since WSIS: that governments, particularly developing country governments, can't play a substantive role in Internet decisions because there is no proper intergovernmental forum. Others suggest that diverse multistakeholder initiatives represent a lot of 'enhanced cooperation' that's already taking place." So in response to your question, it is not a new thing that for several governments, the meaning of enhanced cooperation is "cooperation between governments". And the term 'equal footing' means that all governments should have equal access and voice in these processes. They generally quote paragraph 69 of the Tunis Agenda: "69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues." And their position is that the IGF has nothing to do with this type of cooperation. Personally, I think this is misinterpreting the Tunis Agenda. If you read the two previous paragraphs, 67 and 68, there is a clear reference to the IGF (referred to in the Tunis Agenda as "the forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue". I quote: "67. We agree, inter alia, to invite the UN Secretary-General to convene a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue. 68. We recognize that all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the Internet. We also recognize the need for development of public policy by governments in consultation with all stakeholders. 69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues." My interpretation would be that these paragraphs talks about the forum, about involvement of all stakeholders, and about the need for governments to be able to play their role in international public policy. These area all important and legitimate and they don't need to be mutually exclusive. But there are different views, and there was a General Assembly resolution in 2011 or 2012 which stated that the IGF and enhanced cooperation are two separate processes. I do think governments have a legitimate point in saying that they need a space where they can talk about 'cross cutting' internet-related public policy issues. Specific issues are being addressed in places like the Human Rights Council (for internet and human rights issues) or in WIPO (for copyright related issues, for example). And I also think that developing countries are not sufficiently empowered or influential in most internet-related policy discussions. I just don't believe that setting up a new intergovernmental mechanism is the right solution to this problem. And it is one that is high risk for civil society. But others in the WGEC have different views. Warm greetings and thanks for following the meeting! Anriette On 27/01/2017 19:38, WANGARI KABIRU wrote: > Warm greetings Anriette, > > In the morning there was reference in the semblance that enhanced > cooperation is a government area not for the IGF...MAG. > Would you kindly shed light. > > > The comments; > -  that statistics in developing countries are a result of tradeoffs and > thus not (necessarily) reliable > - how an entity is considered multi-stakeholder in one forum and in > other spheres not viewed as such. Taking into account > multi-stakholderism is a key tenet in Internet Governance > > Many thanks for the briefs. > > Be blessed. > > Regards/Wangari >  > --- > Pray God Bless. 2013Wangari circa - "Being of the Light, We are Restored > Through Faith in Mind, Body and Spirit; We Manifest The Kingdom of God > on Earth". > > > -- ----------------------------------------- Anriette Esterhuysen Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org www.apc.org IM: ae_apc   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Thu Jan 5 15:31:09 2017 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 15:31:09 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] WEBCAST FRIDAY: ISOC DC IGF 2016 Debrief Message-ID: Tomorrow morning! If linking in via zoom please remember to mute your microphone. joly posted: "On Friday January 9 2016 the Microsoft Innovation & Policy Center and the Greater Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society (ISOC-DC) present a Debrief of the 2016 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held from December 6 - 9, 2016 in Guadalajara, Mexi" [image: Livestream]On *Friday January 9 2016* the* Microsoft Innovation & Policy Center * and the *Greater Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society * (ISOC-DC) present a *Debrief of the 2016 Internet Governance Forum* (IGF) held from December 6 - 9, 2016 in Guadalajara, Mexico. The discussion will be facilitated by *Carolyn Nguyen* of Microsoft and *David Vyorst* of ISOC-DC. Discussants: *Liesyl Franz* - U.S. Department of State; *Andrew Mack* - AMGlobal Consulting; *Barbara Wanner* - U.S. Council for International Business; *Dustin Phillips* - ICANNWiki. Plus brief remarks concerning IGF National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) from​ ​ *Marilyn Cade* - mCADE ICT Strategies. The event will webcast live on the *Internet Society Livestream Channel *. Remote participation will be available via *Zoom *. * What: a Debrief of the 2016 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Where: Microsoft Innovation & Policy Center, Washington DC When: Friday January 9 2016 9am-10:30am EST | 14:00-15:30 UTC Webcast: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/igf2016debrief Zoom: https://zoom.us/j/271108543 Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/104780100028904/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/hashtag/igf2016 * Comment See all comments *​Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8879 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Thu Jan 5 15:38:00 2017 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 15:38:00 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] CORRECTED! - WEBCAST FRIDAY: ISOC DC IGF 2016 Debrief Message-ID: Aaagh. Yes, this has correct day and year! Tomorrow morning! If linking in via zoom please remember to mute your microphone. joly posted: "On Friday January 9 2016 the Microsoft Innovation & Policy Center and the Greater Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society (ISOC-DC) present a Debrief of the 2016 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held from December 6 - 9, 2016 in Guadalajara, Mexi" [image: Livestream]On *Friday January 6 2017* the* Microsoft Innovation & Policy Center * and the *Greater Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society * (ISOC-DC) present a *Debrief of the 2016 Internet Governance Forum* (IGF) held from December 6 - 9, 2016 in Guadalajara, Mexico. The discussion will be facilitated by *Carolyn Nguyen* of Microsoft and *David Vyorst* of ISOC-DC. Discussants: *Liesyl Franz* - U.S. Department of State; *Andrew Mack* - AMGlobal Consulting; *Barbara Wanner* - U.S. Council for International Business; *Dustin Phillips* - ICANNWiki. Plus brief remarks concerning IGF National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) from​ ​ *Marilyn Cade* - mCADE ICT Strategies. The event will webcast live on the *Internet Society Livestream Channel *. Remote participation will be available via *Zoom *. * What: a Debrief of the 2016 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Where: Microsoft Innovation & Policy Center, Washington DC When: Friday January 6 2017 9am-10:30am EST | 14:00-15:30 UTC Webcast: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/igf2016debrief Zoom: https://zoom.us/j/271108543 Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/104780100028904/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/hashtag/igf2016 * Comment See all comments *​Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8879 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From melanie at publicknowledge.org Thu Jan 19 10:35:33 2017 From: melanie at publicknowledge.org (Melanie Penagos) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:35:33 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] LAST CALL FOR APPLICATIONS: PK Open Internet Course Message-ID: Dear All, This is just a reminder that *tomorrow is the last day to submit applications* *to **Public Knowledge's **Open Internet Course .* Applicants will be notified of their selection on January 30 and the course will begin on February 6. The direct link to the application form can be accessed here and topics will include: Module 0: Introduction to the Open Internet Module 1: The “What” and “Why” of Advocacy Module 2: The “Who” of Advocacy Module 3: The “When” and “Where” of Advocacy Module 4: The “How”: Tactics and Tools for Successful Campaigns Module 5: Definitions of Internet Governance Module 6: Human Rights and the Internet Module 7: Access to Internet Module 8: Net Neutrality Module 9: The Right to Privacy Module 10: Impact of Trade Agreements on Open Internet Module 11: Cybersecurity Module 12: Spectrum Management The primary goal of the course is to help train a new generation of advocates to work on creating and maintaining an Open Internet for all. For more information, please see our blog post and call for students . Please send any questions to opencourse at publicknowledge.org. Thank you! Melanie -- *Melanie Penagos* *International Policy Associate* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * +1 (202) 861-0020 ext. 122 | skype: melanie.penagos | @ampenagos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r.pollack at unesco.org Fri Jan 20 08:28:14 2017 From: r.pollack at unesco.org (Pollack, Rachel) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:28:14 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] UNESCO Call for proposals: Defining Internet Universality Indicators Message-ID: <1DC91499BF6D2A4186FFC0DF9F83863E908A06B8@HQ-EXCH-M01.hq.int.unesco.org> Dear colleagues and friends, I am pleased to share this UNESCO Call for proposals on Defining Internet Universality Indicators, for your interest and information. [http://www.unesco.org/new/typo3temp/pics/7ee9650afd.jpg]Following UNESCO's adoption of the CONNECTing the Dots Outcome document in 2015 as its new approach to Internet issues as well as the successful development and application of the IPDC Media Development Indicators, UNESCO is pleased to launch a new project: "Defining Internet Universality Indicators". This project aims to elaborate appropriate Internet indicators which can enrich stakeholders' capacity to assess Internet development, broaden international consensus and foster online democracy and human rights towards knowledge societies engaged in sustainable development. This study will be founded on the UNESCO concept of Internet Universality as the guiding framework which promotes an Internet based on human Rights, and the principles of Openness, Accessibility and Multi-stakeholder participation (abbreviated as the R.O.A.M principles). For this new project, UNESCO launches a call for proposals to carry out the key deliverable and related tasks within a one-year time frame from April 2017 to April 2018. UNESCO, therefore, invites interested researchers, institutions, research consortiums, entities and organizations to submit their proposals, according to the General Terms of Reference by email to internetstudy at unesco.org. The deadline for submitting is 28 February 2017, before noon (CET). For further enquiries, you may contact Ms Xianhong Hu and Mr Josselyn Guillarmou. The final deliverable will take the form of a policy paper in English with maximum 100 standard pages (minimum of 320 words each) excluding annexes and bibliography, as well as a project online platform/website on Internet Universality indicators under UNESCO domain name and server. The draft deliverable will be presented on the project's website for further consultation, and the final version will likely be released as a UNESCO publication. If the budget allows it, the publication will be translated into 4-6 UN official languages, which will inform UNESCO's 195 Member States and other international policy-makers on internet-related policy making. It is important to note that UNESCO has commissioned preliminary research on the Internet indicators which should be considered as a basis to develop this final deliverable. This initial background paper will be provided to interested submitters upon request via the same email address: internetstudy(at)unesco.org For all information related to this new project, please follow the link of CI news release: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/resources/news-and-in-focus-articles/all-news/news/unesco_call_for_proposals_defining_internet_universality_in/ [Description: unesco_temple_alone_285] Rachel Pollack Ichou Associate Programme Specialist Section for Freedom of Expression Division of Freedom of Expression and Media Development Communication and Information Sector United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 7, Place de Fontenoy F-75352 Paris 07 SP France Tel.: +33 (0)1 45 68 12 94 Email: r.pollack at unesco.org www.unesco.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 61968 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2703 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1178 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Sun Jan 22 16:49:02 2017 From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 18:49:02 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Internet Governance Outlook 2017: Nationalistic Hierarchies vs. Multistakeholder Networks? Message-ID: <1bad4f8b-1ccb-d76b-e3f6-f643b78efadf@riseup.net> for information -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Internet Governance Outlook 2017: Nationalistic Hierarchies vs. Multistakeholder Networks? Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 18:45:44 -0300 From: willi uebelherr To: IGF gov CC: ISOC Internet Policy , IGF dc , IGF dc ctu , IGF dc civ Internet Governance Outlook 2017: Nationalistic Hierarchies vs. Multistakeholder Networks? By Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Jan 06, 2017 http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160106_internet_outlook_2017_nationalistic_hierarchies_multistakeholder/ Dear friends, Wolfgang Kleinwaechter has made an outlook on the year 2017 and looks scared at the strengthening of regional self-control, which he calls "Nationalistic Hierarchies". But he ignores today's "Inter-Nationalistic hierarchies", which also work with "multistakeholder networks". Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, whom I estimate very highly, is strictly interested in an open Internet based on "multistakeholder networks". And that's what he does. But he does not see the snares that he put itself at his feet. IANA Transition and the Chinese Cybersecurity Law In the text is asserted that the IANA Transition is a "bottom-up" and the Chinese Law a "top-down" development process. Of course, we can say many things. But if we know a little bit about the USA, we know, that a bottom-up method in the telecommunication will be impossible in the USA. This, because the actors are the centralistic state and the centralistic private groups. In such an environment a bottom-up process is impossible. For China, where the telecommunication is a project of the society, there it can be possible. Also in Russia and Iran. But never in Europe today. And absolutly never in Germany today. The space of possibilities for telecommunication is primary defined from the inner structure of a society. Only if the actors don't have his private interests, that are oriented against the other actors, they can really cooperate. In China and Russland and Iran they can transform the connection infrastructure to a net-structure, the base condition for a bottom-up development process in the telecommunication. For Europe and North America with his fighter groups every one against all others it will be impossible. Only if the Communities start as actors in the space of community networks, then they can do it. This, because the telecommunication stays for them in the foreground. This activity space for an open telecommunication, a pre-condition for the connectivity structure and the summary of all forms of telecommunication like web-pages and data-files, audio/video streams, telefon, radio and tv, brings us to a level that we can say: 3 types of data (text, grafic, speech) and 2 forms of transport (asynchron, synchron). Wolfgang wrote about "ideologically overloaded Internet Governance language" and means China. But all documents from the IGF, what i have read, are pure "ideologically overloaded Internet Governance language". Never you find any conrete discussion about the basics of telecommunication. You find only phraseology. The Internet Governance Ecosystem as a "Virtual Rainforest" I don't know, where Wolfgang live. But i know, we have to separate our strong analysis of a real system and our dreams, our visions. I know, without our dreams we will be unable to create our visions and perspectives. Therefore, we can spaek about opportunities, that really exist. But they remain opportunities and are unreal, virtual. Then we can go deeper and look for the specific actors. We analyse her interst and her bases of her being. Then we understand, what opportunities we have with this actors. This is the driving motor for the community networks. Because they see clear, what space of activities they have with this real actors. Therefore they create another space of actors with a much greater space of opportunities. The existence of diversity need the decentralisation and parallelisation. In the nature, of course. But if we want to use our methodology for centralisation in an act for diversity, we will fail. US vs. China: Chances for a Digital Detente The only risk of a "hot cyberwar" i see it in the USA. NSA, home security and all this many security services. The most people on our planet know it. How it is possible, that a high active person like Wolfgang in the UN IGF environment don't know it? Maybe, he know, but don't like it and create his virtual reality? Then he live in another space. Outside of our space. I don't know where. Wolfgang wrote about the "National Cyberspace Security Strategy" from China "for treason, secession, revolt, subversion or stealing or leaking of state secrets would be punished". But the same is valid for USA, Canada, all european countries. We see it with Daniel Ellsberg, Eric Snowden, Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and many many others from so many countries in all centuries. Go to the Wikipedia and search Whistleblowers. Analyse her doing and her repression. Then we understand, that this theme have no specific value for USA and China. It is embedded in the general conflict between people and state. And because the state act for the rich group in her region, the conflict is between the poor and the rich people. Or, like Stiglitz say, between the 99% and the 1%. And i will say very clear. As long as this UN IGF groups act in the same separated space outside of the public space, based on her traditional representative self-imagination, they will never be part of a creative transition for our global interconnection in the telecommunication. And endless chain of governmental and non-governmental negotiations Summit Meetings This is the only thing, what they have and for what they are interested. It is based on the functions for what they are created. Remaining Peace between ICANN and ITU? "... 1000 new gTLDs ... 25 million with gTLD .. is not bad." Wolfgang Kleinwaechter don't understand the principles of an open telecommunication in form of an InterNet. Our focus are the ccTLDs and not the private gTLDs to make domain business. But this is more a question to our philosophy. Are we intersted to be slaves of some big Dollar groups or are we intersted for an open global working telecommunication. Every person itself have to find her answer. The Key Role of the IGF ".. that the IGF has matured". I can say very clear NO. It is the same "kindergarten" since his beginning. They act in a virtual space, are driven from group egoism everywhere, are observers of observers ... and don't have his own clear perspectives. Of course, they have the potential to formulate clear principles of an open globally telecommunication. But they don't like that to do. They like more to act as soldiers for others. We have the same situation in the ISOC, the Internet Society. It is clear, this is a society without any specific relation to state, private companies or governments. They act outside of this nationalism. Or should do it. UN IGF and ISOC can have a big power, if they are responsible to the people and not to the power groups. With her regional chapters they can help to distribute our discussions and proposals over the planet. But today, we can say, they don't do it, because they don't like to do it. Maybe, it is a result of her financial base for her event-tourism. But if we work for telecommunication, we should start to use it for our interaction and not to travel around the planet. We can reduce the efforts and can opening the space on this way. "... the failure of ACTA, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) or the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Pact (TTIP) is the result of this clash of cultures". This is a big nonsense. The diversity in our local/regional cultures is the reality and we love it. And we need it. The conflicts comes from small power groups against the world population, the people on our planet in her different regions. And we know, that today also the people in her region have not developed her power for self-organising and self-determination. The regionale elites act for the global elites and not for the local people. ".. discussing IOT related issues". There don't exist specific IOT related issues. It exist issues to the routing mechanism based on the IP addresses. If we use our intelligence for this issues we will never organise this nonsense, what we have today. ... Basket 4: Technology ".. the technological development as such has become an issue in itself". I know, Wolfgang don't understand the technology. So, we have to explain: The technology was and is always the base of telecommunication. Therefore, for us, the technology always stay in the center. And not the cheap chatters in any meetings or IGF proposals. Looking Ahead: Everything is linked to Everything Yes, dear Wolfgang. "We have to design global discussions and negotiations" on telecommunication, and not on Internet Governance. If we need Governance, then we make some errors. "The Internet is a network of networks, connected via universal technical protocols". No, Wolfgang. The protocols do nothing. The interconnection, the transport of packets, do that. The protocols are only necessary, that we do the same thing and understand, how the others work. The attempt of a resume If we act on false bases then we are unable to find good solutions. Independent, how strong we work. I you, Wolfgang, start with negation of regional self-determination and act on the base of global top-down formation then you will be never able to find good ways. Then you live in a circle of self-explanations. You act in your own ideologic space without the connection to the reality. Of course, you can do it. And maybe, this is your job to do it. The starting point for us is, that all people on our planet can use this global telecommunication system to interconnect herself with any other people on our planet. For what is her decision. The easiest way to do that is the way of strong decentralisation. Then the people in all and any region on our planet can create her part of our global telecommunication. That all this people can independent act we create our global network for free technology. In the text to Internet Fragmentation, what you wrote together with V.Cerf and W.Drake, you wrote about: "From a technical standpoint, the original shared vision guiding the Internet’s development was that every device on the Internet should be able to exchange data packets with any other device that was willing to receive them". We know from Albert Einstein: "The genius is always simple" This principles we can follow. Why you, Wolfgang, follow this confusion in the UN IGF, i don't understand. Based on our physical interconnection we can implement very easy mechanism, that the packets find her way through the routers. With a decentralised DNS system based on ccTLDs it is very easy for us to get any IP address from any host in any gloabal region. In general, it is the responsiblity for the people in the different regions to organise, what they need. And we, in the UN IGF and ISOC, and i hope also in the World Social Forums, we can support the people everywhere to do itself. many greetings, willi Asuncion, Paraguay From sheetal at gp-digital.org Mon Jan 23 07:05:51 2017 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:05:51 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [TIME SENSITIVE] WSIS Forum CS representative nomination for High Level Track Facilitator Message-ID: Dear all, Please find below the details of the ITU's open call to nominate a civil society representative High-Level Track Facilitator for the WSIS Forum this year (12-16 June, Geneva, Switzerland). The ITU has requested CS High Level Track Facilitators (HLTF) - see below the dotted line for more details received from the WSIS Forum organisers. There is no limit to the number we can nominate. However, note there is no financial support for participation and all costs have to be borne by the HTLFs themselves. To nominate a CS representative, send the name/s either to the entire list or to both myself and Poncelet (cc'd) by *COB 25 January*, and we will forward it to the CSCG for deliberation. The CSCG will submit names by 01 February. Thanks, looking forward to receiving your input! Any questions, do let us know. Best, Sheetal & Poncelet. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is to bring your attention to the Open Call to Identify High Level Track Facilitators from Civil Society for the High-level Policy Sessions for WSIS Forum 2017. This format of HLTFs was really appreciated last year as it gave a chance for stakeholders to interact better with ministers and other high levels. At the WSIS Forum 2017, the High-Level Policy Sessions of the High-level Track (HLT) will take place on the 13 and 14 June. The Policy Sessions will be moderated by High-Level Track Facilitators (HLTF) nominated and identified by each stakeholder type i.e Government, Private Sector, Civil Society, Technical/ Academic community and International Organization. Please note that all HLTFs are to cover their own expenses for travel, accommodation and insurance. The main task of the HLTF is to capture the vision, identify emerging trends, opportunities and challenges shared by the leaders of their session. The concluding session of the HLT will take place on the 14 of June. During the concluding session of the HLT the WSIS Forum 2017 Chairman will provide an Executive Summary, giving a platform for all the HLTFs to submit the outcomes of their respective policy session. These will be captured in a publication entitled “WSIS Forum 2017: Policy Statements and Executive Brief”. -- *Sheetal Kumar* Programme Lead | 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: