From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Mon Jul 3 19:29:08 2017 From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 19:29:08 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] RootsAction: Like it or not (and we don't), they could destroy the world Message-ID: <130b8d9b-a1bc-fa50-2826-1d5f1e02c780@riseup.net> For your information. -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: Like it or not (and we don't), they could destroy the world Datum: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 13:37:00 -0400 (EDT) Von: RootsAction Team Antwort an: info at rootsaction.org An: wube at gmx.net UPDATE: More than 10,000 people signed this urgent petition over the weekend. Please join them by signing and sharing! ______________ What happens during the announced meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in a few days, at the G-20 summit in Germany, could determine the fate of the Earth. The" Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" continues to warn the world that *the hands of the risk-estimate "Doomsday Clock" have moved even closer to catastrophic midnight*. The dangers of global nuclear holocaust are increasing -- and a major factor is the rise of tensions between the United States and Russia. So, profoundly, this is not about Trump or Putin. *This is about whether relations between the two nuclear-weapons superpowers will continue to spin out, worsening the risks of military confrontation.* This is about whether the young people we love -- and so many others around the world -- will have a future. And whether subsequent generations will even exist. *If you want to express support for seeking détente instead of boosting U.S.-Russian tensions, please click here to sign a petition with a vital message for Trump and Putin.* [ https://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action4/common/public/?action_KEY=12985 ] " "To: President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump" We vehemently urge you to take a constructive approach to your planned meeting at the G-20 summit. Whatever our differences, we must reduce rather than increase the risks of nuclear war. The future of humanity is at stake." To read about the "Doomsday Clock," please click on a Background link at the bottom of this email. After signing the petition, *please use the tools on the next webpage to share it with your friends*. -- The RootsAction.org Team Share this action on Facebook [ https://www.facebook.com/RootsAction/photos/a.190111267690401.43547.170004579701070/1594050773963103/?type=3&theater ] Share this action on Twitter [ http://bit.ly/2sxpXcv ] P.S. RootsAction is an independent online force endorsed by Jim Hightower, Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, Daniel Ellsberg, Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Klein, Bill Fletcher Jr., Laura Flanders, former U.S. Senator James Abourezk, Frances Fox Piven, Lila Garrett, Phil Donahue, Sonali Kolhatkar, and many others. Background: >> "AFP:" Trump to Meet Putin at G-20, Seek "More Constructive" Ties [ https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-meet-putin-g20-seek-more-constructive-ties-183200130.html ] >> "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:" Doomsday Clock [ http://thebulletin.org/timeline ] >> Norman Solomon, "The Nation: "Fifty Years Later, Rekindle the "Spirit of Glassboro" [ https://www.thenation.com/article/fifty-years-later-rekindle-the-spirit-of-glassboro/ ] >> Robert David English, "Foreign Affairs: "Russia, Trump, and a New Détente [ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/2017-03-10/russia-trump-and-new-d-tente ] http://www.rootsaction.org From raquino at gmail.com Sat Jul 8 16:02:51 2017 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 17:02:51 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] IGF2017 Remote Hubs Message-ID: This can be interesting for researcher centers and universities who may want to join in the iGF discussions https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2017-remote-hubs If you are not able to attend the Twelfth IGF meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, you can follow it remotely! Remote participation, and specifically the hubs structure, has been successful in previous IGFs. This time again you can follow the discussions from home or office; watch the webcast of the event; follow real-time closed captioning ; and participate live. Or you can also expand the discussions and organize an IGF hub in your city! Remote participants/hubs will be able to interact with the meeting by sending text questions and/or video/audio interventions using the remote participation platform. These questions will be forwarded to the panel moderator when s/he opens the floor for questions from the audience. Hubs are local meetings that take place in parallel with the IGF. People can watch the webcast of IGF sessions together and send questions (via text, audio or video) that will be answered by panelists in IGF. In addition, hub organizers can hold debates to discuss the themes introduced at the IGF from their local perspective. Several training sessions for Remote Panelists and Remote Hubs will be held during November-December 2017. There are several advantages in creating a hub: It helps to raise awareness about Internet Governance issues. It fosters networking among participants and community building. It encourages follow-up activities. How to organize a hub? The requirements are very simple: A room or auditorium. It can be held in a university classroom or any other convenient place. A computer with a broadband Internet connection and a projector equipment, to enable the hub participants to watch the video. A hub moderator, who will plan the dynamics of the local discussions as well as transmit the hub participants’ questions or comments to the IGF through the remote participation channels. A general call in lists, forums etc, to invite the interested local community. Stakeholders interested in organizing a remote hub were invited to register online before 17 November 2017 with the following information: Country / City Institution hosting the hub. Possible area(s) of interest. Number of expected participants within the hub. Planned pre-meeting activities. Hub Coordinator. Contact email. Hub Technical coordinator (IT). Technical coordinator contact email. Please note that the local hub and technical coordinators have to be present at the hub site. From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Sat Jul 8 23:35:51 2017 From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 23:35:51 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] The United Nations Prohibits Nuclear Weapons Message-ID: <37d0da7a-f3cd-9615-b20d-3b1050b77f53@riseup.net> The United Nations Prohibits Nuclear Weapons by International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, 07.07.2017 http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-united-nations-prohibits-nuclear-weapons/5598221 ICAN http://www.icanw.org/campaign-news/the-united-nations-prohibits-nuclear-weapons/ Dear friends, Off-Topic? No, i think not. A good message. The prohibition of nuclear weapons, to sign until 20.09.2017. Today signed from 140 Nations. And many civil organisations. 1972 Prohibition of biological weapons 1992 Prohibition of chemical weapons 2017 Prohibition of nuclear weapons ???? Prohibition of all weapons We can ignore G20. There are more important things. with many greetings, willi Asuncion, Paraguay From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Mon Jul 10 16:19:39 2017 From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 16:19:39 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] RootsAction: Like it or not (and we don't), they could destroy the world In-Reply-To: <9CFBF7B4-FFC7-4C85-8D2E-6F5AF49DA3C9@hserus.net> References: <130b8d9b-a1bc-fa50-2826-1d5f1e02c780@riseup.net> <018001d2f718$3f39bcf0$bdad36d0$@gmail.com> <00ad01d2f948$0c861100$25923300$@ch> <9CFBF7B4-FFC7-4C85-8D2E-6F5AF49DA3C9@hserus.net> Message-ID: Dear Suresh, i read, that you work as a professional SPAM detector and blocker for Apple and IBM. This is your field of experience. In the text from Kanumuri we find the references to free access to a free telecommunication, in form of an internet, for all people in all region on our planet. We find his reference to unfold the local capacity to create this technical medium. This text, based on his forms, you will declare as SPAM. Maybe, the form of the texts from Kanumuri is difficult to read and understand. Yes, also for me. But never, we can say, this is SPAM. His thematical elements are always important for us. His perspectives are very valuable. You can formulate a big nonsense in smart form. And you can formulate a high valuable proposal in a terrible form. The method of a pleasing word combination is not sufficient for a good content. You live in India. Parminder also. Maybe, you know Kanumuri. You can help him to find a better way for its mode of formulation, without destroying the content. I write this in this lists, because you attack Kanumuri in this lists. Mostly in your first answer. many greetings, willi Asuncion, Paraguay Am 10/7/2017 um 03:18 schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian: > Do me a favour and let me know how much of this has anything at all to do with internet policy or governance. If you can frame whatever political ideology in these terms of reference please go right ahead and discuss them. > > Other than that, vaguely worded diatribes against large corporations, the USA, communism or whatever else have plenty of fora to call their own. > > Internet policy and Igov fora appear to be rather more limited, so it'd be ideal if people who want to fulminate against whichever country or ideology they detest the most take them to a more appropriate forum. > > --srs -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: Re: [governance] [Internet Policy] RootsAction: Like it or not (and we don't), they could destroy the world Datum: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 12:37:06 +0530 Von: srajukanumuri Antwort an: srajukanumuri An: Richard Hill Kopie (CC): brandt.dainow at gmail.com, James Gannon , Best Bits , IUF list , ISOC Internet Policy , IGF gov , APC list Dear one all , I am not spamming at all. If you think so, i wont need to share your ground realities. I know how ISOC ,ICANN works from they day they where incorporated and also what is my teams and great innovators, human rights activists, multi stake holders contributions to internet , internet innovations, polices world wide. during one of 1st ICANN Meetings ,ISOC meetings early 90;s we proposed multi stake holders security privacy of un - educated users, villagers using mobiles etc is important and also on eco sytem around us and mass surveillance IP theft etc. Open sources, open sharing of experiences ground realities important facts i important and how poor un - educated youth , middle class is suffering where technologies left them in baffled state. Once again apologizing above the poverty. non middle class person's who got Hurt-ed thinking over views are spam and so many AD's coming to us, cyber attacks , fake news , social media is also spam which we are effecting and Why EU asked Google to pay fine and and all banks, companies got cyber attacks is also SPAM and ordinary e- mail users Internet users who don't know what is security etc must be thought as spammed. Open internet freedom is lost any privacy is lost. where we wont share further in policy groups of other countries but sharing with in developed countries and multi stake holders needs at grass root levels and people who are looking for jobs food energy education and their security etc with peace and prosperity locally. Make In AMERICA. MADE IN INDIA etc Good day to you all kanumuri s raju From anja at internetdemocracy.in Mon Jul 10 23:12:31 2017 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 08:42:31 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] New podcast series on the big questions facing the digital environment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Sheetal, and all at GPD. I listened to the latest episode this morning, and found it very useful. Best, Anja On 4 July 2017 at 16:34, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > Just to let you know that episode five of our In beta podcast is now live > . > In this episode, we examine questions of civil society sustainability in > the global South with three voices from civil society and the donor > community: Julie Broome, director of the Ariadne donor network; Andrew > Puddephatt, executive chair of GPD’s advisory board; and Khilen Nathwani of > the Kays Foundation. > > Listen to it here: http://www.gp-digital.org/multimedia/in-beta-episode- > 5-is-civil-society-in-the-global-south-sustainable/ > > And explore the In beta series here: https://soundcloud.com/in_beta > > Best, > Sheetal. > > On 11 May 2017 at 17:00, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Just in case it's of interest, episode 4 of our new podcast series >> *In beta* is now live: https://soundcloud.com/i >> n_beta/are-we-missing-the-bigger-picture-behind-network-disruptions-ep4 >> >> This episode, recorded at the Internet Freedom Forum in Lagos, Nigeria, >> looks at the bigger picture behind network disruptions (or internet >> shutdowns as they're more commonly known), with contributions from Deji >> Olukotun from Access Now, Julie Owono from Internet San Frontiers and >> Arthur Gwagwa from Strathmore University and the Open Technology Fund. >> >> Thanks for the positive feedback on the series so far. As ever please >> feel free to share with anyone who might be interested; and let me know if >> you have any questions about the series, or would like to be involved. >> >> Thank you! >> >> Best - >> Sheetal. >> >> On 5 April 2017 at 14:28, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> In case of interest, episode 3 of this series *In beta* is now live: >>> http://www.gp-digital.org/multimedia/in-beta-episode-3 >>> -can-a-business-be-a-human-rights-defender/ >>> >>> *In the latest episode, GPD’s Executive Director interviews Michael >>> Samway, former Vice-President and Deputy General Counsel for Yahoo! and >>> current adjunct professor at Georgetown University, posing the question: >>> can a business be a human rights defender?* >>> >>> Thanks for the positive feedback on the series so far. As ever please >>> feel free to share with anyone who might be interested! >>> Best >>> >>> Sheetal. >>> >>> On 16 March 2017 at 13:12, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> In case of interest, just a heads up that episode 2 of this series *In >>>> beta* is now live: https://soundcloud.com/i >>>> n_beta/in-beta-episode-2-how-should-human-rights-defenders-a >>>> pproach-cybercrime >>>> >>>> In it, we ask, "how should human rights defenders approach cybercrime"? >>>> >>>> As ever please feel free to share with anyone who might be interested! >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Sheetal. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 22 February 2017 at 21:38, Mishi Choudhary < >>>> mishi at softwarefreedom.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks Sheetal. Great effort! Podcast is one of my favorite content >>>>> consumption tool. >>>>> >>>>> On 02/22/2017 12:36 PM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>>> > Dear all, >>>>> > >>>>> > /[with apologies for cross-posting]/ >>>>> > >>>>> > I am writing to share a just launched a new podcast series >>>>> > >>>> series-in-beta/> >>>>> > – called *In beta* – which will examine some of the biggest questions >>>>> > facing the digital policy environment. >>>>> > >>>>> > Our aim in creating the series is to create an informal space for >>>>> > critical discussion and debate on a range of issues, cutting across >>>>> > traditional policy silos. More details on the series concept and >>>>> design >>>>> > are available >>>>> > here: http://www.gp-digital.org/news/introducing-our-new-podcast-s >>>>> eries-in-beta/ >>>>> > >>>> series-in-beta/> >>>>> > >>>>> > The series will be hosted by GPD's executive director, Charles >>>>> Bradley. >>>>> > In the first episode of the series – available now, here >>>>> > >>>> olicymaking-stuck-in-the-19th-century/> >>>>> > – he interviews GovLab co-founder Stefaan Verhulst, asking the >>>>> question: >>>>> > *'Is policymaking stuck in the 19th century?'* >>>>> > >>>>> > We'd love to know what you think about the episode and the series >>>>> > concept more generally. We're planning to record many more podcasts >>>>> over >>>>> > the coming months, and are open to ideas – so if you'd like to >>>>> suggest a >>>>> > guest, a topic or a question to discuss, drop an email to >>>>> > charles at gp-digital.org . >>>>> > >>>>> > Please don't hesitate to let us know if you have any questions. We'd >>>>> > also be hugely grateful if you could share this on your networks and >>>>> > channels – and if you have any other ideas for how we could get the >>>>> word >>>>> > out, please let us know. >>>>> > >>>>> > For reference, the links for sharing are: >>>>> > >>>>> > * *Blog post introducing the series and >>>>> > episode*: http://www.gp-digital.org/news >>>>> /introducing-our-new-podcast-series-in-beta/ >>>>> > >>>> -series-in-beta/> >>>>> > * *The episode >>>>> > itself*: http://www.gp-digital.org/mult >>>>> imedia/in-beta-episode-1-is-policymaking-stuck-in-the-19th-century/ >>>>> > >>>> policymaking-stuck-in-the-19th-century/> >>>>> > * *GPD's Soundcloud >>>>> > page*: https://soundcloud.com/globalpartnersdigital >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > *Suggested tweets: * >>>>> > >>>>> > A new podcast series, In beta, examines the big questions facing the >>>>> > digital environment. Find out >>>>> > more: http://www.gp-digital.org/news/introducing-our-new-podcast-s >>>>> eries-in-beta/ >>>>> > >>>> series-in-beta/> >>>>> > >>>>> > Is policymaking stuck in the 19th century? A new podcast with >>>>> > @CBradleyTweets and @sverhulst explores the >>>>> > question: http://www.gp-digital.org/mult >>>>> imedia/in-beta-episode-1-is-policymaking-stuck-in-the-19th-century/ >>>>> > >>>> olicymaking-stuck-in-the-19th-century/> >>>>> > >>>>> > Best! >>>>> > Sheetal. >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > * >>>>> > * >>>>> > * >>>>> > * >>>>> > *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 >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Warm Regards >>>>> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >>>>> Legal Director >>>>> Software Freedom Law Center >>>>> 1995 Broadway Floor 17| New York, NY-10023 >>>>> Direct: +1-212-461-1912| Main: +1-212-461-1901| Fax: +1-212-580-0898 >>>>> www.softwarefreedom.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> President and Legal Director >>>>> SFLC.IN >>>>> K-9, Second Floor, Jangpura Extn.| New Delhi-110014 >>>>> Main: +91-11-43587126 | Fax: +91-11-24323530 >>>>> www.sflc.in >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The information contained in this email message is intended only for >>>>> use >>>>> of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message >>>>> is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to >>>>> deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any >>>>> dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is >>>>> strictly >>>>> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please >>>>> immediately notify us by email, help at softwarefreedom.org, and destroy >>>>> the original message. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> *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 <+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 <+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 | > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs https://internetdemocracy.in/ http://genderingsurveillance.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike.oghia at gmail.com Wed Jul 12 12:52:00 2017 From: mike.oghia at gmail.com (Michael Oghia) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 18:52:00 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Civil society groups reclaim policies for the public In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Apologies for any cross-posting, but this might be relevant to some. Best, -Michael ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wolfgang Obenland Date: Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:56 AM Subject: Civil society groups reclaim policies for the public To: Sustainable Development Announcement List Civil society groups reclaim policies for the public Global report assesses how privatization and corporate capture have become obstacles to progress under the 2030 Agenda * New York, 10 July 2017:* A global coalition of civil society organizations and trade unions presents today the report Spotlight on Sustainable Development 2017. It is published on the opening day of the High Level Political Forum at the United Nations in New York. The report provides the most comprehensive independent assessment of the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). *For more, see www.2030spotlight.org * The editing team of the Spotlight Report states: *“In the 2030 Agenda governments committed to a revitalized Global Partnership between States and declared that public finance has to play a vital role in achieving the SDGs. But in recent decades, the combination of neoliberal ideology, corporate lobbying, regressive fiscal policies, tax avoidance and tax evasion has led to a massive weakening of the public sector and its ability to provide essential goods and services. * *“The same corporatized strategies and fiscal and regulatory policies that led to this weakening have enabled an unprecedented accumulation of individual wealth and increasing market concentration. * *"The proponents of privatization and public-private partnerships (PPPs) use these trends to present the private sector as the most efficient way to provide the necessary means for implementing the SDGs. But many studies and experiences by affected communities have shown that privatization and PPPs involve disproportionate risks and costs for people and the public purse. PPPs can even exacerbate inequalities, decrease equitable access to essential services and jeopardize the fulfilment of human rights. * *“Therefore, it is high time to counter these trends, reclaim public policy space and take bold measures to strengthen public finance, regulate or reject PPPs and weaken the grip of corporate power on people’s lives. In short, to put ‘people over profit’. These are indispensable prerequisites to achieve the SDGs and to turn the vision of the transformation of our world, as proclaimed in the title of the 2030 Agenda, into reality.”* The 160-page report is supported by a broad range of civil society organizations and trade unions, and based on experiences and reports by national and regional groups and coalitions from all parts of the world. Its 35 articles and textboxes cover all sectors of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, and reflect the rich geographic and cultural diversity of their authors. The Spotlight Report is published by the Arab NGO Network for Development (ANND), the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR), Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN), Global Policy Forum (GPF), Public Services International (PSI), Social Watch, Society for International Development (SID), and Third World Network (TWN), supported by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation. ------------------------------ Spotlight on Sustainable Development 2017 Reclaiming policies for the public. Privatization, partnerships, corporate capture and their impact on sustainability and inequality - assessments and alternatives. Report of the Reflection Group on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Beirut/Bonn/Ferney-Voltaire/Montevideo/New York/Penang/Rome/Suva, July 2017 *www.2030spotlight.org * *#SpotlightSDGs* ------------------------------ Contact in New York - Barbara Adams, Global Policy Forum (GPF): barbaraadams at globalpolicy.org - Jens Martens, Global Policy Forum (GPF): jensmartens at globnalpolicy.org - Chee Yoke Ling, Third World Network (TWN): yokeling at twnetwork.org - María Graciela Cuervo, Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN): mgcuervo.dawn at gmail.com - Kate Donald, Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR): kdonald at cesr.org - Roberto Bissio, Social Watch: rbissio at item.org.uy - Sandra Vermuyten, Public Services International (PSI): sandra.vermuyten at world-psi.org - Stefano Prato, Society for International Development (SID): stefanop at sidint.org - Ziad Abdel Samad, Arab NGO Network for Development (ANND): ziadas at gmail.com ------------------------------ Contributing partners of the Spotlight Report 2017 ------------------------------ If you would like to join the SDG mailing list, please click here to SUBSCRIBE ------------------------------ Visit sdg | About sdg | More IISD RS Mailing Lists | Help & Support ------------------------------ ------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: spotligh_logos_2017.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 123817 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Spotlight2017_cover_small.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 50745 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jul 13 06:21:41 2017 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 15:51:41 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco Message-ID: Google has spent millions funding academic research in the US and Europe to try to influence public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog has claimed. Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that appear to support the technology company’s business interests and defend against regulatory challenges such as antitrust and anti-piracy, the US-based Campaign for Accountability (CfA) said in a report . “Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to influence policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens, CfA executive director. ................ Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half of the cases and in the rest of the cases funded indirectly by groups or institutions supported by Google, the CfA said. Authors, who were paid between $5,000 and $400,000 (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of their funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases directly funded by Google, according to the report. ........... “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour is exposed, it invariably points the finger at someone else,” said Stevens. “Instead of deflecting blame, Google should address its record of academic astroturfing, which puts it in the same league as big oil and big tobacco .” https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google-millions-academic-research-influence-opinion As we know Google has recently been fined $ 2.7 billion for anti-competitive practices by the EU regulator, which only means that in all countries that are too weak to take on google (or benefit from its profits, meaning the US) Google remains in violation of competition (and many other) laws..... All this Google funded research and advocacy, of dont regulate the Internet (read, Internet companies), are playing a dangerous game, seriously compromising public interest. It is time we declare the honeymoon of civil society and academic love for digital global corporations over. They are today like big oil companies -- no doubt the latter provide what is still the main energy resource that keeps our societies ticking but in the bargain they very often, and systemically, indulge in stuff that needs academics and NGOs to be watching against. It is pretty difficult to undertake such watching while taking considerable money from them. It is a simple truism, but the digital sector tends to ignore it. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jul 13 10:59:30 2017 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 20:29:30 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: <3e8cbc24-bbfd-ebde-b3cd-5a9a639def7d@afilias.info> References: <3e8cbc24-bbfd-ebde-b3cd-5a9a639def7d@afilias.info> Message-ID: <9d74ea31-d870-623b-02af-63077f6d46c3@itforchange.net> On Thursday 13 July 2017 07:41 PM, Ken Stubbs wrote: > Speaking personally, > > Frankly, I am getting tired of hearing this irritating mantra that far > to many successful companies > are *_inherently_**_evil and uncaring. > _* Like Shell, Monsanto, US pharma, and so on -- all very successful companies!!? And if you have no idea what I am talking about then the problem is that you do not know what global civil society is about, although you happily chose to come in and provide overbearing comments on the elist of a global civil society group. > *_ > _*I am not necessarily defending Google, I would need significantly > more evidence of their intent than > a speculative article written by someone who may very well have their > own "agenda" > > I have little respect for people who spend much of their energies > criticizing innovative & creative > entities who turn their creative efforts into success. And I, in turn, have absolutely no respect for business people who think that they can shout down civil society's central watchdog role on elists that are basically for civil society discussion. That is some real hubris. > > Those who use their energies & efforts criticizing & chastising > should spend less time moaning & complaining & more of this time > working towards effecting > positive change Yes, sure, it is the big corporates that are working for positive change and not public interest groups!! I absolutely understand the attempt of corporate capture of everything, including civil society and public interest. Only that you have still to face considerable resistance, it is not done yet. parminder > > > Ken Stubbs > > > On 7/13/17 06:26, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> What, this didn't get shared here earlier? I'm shocked >> >> Ah, by the way here's googles >> response https://www.blog.google/topics/public-policy/responding-campaign-accountability-report-academic-research/ >> >> Also - what do you propose, that academia raise money solely from >> school fees, or maybe use Monopoly money, to fund their research? Or >> maybe just stop doing research? >> >> --srs >> >> On 13-Jul-2017, at 3:51 PM, parminder > > wrote: >> >>> Google has spent millions funding academic research in the US >>> and Europe to try to >>> influence public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog has claimed. >> >> >> To unsubscribe from this list, click here: http://lists.igcaucus.org/sympa/auto_signoff/governance/ken%40stubbs.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steve at openmedia.org Wed Jul 12 22:37:07 2017 From: steve at openmedia.org (Steve Anderson) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 19:37:07 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Awesome Campaigns Director gig! Message-ID: Hi fiends! OpenMedia is currently looking to hire a Campaigns Director to lead our campaigns and advocacy work, maximize our impact, and fight to keep the internet open, affordable, and surveillance-free! While OpenMedia's office is based in Vancouver, we are open to finding the right candidate, and are considering applicants for remote work as well. *The deadline is Friday, July 14, 2017 but OpenMedia is open to extensions for those who reach out.* If you could forward this to any people or networks that you think might be interested, or know someone who is the right fit, it would be much appreciated. And if you, or anyone you know might be interested in applying but have questions, please don't hesitate to reach out! The full job posting can be found here : https://openmedia.bamboohr.co.uk/jobs/view.php?id=14 Thanks! *Apologies for the cross posting! -- *Steve Anderson* Founder, Senior Advisor OpenMedia.org | *The Internet Needs You -->>* http://openmedia.org **We've launched a social enterprise to enable other groups to sophisticated civic engagement tools: tools.newmode.net .* 604-837-5730 Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmalcolm at eff.org Thu Jul 13 14:08:53 2017 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 11:08:53 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: But here's an article putting the other side of the story: http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too. Does that mean that whatever work they do for the rest of their careers is tainted by the few thousand they received to support their living expenses as an EFF fellow? On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote: > > Google has spent millions funding academic research in the US > and Europe to > try to influence public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog > has claimed. > > Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that > appear to support the technology company’s business interests > and defend against regulatory challenges such as antitrust and > anti-piracy, the US-based Campaign for Accountability (CfA) > said in a report > . > > “Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to > influence policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens, > CfA executive director. > > ................ > > Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half of > the cases and in the rest of the cases funded indirectly by > groups or institutions supported by Google, the CfA said. > Authors, who were paid between $5,000 and $400,000 > (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of > their funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases > directly funded by Google, according to the report. > > ........... > > “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour is exposed, it invariably > points the finger at someone else,” said Stevens. “Instead of > deflecting blame, Google should address its record of academic > astroturfing, which puts it in the same league as big oil and > big tobacco > .” > > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google-millions-academic-research-influence-opinion > > As we know Google has recently been fined $ 2.7 billion for > anti-competitive practices by the EU regulator, which only means that > in all countries that are too weak to take on google (or benefit from > its profits, meaning the US) Google remains in violation of > competition (and many other) laws..... All this Google funded research > and advocacy, of dont regulate the Internet (read, Internet > companies), are playing a dangerous game, seriously compromising > public interest. > > It is time we declare the honeymoon of civil society and academic love > for digital global corporations over. They are today like big oil > companies -- no doubt the latter provide what is still the main energy > resource that keeps our societies ticking but in the bargain they very > often, and systemically, indulge in stuff that needs academics and > NGOs to be watching against. It is pretty difficult to undertake such > watching while taking considerable money from them. It is a simple > truism, but the digital sector tends to ignore it. > > parminder > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From raquino at gmail.com Thu Jul 13 14:20:20 2017 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 15:20:20 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes it does. Unless they are transparent about it and clear about it not interfering with their research ethics. In the public education system in developing countries it is quite common to see funding being misused. Researchers who get money from international organizations, even some national ones, using public universities to advance an agenda. And yes, this can be sometimes an astroturfing exercise. Which is why access and production of knowledge needs to be always transparent and public. Unfortunately most of internet policy has not waken up to this yet. I wonder if it ever will. Em 13/07/2017 15:09, "Jeremy Malcolm" escreveu: > But here's an article putting the other side of the story: > > http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 > > We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too. Does that mean that whatever > work they do for the rest of their careers is tainted by the few thousand > they received to support their living expenses as an EFF fellow? > > On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote: > > Google has spent millions funding academic research in the US and Europe > to try to influence > public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog has claimed. > > Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that appear to > support the technology company’s business interests and defend against > regulatory challenges such as antitrust and anti-piracy, the US-based > Campaign for Accountability (CfA) said in a report > > . > > “Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to influence > policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens, CfA executive director. > > ................ > > Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half of the cases > and in the rest of the cases funded indirectly by groups or institutions > supported by Google, the CfA said. Authors, who were paid between $5,000 > and $400,000 (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of > their funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases directly > funded by Google, according to the report. > > ........... > “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour is exposed, it invariably points the > finger at someone else,” said Stevens. “Instead of deflecting blame, Google > should address its record of academic astroturfing, which puts it in the > same league as big oil and big tobacco > .” > > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google- > millions-academic-research-influence-opinion > > As we know Google has recently been fined $ 2.7 billion for > anti-competitive practices by the EU regulator, which only means that in > all countries that are too weak to take on google (or benefit from its > profits, meaning the US) Google remains in violation of competition (and > many other) laws..... All this Google funded research and advocacy, of dont > regulate the Internet (read, Internet companies), are playing a dangerous > game, seriously compromising public interest. > > It is time we declare the honeymoon of civil society and academic love for > digital global corporations over. They are today like big oil companies -- > no doubt the latter provide what is still the main energy resource that > keeps our societies ticking but in the bargain they very often, and > systemically, indulge in stuff that needs academics and NGOs to be watching > against. It is pretty difficult to undertake such watching while taking > considerable money from them. It is a simple truism, but the digital sector > tends to ignore it. > > parminder > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Global Policy Analyst > Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm at eff.org > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > > Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt > PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmalcolm at eff.org Wed Jul 5 14:23:35 2017 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 11:23:35 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [governance] [JNC - Forum] After Microsoft now google calls for internationaldigital agreements In-Reply-To: <18A21C2E748840809B0D8CE03FB363AF@LAPTOP93L8QKEK> References: <18A21C2E748840809B0D8CE03FB363AF@LAPTOP93L8QKEK> Message-ID: <97ff2285-45d1-4862-d219-5e8ea0860c52@eff.org> Also copying to the Best Bits list, because I know we have a number of members here who choose not to be on the IGC or Just Net lists... and this seems like a relevant and interesting discussion to have here. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [governance] [JNC - Forum] After Microsoft now google calls for internationaldigital agreements Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2017 15:36:46 +0530 From: Ian Peter Reply-To: Ian Peter To: Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Hi Parminder, I am copying this also to the IGC list: Because I am wondering if there is widespread support for developing a civil society statement supporting these efforts, and urging the development of (a framework?) (a set of principles?) to deal with these issues? Although Microsoft is approaching this more from cyberwarfare concerns, and Google more from lack of standards dealing with surveillance requests, there is a common ground here which relates to good governance which supports basic rights when dealing with requests for data for digital surveillance. In my own mind I am sure there is a set of good principles/guidelines which could (and should) be developed which could cover both of these concerns, and I personally feel that we in civil society should be supporting and encouraging such developments: while at the same time helping to set the agenda for what might be appropriate developments. GCCS2017 might be one event to move this forward: but in the mean time if we can develop a strong consensus statement welcoming further discussion and developments in this area, that might be a useful contribution. But others might feel another approach might be more productive? Ian Peter *From:* parminder *Sent:* Saturday, July 1, 2017 6:13 PM *To:* Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org *Subject:* [JNC - Forum] After Microsoft now google calls for internationaldigital agreements Microsoft recently called for a cyber geneva convention https://www.wired.com/2017/05/microsoft-right-need-digital-geneva-convention/ Now, Google has called for international agreement on legal access to data. "We need international agreements to lay out the rules of the road to deal with what is not a hypothetical problem,” said Walker. “We are dealing with tens of thousands of these requests every year, and we’re just one of the companies wrestling with this. We do need an international agreed upon framework to move forward in a reliable way that people can have confidence in.”" https://www.cyberscoop.com/google-governments-update-international-data-laws/ parminder ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Forum mailing list Forum at justnetcoalition.org http://mail.justnetcoalition.org/listinfo/forum -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- To unsubscribe from this list, click here: http://lists.igcaucus.org/sympa/auto_signoff/governance/jmalcolm%40eff.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From james at cyberinvasion.net Thu Jul 13 14:23:23 2017 From: james at cyberinvasion.net (James Gannon) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 18:23:23 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Someone is seriously saying that funding 10/15 years previously is influencing on a totally separate set of topics in the future, tbh that is a ludicrous position for anyone to take. Also for full disclosure people should know that this is funded by an anti-Google lobbying group that has been around for a few years. From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Renata Aquino Ribeiro Sent: 13 July 2017 19:20 To: Jeremy Malcolm Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < Subject: Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco Yes it does. Unless they are transparent about it and clear about it not interfering with their research ethics. In the public education system in developing countries it is quite common to see funding being misused. Researchers who get money from international organizations, even some national ones, using public universities to advance an agenda. And yes, this can be sometimes an astroturfing exercise. Which is why access and production of knowledge needs to be always transparent and public. Unfortunately most of internet policy has not waken up to this yet. I wonder if it ever will. Em 13/07/2017 15:09, "Jeremy Malcolm" > escreveu: But here's an article putting the other side of the story: http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too. Does that mean that whatever work they do for the rest of their careers is tainted by the few thousand they received to support their living expenses as an EFF fellow? On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote: Google has spent millions funding academic research in the US and Europe to try to influence public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog has claimed. Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that appear to support the technology company’s business interests and defend against regulatory challenges such as antitrust and anti-piracy, the US-based Campaign for Accountability (CfA) said in a report. “Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to influence policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens, CfA executive director. ................ Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half of the cases and in the rest of the cases funded indirectly by groups or institutions supported by Google, the CfA said. Authors, who were paid between $5,000 and $400,000 (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of their funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases directly funded by Google, according to the report. ........... “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour is exposed, it invariably points the finger at someone else,” said Stevens. “Instead of deflecting blame, Google should address its record of academic astroturfing, which puts it in the same league as big oil and big tobacco.” https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google-millions-academic-research-influence-opinion As we know Google has recently been fined $ 2.7 billion for anti-competitive practices by the EU regulator, which only means that in all countries that are too weak to take on google (or benefit from its profits, meaning the US) Google remains in violation of competition (and many other) laws..... All this Google funded research and advocacy, of dont regulate the Internet (read, Internet companies), are playing a dangerous game, seriously compromising public interest. It is time we declare the honeymoon of civil society and academic love for digital global corporations over. They are today like big oil companies -- no doubt the latter provide what is still the main energy resource that keeps our societies ticking but in the bargain they very often, and systemically, indulge in stuff that needs academics and NGOs to be watching against. It is pretty difficult to undertake such watching while taking considerable money from them. It is a simple truism, but the digital sector tends to ignore it. parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From renata.avila at webfoundation.org Thu Jul 13 15:04:55 2017 From: renata.avila at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:04:55 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I second Renata. Our research and advocacy space is suffering from a funding problem and it is harming its credibility. It will be great to have a larger pool of funds supporting our efforts, which are becoming more mainstream and relevant for the next 50 years (especially for developing countries). The production of research is extremely concentrated and, as austerity is rampant all over the World, State funding to research is shrinking by the day even for developed countries at the same pace as tax evasion (or elusion) (Google is not guilt free in this area http://fortune.com/2016/03/11/apple-google-taxes-eu/) And in small countries, priorities of both governments and private sector to support research support traditional areas, such as health or education. Certainly, local funds are not supporting local advocacy efforts for privacy, net neutrality, etc. I think the problem is deeper and I think that, in order to continue our work and efforts with impartiality and credibility, we need a coordinated effort to get a diverse pool of donors and ways towards sustainability. I think the comparisons of Big Oil funding Greenpeace, when we talk about giants like Facebook or Google, is valid now. What about all the ICANN money? Will it be enough to fund all global and local advocacy and at least part of the relevant research? A global fund? Crowdfunding for advocacy and more pressure on governments for research? R Renata Avila *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* renata.avila at webfoundation.org *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA* *| * *www.webfoundation.org* * | Twitter: @webfoundation* On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote: > Yes it does. > Unless they are transparent about it and clear about it not interfering > with their research ethics. > > In the public education system in developing countries it is quite common > to see funding being misused. Researchers who get money from international > organizations, even some national ones, using public universities to > advance an agenda. And yes, this can be sometimes an astroturfing exercise. > > Which is why access and production of knowledge needs to be always > transparent and public. > > Unfortunately most of internet policy has not waken up to this yet. I > wonder if it ever will. > > Em 13/07/2017 15:09, "Jeremy Malcolm" escreveu: > >> But here's an article putting the other side of the story: >> >> http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 >> >> We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too. Does that mean that whatever >> work they do for the rest of their careers is tainted by the few thousand >> they received to support their living expenses as an EFF fellow? >> >> On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote: >> >> Google has spent millions funding academic research in the US and Europe >> to try to influence >> public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog has claimed. >> >> Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that appear to >> support the technology company’s business interests and defend against >> regulatory challenges such as antitrust and anti-piracy, the US-based >> Campaign for Accountability (CfA) said in a report >> >> . >> >> “Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to influence >> policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens, CfA executive director. >> >> ................ >> >> Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half of the cases >> and in the rest of the cases funded indirectly by groups or institutions >> supported by Google, the CfA said. Authors, who were paid between $5,000 >> and $400,000 (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of >> their funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases directly >> funded by Google, according to the report. >> >> ........... >> “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour is exposed, it invariably points the >> finger at someone else,” said Stevens. “Instead of deflecting blame, Google >> should address its record of academic astroturfing, which puts it in the >> same league as big oil and big tobacco >> .” >> >> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google-mi >> llions-academic-research-influence-opinion >> >> As we know Google has recently been fined $ 2.7 billion for >> anti-competitive practices by the EU regulator, which only means that in >> all countries that are too weak to take on google (or benefit from its >> profits, meaning the US) Google remains in violation of competition (and >> many other) laws..... All this Google funded research and advocacy, of dont >> regulate the Internet (read, Internet companies), are playing a dangerous >> game, seriously compromising public interest. >> >> It is time we declare the honeymoon of civil society and academic love >> for digital global corporations over. They are today like big oil companies >> -- no doubt the latter provide what is still the main energy resource that >> keeps our societies ticking but in the bargain they very often, and >> systemically, indulge in stuff that needs academics and NGOs to be watching >> against. It is pretty difficult to undertake such watching while taking >> considerable money from them. It is a simple truism, but the digital sector >> tends to ignore it. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Global Policy Analyst >> Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm at eff.org >> >> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 >> >> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: >> >> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt >> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james at cyberinvasion.net Thu Jul 13 15:09:02 2017 From: james at cyberinvasion.net (James Gannon) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:09:02 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Can you elaborate on this piece? What ICANN money, ICANN does some very limited funding of research but doesn’t fund anything in the area of advocacy, and there is very little research that is within ICANNs mission anyway. -J From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Renata Avila Sent: 13 July 2017 20:05 To: Renata Aquino Ribeiro Cc: Jeremy Malcolm ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < Subject: Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco I second Renata. Our research and advocacy space is suffering from a funding problem and it is harming its credibility. It will be great to have a larger pool of funds supporting our efforts, which are becoming more mainstream and relevant for the next 50 years (especially for developing countries). The production of research is extremely concentrated and, as austerity is rampant all over the World, State funding to research is shrinking by the day even for developed countries at the same pace as tax evasion (or elusion) (Google is not guilt free in this area http://fortune.com/2016/03/11/apple-google-taxes-eu/) And in small countries, priorities of both governments and private sector to support research support traditional areas, such as health or education. Certainly, local funds are not supporting local advocacy efforts for privacy, net neutrality, etc. I think the problem is deeper and I think that, in order to continue our work and efforts with impartiality and credibility, we need a coordinated effort to get a diverse pool of donors and ways towards sustainability. I think the comparisons of Big Oil funding Greenpeace, when we talk about giants like Facebook or Google, is valid now. What about all the ICANN money? Will it be enough to fund all global and local advocacy and at least part of the relevant research? A global fund? Crowdfunding for advocacy and more pressure on governments for research? R Renata Avila Senior Digital Rights Advisor renata.avila at webfoundation.org 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro > wrote: Yes it does. Unless they are transparent about it and clear about it not interfering with their research ethics. In the public education system in developing countries it is quite common to see funding being misused. Researchers who get money from international organizations, even some national ones, using public universities to advance an agenda. And yes, this can be sometimes an astroturfing exercise. Which is why access and production of knowledge needs to be always transparent and public. Unfortunately most of internet policy has not waken up to this yet. I wonder if it ever will. Em 13/07/2017 15:09, "Jeremy Malcolm" > escreveu: But here's an article putting the other side of the story: http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too. Does that mean that whatever work they do for the rest of their careers is tainted by the few thousand they received to support their living expenses as an EFF fellow? On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote: Google has spent millions funding academic research in the US and Europe to try to influence public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog has claimed. Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that appear to support the technology company’s business interests and defend against regulatory challenges such as antitrust and anti-piracy, the US-based Campaign for Accountability (CfA) said in a report. “Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to influence policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens, CfA executive director. ................ Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half of the cases and in the rest of the cases funded indirectly by groups or institutions supported by Google, the CfA said. Authors, who were paid between $5,000 and $400,000 (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of their funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases directly funded by Google, according to the report. ........... “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour is exposed, it invariably points the finger at someone else,” said Stevens. “Instead of deflecting blame, Google should address its record of academic astroturfing, which puts it in the same league as big oil and big tobacco.” https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google-millions-academic-research-influence-opinion As we know Google has recently been fined $ 2.7 billion for anti-competitive practices by the EU regulator, which only means that in all countries that are too weak to take on google (or benefit from its profits, meaning the US) Google remains in violation of competition (and many other) laws..... All this Google funded research and advocacy, of dont regulate the Internet (read, Internet companies), are playing a dangerous game, seriously compromising public interest. It is time we declare the honeymoon of civil society and academic love for digital global corporations over. They are today like big oil companies -- no doubt the latter provide what is still the main energy resource that keeps our societies ticking but in the bargain they very often, and systemically, indulge in stuff that needs academics and NGOs to be watching against. It is pretty difficult to undertake such watching while taking considerable money from them. It is a simple truism, but the digital sector tends to ignore it. parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 ____________________________________________________________ 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 renata.avila at webfoundation.org Thu Jul 13 15:09:03 2017 From: renata.avila at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:09:03 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: * I deleted by mistake part of a phrase. * Research funds and State grants to Universities are reducing, as tax cuts, privileges to tech companies and tax evasion increases. Cheers, R Renata Avila *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* renata.avila at webfoundation.org *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA* *| * *www.webfoundation.org* * | Twitter: @webfoundation* On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:04 PM, Renata Avila < renata.avila at webfoundation.org> wrote: > I second Renata. > > Our research and advocacy space is suffering from a funding problem and it > is harming its credibility. It will be great to have a larger pool of funds > supporting our efforts, which are becoming more mainstream and relevant for > the next 50 years (especially for developing countries). The production of > research is extremely concentrated and, as austerity is rampant all over > the World, State funding to research is shrinking by the day even for > developed countries at the same pace as tax evasion (or elusion) (Google is > not guilt free in this area http://fortune.com/2016/ > 03/11/apple-google-taxes-eu/) > > And in small countries, priorities of both governments and private sector > to support research support traditional areas, such as health or education. > Certainly, local funds are not supporting local advocacy efforts for > privacy, net neutrality, etc. > > I think the problem is deeper and I think that, in order to continue our > work and efforts with impartiality and credibility, we need a coordinated > effort to get a diverse pool of donors and ways towards sustainability. I > think the comparisons of Big Oil funding Greenpeace, when we talk about > giants like Facebook or Google, is valid now. > > What about all the ICANN money? Will it be enough to fund all global and > local advocacy and at least part of the relevant research? A global fund? > Crowdfunding for advocacy and more pressure on governments for research? > > R > > > > Renata Avila > > *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* > renata.avila at webfoundation.org > > *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA* *| * > *www.webfoundation.org* * | Twitter: > @webfoundation* > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro > wrote: > >> Yes it does. >> Unless they are transparent about it and clear about it not interfering >> with their research ethics. >> >> In the public education system in developing countries it is quite common >> to see funding being misused. Researchers who get money from international >> organizations, even some national ones, using public universities to >> advance an agenda. And yes, this can be sometimes an astroturfing exercise. >> >> Which is why access and production of knowledge needs to be always >> transparent and public. >> >> Unfortunately most of internet policy has not waken up to this yet. I >> wonder if it ever will. >> >> Em 13/07/2017 15:09, "Jeremy Malcolm" escreveu: >> >>> But here's an article putting the other side of the story: >>> >>> http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 >>> >>> We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too. Does that mean that >>> whatever work they do for the rest of their careers is tainted by the few >>> thousand they received to support their living expenses as an EFF fellow? >>> >>> On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote: >>> >>> Google has spent millions funding academic research in the US and Europe >>> to try to influence >>> public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog has claimed. >>> >>> Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that appear to >>> support the technology company’s business interests and defend against >>> regulatory challenges such as antitrust and anti-piracy, the US-based >>> Campaign for Accountability (CfA) said in a report >>> >>> . >>> >>> “Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to influence >>> policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens, CfA executive director. >>> >>> ................ >>> >>> Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half of the cases >>> and in the rest of the cases funded indirectly by groups or institutions >>> supported by Google, the CfA said. Authors, who were paid between $5,000 >>> and $400,000 (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of >>> their funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases directly >>> funded by Google, according to the report. >>> >>> ........... >>> “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour is exposed, it invariably points the >>> finger at someone else,” said Stevens. “Instead of deflecting blame, Google >>> should address its record of academic astroturfing, which puts it in the >>> same league as big oil and big tobacco >>> .” >>> >>> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google-mi >>> llions-academic-research-influence-opinion >>> >>> As we know Google has recently been fined $ 2.7 billion for >>> anti-competitive practices by the EU regulator, which only means that in >>> all countries that are too weak to take on google (or benefit from its >>> profits, meaning the US) Google remains in violation of competition (and >>> many other) laws..... All this Google funded research and advocacy, of dont >>> regulate the Internet (read, Internet companies), are playing a dangerous >>> game, seriously compromising public interest. >>> >>> It is time we declare the honeymoon of civil society and academic love >>> for digital global corporations over. They are today like big oil companies >>> -- no doubt the latter provide what is still the main energy resource that >>> keeps our societies ticking but in the bargain they very often, and >>> systemically, indulge in stuff that needs academics and NGOs to be watching >>> against. It is pretty difficult to undertake such watching while taking >>> considerable money from them. It is a simple truism, but the digital sector >>> tends to ignore it. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Global Policy Analyst >>> Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm at eff.org >>> >>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 >>> >>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: >>> >>> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt >>> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 renata.avila at webfoundation.org Thu Jul 13 15:18:38 2017 From: renata.avila at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:18:38 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Its reserve fund. It could be modified, any time, to support broader areas... Figures in USD (millions) Page 9. Link: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy17-unaudited-financials-31mar17-en.pdf R. Renata Avila *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* renata.avila at webfoundation.org *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA* *| * *www.webfoundation.org* * | Twitter: @webfoundation* On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:09 PM, James Gannon wrote: > Can you elaborate on this piece? What ICANN money, ICANN does some very > limited funding of research but doesn’t fund anything in the area of > advocacy, and there is very little research that is within ICANNs mission > anyway. > > > > -J > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request@ > lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Renata Avila > *Sent:* 13 July 2017 20:05 > *To:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro > *Cc:* Jeremy Malcolm ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > < > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league > as big oil and big tobacco > > > > I second Renata. > > > > Our research and advocacy space is suffering from a funding problem and it > is harming its credibility. It will be great to have a larger pool of funds > supporting our efforts, which are becoming more mainstream and relevant for > the next 50 years (especially for developing countries). The production of > research is extremely concentrated and, as austerity is rampant all over > the World, State funding to research is shrinking by the day even for > developed countries at the same pace as tax evasion (or elusion) (Google is > not guilt free in this area http://fortune.com/2016/ > 03/11/apple-google-taxes-eu/) > > > > And in small countries, priorities of both governments and private sector > to support research support traditional areas, such as health or education. > Certainly, local funds are not supporting local advocacy efforts for > privacy, net neutrality, etc. > > > > I think the problem is deeper and I think that, in order to continue our > work and efforts with impartiality and credibility, we need a coordinated > effort to get a diverse pool of donors and ways towards sustainability. I > think the comparisons of Big Oil funding Greenpeace, when we talk about > giants like Facebook or Google, is valid now. > > > > What about all the ICANN money? Will it be enough to fund all global and > local advocacy and at least part of the relevant research? A global fund? > Crowdfunding for advocacy and more pressure on governments for research? > > > > R > > > > > > > Renata Avila > > *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* > > renata.avila at webfoundation.org > > *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA* *| * > *www.webfoundation.org* * | Twitter: > @webfoundation* > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro > wrote: > > Yes it does. > > Unless they are transparent about it and clear about it not interfering > with their research ethics. > > > > In the public education system in developing countries it is quite common > to see funding being misused. Researchers who get money from international > organizations, even some national ones, using public universities to > advance an agenda. And yes, this can be sometimes an astroturfing exercise. > > > > Which is why access and production of knowledge needs to be always > transparent and public. > > > > Unfortunately most of internet policy has not waken up to this yet. I > wonder if it ever will. > > > > Em 13/07/2017 15:09, "Jeremy Malcolm" escreveu: > > But here's an article putting the other side of the story: > > http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 > > We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too. Does that mean that whatever > work they do for the rest of their careers is tainted by the few thousand > they received to support their living expenses as an EFF fellow? > > On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote: > > Google has spent millions funding academic research in the US and Europe > to try to influence > public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog has claimed. > > Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that appear to > support the technology company’s business interests and defend against > regulatory challenges such as antitrust and anti-piracy, the US-based > Campaign for Accountability (CfA) said in a report > > . > > “Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to influence > policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens, CfA executive director. > > ................ > > Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half of the cases > and in the rest of the cases funded indirectly by groups or institutions > supported by Google, the CfA said. Authors, who were paid between $5,000 > and $400,000 (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of > their funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases directly > funded by Google, according to the report. > > ........... > > “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour is exposed, it invariably points the > finger at someone else,” said Stevens. “Instead of deflecting blame, Google > should address its record of academic astroturfing, which puts it in the > same league as big oil and big tobacco > .” > > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google- > millions-academic-research-influence-opinion > > As we know Google has recently been fined $ 2.7 billion for > anti-competitive practices by the EU regulator, which only means that in > all countries that are too weak to take on google (or benefit from its > profits, meaning the US) Google remains in violation of competition (and > many other) laws..... All this Google funded research and advocacy, of dont > regulate the Internet (read, Internet companies), are playing a dangerous > game, seriously compromising public interest. > > It is time we declare the honeymoon of civil society and academic love for > digital global corporations over. They are today like big oil companies -- > no doubt the latter provide what is still the main energy resource that > keeps our societies ticking but in the bargain they very often, and > systemically, indulge in stuff that needs academics and NGOs to be watching > against. It is pretty difficult to undertake such watching while taking > considerable money from them. It is a simple truism, but the digital sector > tends to ignore it. > > parminder > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm > > Senior Global Policy Analyst > > Electronic Frontier Foundation > > https://eff.org > > jmalcolm at eff.org > > > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > > > > Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt > > PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Screen Shot 2017-07-13 at 21.16.40.png Type: image/png Size: 76108 bytes Desc: not available URL: From james at cyberinvasion.net Thu Jul 13 15:21:58 2017 From: james at cyberinvasion.net (James Gannon) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:21:58 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The ICANN reserve fund is designed to keep ICANN running in the event of financial distress and is not subject to any external use outside of ICANN, and even if it was it would still be bound by ICANNs mission. Im not seeing the relationship to the current discussion at all. -James From: Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org] Sent: 13 July 2017 20:19 To: James Gannon Cc: Renata Aquino Ribeiro ; Jeremy Malcolm ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < Subject: Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco Its reserve fund. It could be modified, any time, to support broader areas... Figures in USD (millions) Page 9. Link: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy17-unaudited-financials-31mar17-en.pdf R. Renata Avila Senior Digital Rights Advisor renata.avila at webfoundation.org 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:09 PM, James Gannon > wrote: Can you elaborate on this piece? What ICANN money, ICANN does some very limited funding of research but doesn’t fund anything in the area of advocacy, and there is very little research that is within ICANNs mission anyway. -J From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Renata Avila Sent: 13 July 2017 20:05 To: Renata Aquino Ribeiro > Cc: Jeremy Malcolm >; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco I second Renata. Our research and advocacy space is suffering from a funding problem and it is harming its credibility. It will be great to have a larger pool of funds supporting our efforts, which are becoming more mainstream and relevant for the next 50 years (especially for developing countries). The production of research is extremely concentrated and, as austerity is rampant all over the World, State funding to research is shrinking by the day even for developed countries at the same pace as tax evasion (or elusion) (Google is not guilt free in this area http://fortune.com/2016/03/11/apple-google-taxes-eu/) And in small countries, priorities of both governments and private sector to support research support traditional areas, such as health or education. Certainly, local funds are not supporting local advocacy efforts for privacy, net neutrality, etc. I think the problem is deeper and I think that, in order to continue our work and efforts with impartiality and credibility, we need a coordinated effort to get a diverse pool of donors and ways towards sustainability. I think the comparisons of Big Oil funding Greenpeace, when we talk about giants like Facebook or Google, is valid now. What about all the ICANN money? Will it be enough to fund all global and local advocacy and at least part of the relevant research? A global fund? Crowdfunding for advocacy and more pressure on governments for research? R Renata Avila Senior Digital Rights Advisor renata.avila at webfoundation.org 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro > wrote: Yes it does. Unless they are transparent about it and clear about it not interfering with their research ethics. In the public education system in developing countries it is quite common to see funding being misused. Researchers who get money from international organizations, even some national ones, using public universities to advance an agenda. And yes, this can be sometimes an astroturfing exercise. Which is why access and production of knowledge needs to be always transparent and public. Unfortunately most of internet policy has not waken up to this yet. I wonder if it ever will. Em 13/07/2017 15:09, "Jeremy Malcolm" > escreveu: But here's an article putting the other side of the story: http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too. Does that mean that whatever work they do for the rest of their careers is tainted by the few thousand they received to support their living expenses as an EFF fellow? On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote: Google has spent millions funding academic research in the US and Europe to try to influence public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog has claimed. Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that appear to support the technology company’s business interests and defend against regulatory challenges such as antitrust and anti-piracy, the US-based Campaign for Accountability (CfA) said in a report. “Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to influence policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens, CfA executive director. ................ Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half of the cases and in the rest of the cases funded indirectly by groups or institutions supported by Google, the CfA said. Authors, who were paid between $5,000 and $400,000 (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of their funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases directly funded by Google, according to the report. ........... “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour is exposed, it invariably points the finger at someone else,” said Stevens. “Instead of deflecting blame, Google should address its record of academic astroturfing, which puts it in the same league as big oil and big tobacco.” https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google-millions-academic-research-influence-opinion As we know Google has recently been fined $ 2.7 billion for anti-competitive practices by the EU regulator, which only means that in all countries that are too weak to take on google (or benefit from its profits, meaning the US) Google remains in violation of competition (and many other) laws..... All this Google funded research and advocacy, of dont regulate the Internet (read, Internet companies), are playing a dangerous game, seriously compromising public interest. It is time we declare the honeymoon of civil society and academic love for digital global corporations over. They are today like big oil companies -- no doubt the latter provide what is still the main energy resource that keeps our societies ticking but in the bargain they very often, and systemically, indulge in stuff that needs academics and NGOs to be watching against. It is pretty difficult to undertake such watching while taking considerable money from them. It is a simple truism, but the digital sector tends to ignore it. parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 ____________________________________________________________ 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 renata.avila at webfoundation.org Thu Jul 13 15:30:41 2017 From: renata.avila at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:30:41 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, there is more: The proceeds from New gTLD Program auctions, *which will total more than $230 million, are being reserved.* The multistakeholder community will develop proposals for how these proceeds could be distributed. A community-based drafting team is currently working on a charter for a Cross-Community Working Group that will create recommendations for Board consideration. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-07-28-en My point: - Google funds everything, especially advocacy and research in poor countries. - If not google, it is Facebook. - That harms legitimacy. Funds are really scarce for research, advocacy and policy. Meanwhile, ICANN = 230 million plus 70 million reserves. What if we advocate for those funds to *support public interest research*, via a Foundation or similar, instead of Google (or other companies) funding research. Is it clear now? R Renata Avila *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* renata.avila at webfoundation.org *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA* *| * *www.webfoundation.org* * | Twitter: @webfoundation* On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:21 PM, James Gannon wrote: > The ICANN reserve fund is designed to keep ICANN running in the event of > financial distress and is not subject to any external use outside of ICANN, > and even if it was it would still be bound by ICANNs mission. > > Im not seeing the relationship to the current discussion at all. > > > > -James > > > > *From:* Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org] > *Sent:* 13 July 2017 20:19 > *To:* James Gannon > *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro ; Jeremy Malcolm < > jmalcolm at eff.org>; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < < > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league > as big oil and big tobacco > > > > Its reserve fund. > > > > It could be modified, any time, to support broader areas... > > > > Figures in USD (millions) Page 9. > > > > Link: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy17- > unaudited-financials-31mar17-en.pdf > > > > R. > > > Renata Avila > > *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* > > renata.avila at webfoundation.org > > *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA* *| * > *www.webfoundation.org* * | Twitter: > @webfoundation* > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:09 PM, James Gannon > wrote: > > Can you elaborate on this piece? What ICANN money, ICANN does some very > limited funding of research but doesn’t fund anything in the area of > advocacy, and there is very little research that is within ICANNs mission > anyway. > > > > -J > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request@ > lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Renata Avila > *Sent:* 13 July 2017 20:05 > *To:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro > *Cc:* Jeremy Malcolm ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > < > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league > as big oil and big tobacco > > > > I second Renata. > > > > Our research and advocacy space is suffering from a funding problem and it > is harming its credibility. It will be great to have a larger pool of funds > supporting our efforts, which are becoming more mainstream and relevant for > the next 50 years (especially for developing countries). The production of > research is extremely concentrated and, as austerity is rampant all over > the World, State funding to research is shrinking by the day even for > developed countries at the same pace as tax evasion (or elusion) (Google is > not guilt free in this area http://fortune.com/2016/ > 03/11/apple-google-taxes-eu/) > > > > And in small countries, priorities of both governments and private sector > to support research support traditional areas, such as health or education. > Certainly, local funds are not supporting local advocacy efforts for > privacy, net neutrality, etc. > > > > I think the problem is deeper and I think that, in order to continue our > work and efforts with impartiality and credibility, we need a coordinated > effort to get a diverse pool of donors and ways towards sustainability. I > think the comparisons of Big Oil funding Greenpeace, when we talk about > giants like Facebook or Google, is valid now. > > > > What about all the ICANN money? Will it be enough to fund all global and > local advocacy and at least part of the relevant research? A global fund? > Crowdfunding for advocacy and more pressure on governments for research? > > > > R > > > > > > > Renata Avila > > *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* > > renata.avila at webfoundation.org > > *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA* *| * > *www.webfoundation.org* * | Twitter: > @webfoundation* > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro > wrote: > > Yes it does. > > Unless they are transparent about it and clear about it not interfering > with their research ethics. > > > > In the public education system in developing countries it is quite common > to see funding being misused. Researchers who get money from international > organizations, even some national ones, using public universities to > advance an agenda. And yes, this can be sometimes an astroturfing exercise. > > > > Which is why access and production of knowledge needs to be always > transparent and public. > > > > Unfortunately most of internet policy has not waken up to this yet. I > wonder if it ever will. > > > > Em 13/07/2017 15:09, "Jeremy Malcolm" escreveu: > > But here's an article putting the other side of the story: > > http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 > > We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too. Does that mean that whatever > work they do for the rest of their careers is tainted by the few thousand > they received to support their living expenses as an EFF fellow? > > On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote: > > Google has spent millions funding academic research in the US and Europe > to try to influence > public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog has claimed. > > Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that appear to > support the technology company’s business interests and defend against > regulatory challenges such as antitrust and anti-piracy, the US-based > Campaign for Accountability (CfA) said in a report > > . > > “Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to influence > policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens, CfA executive director. > > ................ > > Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half of the cases > and in the rest of the cases funded indirectly by groups or institutions > supported by Google, the CfA said. Authors, who were paid between $5,000 > and $400,000 (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of > their funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases directly > funded by Google, according to the report. > > ........... > > “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour is exposed, it invariably points the > finger at someone else,” said Stevens. “Instead of deflecting blame, Google > should address its record of academic astroturfing, which puts it in the > same league as big oil and big tobacco > .” > > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google- > millions-academic-research-influence-opinion > > As we know Google has recently been fined $ 2.7 billion for > anti-competitive practices by the EU regulator, which only means that in > all countries that are too weak to take on google (or benefit from its > profits, meaning the US) Google remains in violation of competition (and > many other) laws..... All this Google funded research and advocacy, of dont > regulate the Internet (read, Internet companies), are playing a dangerous > game, seriously compromising public interest. > > It is time we declare the honeymoon of civil society and academic love for > digital global corporations over. They are today like big oil companies -- > no doubt the latter provide what is still the main energy resource that > keeps our societies ticking but in the bargain they very often, and > systemically, indulge in stuff that needs academics and NGOs to be watching > against. It is pretty difficult to undertake such watching while taking > considerable money from them. It is a simple truism, but the digital sector > tends to ignore it. > > parminder > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm > > Senior Global Policy Analyst > > Electronic Frontier Foundation > > https://eff.org > > jmalcolm at eff.org > > > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > > > > Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt > > PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james at cyberinvasion.net Thu Jul 13 15:52:49 2017 From: james at cyberinvasion.net (James Gannon) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:52:49 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No because the auction funds are also bounded by ICANN mission. I think that we should trust academics to be able to conduct research in an independent manner, that we need to stop looking at the GAFA conspiracy theories and that we shouldn’t sully those academics who are working on critical areas of research for us by claiming that once they are ever ‘tainted’ by corporate funding that they should forever have to walk around with a a Google/FB/etc disclaimer on every word they write or talk they give or opinion they express. From: Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org] Sent: 13 July 2017 20:31 To: James Gannon Cc: Renata Aquino Ribeiro ; Jeremy Malcolm ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < Subject: Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco Well, there is more: The proceeds from New gTLD Program auctions, which will total more than $230 million, are being reserved. The multistakeholder community will develop proposals for how these proceeds could be distributed. A community-based drafting team is currently working on a charter for a Cross-Community Working Group that will create recommendations for Board consideration. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-07-28-en My point: - Google funds everything, especially advocacy and research in poor countries. - If not google, it is Facebook. - That harms legitimacy. Funds are really scarce for research, advocacy and policy. Meanwhile, ICANN = 230 million plus 70 million reserves. What if we advocate for those funds to support public interest research, via a Foundation or similar, instead of Google (or other companies) funding research. Is it clear now? R Renata Avila Senior Digital Rights Advisor renata.avila at webfoundation.org 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:21 PM, James Gannon > wrote: The ICANN reserve fund is designed to keep ICANN running in the event of financial distress and is not subject to any external use outside of ICANN, and even if it was it would still be bound by ICANNs mission. Im not seeing the relationship to the current discussion at all. -James From: Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org] Sent: 13 July 2017 20:19 To: James Gannon > Cc: Renata Aquino Ribeiro >; Jeremy Malcolm >; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco Its reserve fund. It could be modified, any time, to support broader areas... Figures in USD (millions) Page 9. Link: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy17-unaudited-financials-31mar17-en.pdf R. Renata Avila Senior Digital Rights Advisor renata.avila at webfoundation.org 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:09 PM, James Gannon > wrote: Can you elaborate on this piece? What ICANN money, ICANN does some very limited funding of research but doesn’t fund anything in the area of advocacy, and there is very little research that is within ICANNs mission anyway. -J From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Renata Avila Sent: 13 July 2017 20:05 To: Renata Aquino Ribeiro > Cc: Jeremy Malcolm >; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco I second Renata. Our research and advocacy space is suffering from a funding problem and it is harming its credibility. It will be great to have a larger pool of funds supporting our efforts, which are becoming more mainstream and relevant for the next 50 years (especially for developing countries). The production of research is extremely concentrated and, as austerity is rampant all over the World, State funding to research is shrinking by the day even for developed countries at the same pace as tax evasion (or elusion) (Google is not guilt free in this area http://fortune.com/2016/03/11/apple-google-taxes-eu/) And in small countries, priorities of both governments and private sector to support research support traditional areas, such as health or education. Certainly, local funds are not supporting local advocacy efforts for privacy, net neutrality, etc. I think the problem is deeper and I think that, in order to continue our work and efforts with impartiality and credibility, we need a coordinated effort to get a diverse pool of donors and ways towards sustainability. I think the comparisons of Big Oil funding Greenpeace, when we talk about giants like Facebook or Google, is valid now. What about all the ICANN money? Will it be enough to fund all global and local advocacy and at least part of the relevant research? A global fund? Crowdfunding for advocacy and more pressure on governments for research? R Renata Avila Senior Digital Rights Advisor renata.avila at webfoundation.org 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro > wrote: Yes it does. Unless they are transparent about it and clear about it not interfering with their research ethics. In the public education system in developing countries it is quite common to see funding being misused. Researchers who get money from international organizations, even some national ones, using public universities to advance an agenda. And yes, this can be sometimes an astroturfing exercise. Which is why access and production of knowledge needs to be always transparent and public. Unfortunately most of internet policy has not waken up to this yet. I wonder if it ever will. Em 13/07/2017 15:09, "Jeremy Malcolm" > escreveu: But here's an article putting the other side of the story: http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too. Does that mean that whatever work they do for the rest of their careers is tainted by the few thousand they received to support their living expenses as an EFF fellow? On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote: Google has spent millions funding academic research in the US and Europe to try to influence public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog has claimed. Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that appear to support the technology company’s business interests and defend against regulatory challenges such as antitrust and anti-piracy, the US-based Campaign for Accountability (CfA) said in a report. “Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to influence policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens, CfA executive director. ................ Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half of the cases and in the rest of the cases funded indirectly by groups or institutions supported by Google, the CfA said. Authors, who were paid between $5,000 and $400,000 (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of their funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases directly funded by Google, according to the report. ........... “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour is exposed, it invariably points the finger at someone else,” said Stevens. “Instead of deflecting blame, Google should address its record of academic astroturfing, which puts it in the same league as big oil and big tobacco.” https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google-millions-academic-research-influence-opinion As we know Google has recently been fined $ 2.7 billion for anti-competitive practices by the EU regulator, which only means that in all countries that are too weak to take on google (or benefit from its profits, meaning the US) Google remains in violation of competition (and many other) laws..... All this Google funded research and advocacy, of dont regulate the Internet (read, Internet companies), are playing a dangerous game, seriously compromising public interest. It is time we declare the honeymoon of civil society and academic love for digital global corporations over. They are today like big oil companies -- no doubt the latter provide what is still the main energy resource that keeps our societies ticking but in the bargain they very often, and systemically, indulge in stuff that needs academics and NGOs to be watching against. It is pretty difficult to undertake such watching while taking considerable money from them. It is a simple truism, but the digital sector tends to ignore it. parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 ____________________________________________________________ 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 renata.avila at webfoundation.org Thu Jul 13 16:00:05 2017 From: renata.avila at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 22:00:05 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I respectfully disagree on your restrictive interpretation of ICANN mission. I also disagree on relaxing accountability on who funds academic research and its impact. On the contrary, I think limiting our work to some sort of transparency is insufficient. Strict accountability is needed to limit the power of such powerful companies (which are involved in broader sectors, like defense, health, etc.). We need more and better accountability and also make visible how big companies (as big Pharma did) are influencing through lobby, research and "philanthropy" the public agendas and apply the experience from other sector, like public health and the environment. Happy to continue the dialogue off list. R Renata Avila *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* renata.avila at webfoundation.org *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA* *| * *www.webfoundation.org* * | Twitter: @webfoundation* On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:52 PM, James Gannon wrote: > No because the auction funds are also bounded by ICANN mission. > > > > I think that we should trust academics to be able to conduct research in > an independent manner, that we need to stop looking at the GAFA conspiracy > theories and that we shouldn’t sully those academics who are working on > critical areas of research for us by claiming that once they are ever > ‘tainted’ by corporate funding that they should forever have to walk around > with a a Google/FB/etc disclaimer on every word they write or talk they > give or opinion they express. > > > > *From:* Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org] > *Sent:* 13 July 2017 20:31 > > *To:* James Gannon > *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro ; Jeremy Malcolm < > jmalcolm at eff.org>; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < < > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league > as big oil and big tobacco > > > > Well, there is more: > > > > The proceeds from New gTLD Program auctions, *which will total more than > $230 million, are being reserved.* The multistakeholder community will > develop proposals for how these proceeds could be distributed. A > community-based drafting team is currently working on a charter for a > Cross-Community Working Group that will create recommendations for Board > consideration. > > > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-07-28-en > > > > My point: > > > > - Google funds everything, especially advocacy and research in poor > countries. > > - If not google, it is Facebook. > > - That harms legitimacy. > > > > Funds are really scarce for research, advocacy and policy. > > > > Meanwhile, ICANN = 230 million plus 70 million reserves. > > > > What if we advocate for those funds to *support public interest research*, > via a Foundation or similar, instead of Google (or other companies) funding > research. > > > > Is it clear now? > > > > R > > > Renata Avila > > *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* > > renata.avila at webfoundation.org > > *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA* *| * > *www.webfoundation.org* * | Twitter: > @webfoundation* > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:21 PM, James Gannon > wrote: > > The ICANN reserve fund is designed to keep ICANN running in the event of > financial distress and is not subject to any external use outside of ICANN, > and even if it was it would still be bound by ICANNs mission. > > Im not seeing the relationship to the current discussion at all. > > > > -James > > > > *From:* Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org] > *Sent:* 13 July 2017 20:19 > *To:* James Gannon > *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro ; Jeremy Malcolm < > jmalcolm at eff.org>; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < < > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league > as big oil and big tobacco > > > > Its reserve fund. > > > > It could be modified, any time, to support broader areas... > > > > Figures in USD (millions) Page 9. > > > > Link: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy17-unaud > ited-financials-31mar17-en.pdf > > > > R. > > > Renata Avila > > *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* > > renata.avila at webfoundation.org > > *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA* *| * > *www.webfoundation.org* * | Twitter: > @webfoundation* > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:09 PM, James Gannon > wrote: > > Can you elaborate on this piece? What ICANN money, ICANN does some very > limited funding of research but doesn’t fund anything in the area of > advocacy, and there is very little research that is within ICANNs mission > anyway. > > > > -J > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists > .bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Renata Avila > *Sent:* 13 July 2017 20:05 > *To:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro > *Cc:* Jeremy Malcolm ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > < > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league > as big oil and big tobacco > > > > I second Renata. > > > > Our research and advocacy space is suffering from a funding problem and it > is harming its credibility. It will be great to have a larger pool of funds > supporting our efforts, which are becoming more mainstream and relevant for > the next 50 years (especially for developing countries). The production of > research is extremely concentrated and, as austerity is rampant all over > the World, State funding to research is shrinking by the day even for > developed countries at the same pace as tax evasion (or elusion) (Google is > not guilt free in this area http://fortune.com/2016/0 > 3/11/apple-google-taxes-eu/) > > > > And in small countries, priorities of both governments and private sector > to support research support traditional areas, such as health or education. > Certainly, local funds are not supporting local advocacy efforts for > privacy, net neutrality, etc. > > > > I think the problem is deeper and I think that, in order to continue our > work and efforts with impartiality and credibility, we need a coordinated > effort to get a diverse pool of donors and ways towards sustainability. I > think the comparisons of Big Oil funding Greenpeace, when we talk about > giants like Facebook or Google, is valid now. > > > > What about all the ICANN money? Will it be enough to fund all global and > local advocacy and at least part of the relevant research? A global fund? > Crowdfunding for advocacy and more pressure on governments for research? > > > > R > > > > > > > Renata Avila > > *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* > > renata.avila at webfoundation.org > > *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA* *| * > *www.webfoundation.org* * | Twitter: > @webfoundation* > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro > wrote: > > Yes it does. > > Unless they are transparent about it and clear about it not interfering > with their research ethics. > > > > In the public education system in developing countries it is quite common > to see funding being misused. Researchers who get money from international > organizations, even some national ones, using public universities to > advance an agenda. And yes, this can be sometimes an astroturfing exercise. > > > > Which is why access and production of knowledge needs to be always > transparent and public. > > > > Unfortunately most of internet policy has not waken up to this yet. I > wonder if it ever will. > > > > Em 13/07/2017 15:09, "Jeremy Malcolm" escreveu: > > But here's an article putting the other side of the story: > > http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 > > We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too. Does that mean that whatever > work they do for the rest of their careers is tainted by the few thousand > they received to support their living expenses as an EFF fellow? > > On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote: > > Google has spent millions funding academic research in the US and Europe > to try to influence > public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog has claimed. > > Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that appear to > support the technology company’s business interests and defend against > regulatory challenges such as antitrust and anti-piracy, the US-based > Campaign for Accountability (CfA) said in a report > > . > > “Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to influence > policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens, CfA executive director. > > ................ > > Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half of the cases > and in the rest of the cases funded indirectly by groups or institutions > supported by Google, the CfA said. Authors, who were paid between $5,000 > and $400,000 (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of > their funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases directly > funded by Google, according to the report. > > ........... > > “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour is exposed, it invariably points the > finger at someone else,” said Stevens. “Instead of deflecting blame, Google > should address its record of academic astroturfing, which puts it in the > same league as big oil and big tobacco > .” > > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google-mi > llions-academic-research-influence-opinion > > As we know Google has recently been fined $ 2.7 billion for > anti-competitive practices by the EU regulator, which only means that in > all countries that are too weak to take on google (or benefit from its > profits, meaning the US) Google remains in violation of competition (and > many other) laws..... All this Google funded research and advocacy, of dont > regulate the Internet (read, Internet companies), are playing a dangerous > game, seriously compromising public interest. > > It is time we declare the honeymoon of civil society and academic love for > digital global corporations over. They are today like big oil companies -- > no doubt the latter provide what is still the main energy resource that > keeps our societies ticking but in the bargain they very often, and > systemically, indulge in stuff that needs academics and NGOs to be watching > against. It is pretty difficult to undertake such watching while taking > considerable money from them. It is a simple truism, but the digital sector > tends to ignore it. > > parminder > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm > > Senior Global Policy Analyst > > Electronic Frontier Foundation > > https://eff.org > > jmalcolm at eff.org > > > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > > > > Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt > > PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james at cyberinvasion.net Thu Jul 13 16:02:18 2017 From: james at cyberinvasion.net (James Gannon) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 20:02:18 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Agree on the final point for sure and 100% on transparency. From: Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org] Sent: 13 July 2017 21:00 To: James Gannon Cc: Renata Aquino Ribeiro ; Jeremy Malcolm ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < Subject: Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco I respectfully disagree on your restrictive interpretation of ICANN mission. I also disagree on relaxing accountability on who funds academic research and its impact. On the contrary, I think limiting our work to some sort of transparency is insufficient. Strict accountability is needed to limit the power of such powerful companies (which are involved in broader sectors, like defense, health, etc.). We need more and better accountability and also make visible how big companies (as big Pharma did) are influencing through lobby, research and "philanthropy" the public agendas and apply the experience from other sector, like public health and the environment. Happy to continue the dialogue off list. R Renata Avila Senior Digital Rights Advisor renata.avila at webfoundation.org 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:52 PM, James Gannon > wrote: No because the auction funds are also bounded by ICANN mission. I think that we should trust academics to be able to conduct research in an independent manner, that we need to stop looking at the GAFA conspiracy theories and that we shouldn’t sully those academics who are working on critical areas of research for us by claiming that once they are ever ‘tainted’ by corporate funding that they should forever have to walk around with a a Google/FB/etc disclaimer on every word they write or talk they give or opinion they express. From: Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org] Sent: 13 July 2017 20:31 To: James Gannon > Cc: Renata Aquino Ribeiro >; Jeremy Malcolm >; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco Well, there is more: The proceeds from New gTLD Program auctions, which will total more than $230 million, are being reserved. The multistakeholder community will develop proposals for how these proceeds could be distributed. A community-based drafting team is currently working on a charter for a Cross-Community Working Group that will create recommendations for Board consideration. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-07-28-en My point: - Google funds everything, especially advocacy and research in poor countries. - If not google, it is Facebook. - That harms legitimacy. Funds are really scarce for research, advocacy and policy. Meanwhile, ICANN = 230 million plus 70 million reserves. What if we advocate for those funds to support public interest research, via a Foundation or similar, instead of Google (or other companies) funding research. Is it clear now? R Renata Avila Senior Digital Rights Advisor renata.avila at webfoundation.org 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:21 PM, James Gannon > wrote: The ICANN reserve fund is designed to keep ICANN running in the event of financial distress and is not subject to any external use outside of ICANN, and even if it was it would still be bound by ICANNs mission. Im not seeing the relationship to the current discussion at all. -James From: Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org] Sent: 13 July 2017 20:19 To: James Gannon > Cc: Renata Aquino Ribeiro >; Jeremy Malcolm >; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco Its reserve fund. It could be modified, any time, to support broader areas... Figures in USD (millions) Page 9. Link: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy17-unaudited-financials-31mar17-en.pdf R. Renata Avila Senior Digital Rights Advisor renata.avila at webfoundation.org 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:09 PM, James Gannon > wrote: Can you elaborate on this piece? What ICANN money, ICANN does some very limited funding of research but doesn’t fund anything in the area of advocacy, and there is very little research that is within ICANNs mission anyway. -J From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Renata Avila Sent: 13 July 2017 20:05 To: Renata Aquino Ribeiro > Cc: Jeremy Malcolm >; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco I second Renata. Our research and advocacy space is suffering from a funding problem and it is harming its credibility. It will be great to have a larger pool of funds supporting our efforts, which are becoming more mainstream and relevant for the next 50 years (especially for developing countries). The production of research is extremely concentrated and, as austerity is rampant all over the World, State funding to research is shrinking by the day even for developed countries at the same pace as tax evasion (or elusion) (Google is not guilt free in this area http://fortune.com/2016/03/11/apple-google-taxes-eu/) And in small countries, priorities of both governments and private sector to support research support traditional areas, such as health or education. Certainly, local funds are not supporting local advocacy efforts for privacy, net neutrality, etc. I think the problem is deeper and I think that, in order to continue our work and efforts with impartiality and credibility, we need a coordinated effort to get a diverse pool of donors and ways towards sustainability. I think the comparisons of Big Oil funding Greenpeace, when we talk about giants like Facebook or Google, is valid now. What about all the ICANN money? Will it be enough to fund all global and local advocacy and at least part of the relevant research? A global fund? Crowdfunding for advocacy and more pressure on governments for research? R Renata Avila Senior Digital Rights Advisor renata.avila at webfoundation.org 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro > wrote: Yes it does. Unless they are transparent about it and clear about it not interfering with their research ethics. In the public education system in developing countries it is quite common to see funding being misused. Researchers who get money from international organizations, even some national ones, using public universities to advance an agenda. And yes, this can be sometimes an astroturfing exercise. Which is why access and production of knowledge needs to be always transparent and public. Unfortunately most of internet policy has not waken up to this yet. I wonder if it ever will. Em 13/07/2017 15:09, "Jeremy Malcolm" > escreveu: But here's an article putting the other side of the story: http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too. Does that mean that whatever work they do for the rest of their careers is tainted by the few thousand they received to support their living expenses as an EFF fellow? On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote: Google has spent millions funding academic research in the US and Europe to try to influence public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog has claimed. Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that appear to support the technology company’s business interests and defend against regulatory challenges such as antitrust and anti-piracy, the US-based Campaign for Accountability (CfA) said in a report. “Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to influence policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens, CfA executive director. ................ Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half of the cases and in the rest of the cases funded indirectly by groups or institutions supported by Google, the CfA said. Authors, who were paid between $5,000 and $400,000 (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of their funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases directly funded by Google, according to the report. ........... “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour is exposed, it invariably points the finger at someone else,” said Stevens. “Instead of deflecting blame, Google should address its record of academic astroturfing, which puts it in the same league as big oil and big tobacco.” https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google-millions-academic-research-influence-opinion As we know Google has recently been fined $ 2.7 billion for anti-competitive practices by the EU regulator, which only means that in all countries that are too weak to take on google (or benefit from its profits, meaning the US) Google remains in violation of competition (and many other) laws..... All this Google funded research and advocacy, of dont regulate the Internet (read, Internet companies), are playing a dangerous game, seriously compromising public interest. It is time we declare the honeymoon of civil society and academic love for digital global corporations over. They are today like big oil companies -- no doubt the latter provide what is still the main energy resource that keeps our societies ticking but in the bargain they very often, and systemically, indulge in stuff that needs academics and NGOs to be watching against. It is pretty difficult to undertake such watching while taking considerable money from them. It is a simple truism, but the digital sector tends to ignore it. parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 ____________________________________________________________ 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 sheetal at gp-digital.org Tue Jul 4 07:04:34 2017 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 12:04:34 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] New podcast series on the big questions facing the digital environment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Just to let you know that episode five of our In beta podcast is now live . In this episode, we examine questions of civil society sustainability in the global South with three voices from civil society and the donor community: Julie Broome, director of the Ariadne donor network; Andrew Puddephatt, executive chair of GPD’s advisory board; and Khilen Nathwani of the Kays Foundation. Listen to it here: http://www.gp-digital.org/multimedia/in-beta- episode-5-is-civil-society-in-the-global-south-sustainable/ And explore the In beta series here: https://soundcloud.com/in_beta Best, Sheetal. On 11 May 2017 at 17:00, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > Just in case it's of interest, episode 4 of our new podcast series > *In beta* is now live: https://soundcloud.com/i > n_beta/are-we-missing-the-bigger-picture-behind-network-disruptions-ep4 > > This episode, recorded at the Internet Freedom Forum in Lagos, Nigeria, > looks at the bigger picture behind network disruptions (or internet > shutdowns as they're more commonly known), with contributions from Deji > Olukotun from Access Now, Julie Owono from Internet San Frontiers and > Arthur Gwagwa from Strathmore University and the Open Technology Fund. > > Thanks for the positive feedback on the series so far. As ever please feel > free to share with anyone who might be interested; and let me know if you > have any questions about the series, or would like to be involved. > > Thank you! > > Best - > Sheetal. > > On 5 April 2017 at 14:28, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> In case of interest, episode 3 of this series *In beta* is now live: >> http://www.gp-digital.org/multimedia/in-beta-episode- >> 3-can-a-business-be-a-human-rights-defender/ >> >> *In the latest episode, GPD’s Executive Director interviews Michael >> Samway, former Vice-President and Deputy General Counsel for Yahoo! and >> current adjunct professor at Georgetown University, posing the question: >> can a business be a human rights defender?* >> >> Thanks for the positive feedback on the series so far. As ever please >> feel free to share with anyone who might be interested! >> Best >> >> Sheetal. >> >> On 16 March 2017 at 13:12, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> In case of interest, just a heads up that episode 2 of this series *In >>> beta* is now live: https://soundcloud.com/i >>> n_beta/in-beta-episode-2-how-should-human-rights-defenders-a >>> pproach-cybercrime >>> >>> In it, we ask, "how should human rights defenders approach cybercrime"? >>> >>> As ever please feel free to share with anyone who might be interested! >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal. >>> >>> >>> On 22 February 2017 at 21:38, Mishi Choudhary >> > wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Sheetal. Great effort! Podcast is one of my favorite content >>>> consumption tool. >>>> >>>> On 02/22/2017 12:36 PM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>> > Dear all, >>>> > >>>> > /[with apologies for cross-posting]/ >>>> > >>>> > I am writing to share a just launched a new podcast series >>>> > >>> series-in-beta/> >>>> > – called *In beta* – which will examine some of the biggest questions >>>> > facing the digital policy environment. >>>> > >>>> > Our aim in creating the series is to create an informal space for >>>> > critical discussion and debate on a range of issues, cutting across >>>> > traditional policy silos. More details on the series concept and >>>> design >>>> > are available >>>> > here: http://www.gp-digital.org/news/introducing-our-new-podcast-s >>>> eries-in-beta/ >>>> > >>> series-in-beta/> >>>> > >>>> > The series will be hosted by GPD's executive director, Charles >>>> Bradley. >>>> > In the first episode of the series – available now, here >>>> > >>> olicymaking-stuck-in-the-19th-century/> >>>> > – he interviews GovLab co-founder Stefaan Verhulst, asking the >>>> question: >>>> > *'Is policymaking stuck in the 19th century?'* >>>> > >>>> > We'd love to know what you think about the episode and the series >>>> > concept more generally. We're planning to record many more podcasts >>>> over >>>> > the coming months, and are open to ideas – so if you'd like to >>>> suggest a >>>> > guest, a topic or a question to discuss, drop an email to >>>> > charles at gp-digital.org . >>>> > >>>> > Please don't hesitate to let us know if you have any questions. We'd >>>> > also be hugely grateful if you could share this on your networks and >>>> > channels – and if you have any other ideas for how we could get the >>>> word >>>> > out, please let us know. >>>> > >>>> > For reference, the links for sharing are: >>>> > >>>> > * *Blog post introducing the series and >>>> > episode*: http://www.gp-digital.org/news >>>> /introducing-our-new-podcast-series-in-beta/ >>>> > >>> -series-in-beta/> >>>> > * *The episode >>>> > itself*: http://www.gp-digital.org/mult >>>> imedia/in-beta-episode-1-is-policymaking-stuck-in-the-19th-century/ >>>> > >>> policymaking-stuck-in-the-19th-century/> >>>> > * *GPD's Soundcloud >>>> > page*: https://soundcloud.com/globalpartnersdigital >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > *Suggested tweets: * >>>> > >>>> > A new podcast series, In beta, examines the big questions facing the >>>> > digital environment. Find out >>>> > more: http://www.gp-digital.org/news/introducing-our-new-podcast-s >>>> eries-in-beta/ >>>> > >>> series-in-beta/> >>>> > >>>> > Is policymaking stuck in the 19th century? A new podcast with >>>> > @CBradleyTweets and @sverhulst explores the >>>> > question: http://www.gp-digital.org/mult >>>> imedia/in-beta-episode-1-is-policymaking-stuck-in-the-19th-century/ >>>> > >>> olicymaking-stuck-in-the-19th-century/> >>>> > >>>> > Best! >>>> > Sheetal. >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > * >>>> > * >>>> > * >>>> > * >>>> > *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 >>>> > >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Warm Regards >>>> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >>>> Legal Director >>>> Software Freedom Law Center >>>> 1995 Broadway Floor 17| New York, NY-10023 >>>> Direct: +1-212-461-1912| Main: +1-212-461-1901| Fax: +1-212-580-0898 >>>> www.softwarefreedom.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> President and Legal Director >>>> SFLC.IN >>>> K-9, Second Floor, Jangpura Extn.| New Delhi-110014 >>>> Main: +91-11-43587126 | Fax: +91-11-24323530 >>>> www.sflc.in >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The information contained in this email message is intended only for use >>>> of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message >>>> is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to >>>> deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any >>>> dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly >>>> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please >>>> immediately notify us by email, help at softwarefreedom.org, and destroy >>>> the original message. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> *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 <+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 <+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 raquino at gmail.com Thu Jul 13 17:01:05 2017 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 18:01:05 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 for Renata (I know this can be confusing, just remember both Renatas are right :) ) And other fora like Opencon, Force11... have discussed extensively the cycle of research (focusing on transparency on funding and accountability and openness). Accountability does not only go through sharing funders and their expectations but the way data is gathered, used and shared. Hence the FAIR Data Principles > https://www.force11.org/group/fairgroup/fairprinciples The problem is that research accountability sources (i.e. curriculum databases, publications impact factor etc.) are rarely translated globally. The Brazilian Lattes will measure differently than ORCID or the Portuguese database as well as funding sources acknowledgements On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:02 PM, James Gannon wrote: > Agree on the final point for sure and 100% on transparency. > > > > From: Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org] > Sent: 13 July 2017 21:00 > > > To: James Gannon > Cc: Renata Aquino Ribeiro ; Jeremy Malcolm > ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as > big oil and big tobacco > > > > I respectfully disagree on your restrictive interpretation of ICANN mission. > > > > I also disagree on relaxing accountability on who funds academic research > and its impact. On the contrary, I think limiting our work to some sort of > transparency is insufficient. Strict accountability is needed to limit the > power of such powerful companies (which are involved in broader sectors, > like defense, health, etc.). > > > > We need more and better accountability and also make visible how big > companies (as big Pharma did) are influencing through lobby, research and > "philanthropy" the public agendas and apply the experience from other > sector, like public health and the environment. > > > > Happy to continue the dialogue off list. > > > > R > > > Renata Avila > > Senior Digital Rights Advisor > > renata.avila at webfoundation.org > > 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA | > www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:52 PM, James Gannon > wrote: > > No because the auction funds are also bounded by ICANN mission. > > > > I think that we should trust academics to be able to conduct research in an > independent manner, that we need to stop looking at the GAFA conspiracy > theories and that we shouldn’t sully those academics who are working on > critical areas of research for us by claiming that once they are ever > ‘tainted’ by corporate funding that they should forever have to walk around > with a a Google/FB/etc disclaimer on every word they write or talk they give > or opinion they express. > > > > From: Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org] > Sent: 13 July 2017 20:31 > > > To: James Gannon > Cc: Renata Aquino Ribeiro ; Jeremy Malcolm > ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as > big oil and big tobacco > > > > Well, there is more: > > > > The proceeds from New gTLD Program auctions, which will total more than $230 > million, are being reserved. The multistakeholder community will develop > proposals for how these proceeds could be distributed. A community-based > drafting team is currently working on a charter for a Cross-Community > Working Group that will create recommendations for Board consideration. > > > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-07-28-en > > > > My point: > > > > - Google funds everything, especially advocacy and research in poor > countries. > > - If not google, it is Facebook. > > - That harms legitimacy. > > > > Funds are really scarce for research, advocacy and policy. > > > > Meanwhile, ICANN = 230 million plus 70 million reserves. > > > > What if we advocate for those funds to support public interest research, via > a Foundation or similar, instead of Google (or other companies) funding > research. > > > > Is it clear now? > > > > R > > > Renata Avila > > Senior Digital Rights Advisor > > renata.avila at webfoundation.org > > 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA | > www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:21 PM, James Gannon > wrote: > > The ICANN reserve fund is designed to keep ICANN running in the event of > financial distress and is not subject to any external use outside of ICANN, > and even if it was it would still be bound by ICANNs mission. > > Im not seeing the relationship to the current discussion at all. > > > > -James > > > > From: Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org] > Sent: 13 July 2017 20:19 > To: James Gannon > Cc: Renata Aquino Ribeiro ; Jeremy Malcolm > ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < > > > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as > big oil and big tobacco > > > > Its reserve fund. > > > > It could be modified, any time, to support broader areas... > > > > Figures in USD (millions) Page 9. > > > > Link: > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy17-unaudited-financials-31mar17-en.pdf > > > > R. > > > Renata Avila > > Senior Digital Rights Advisor > > renata.avila at webfoundation.org > > 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA | > www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:09 PM, James Gannon > wrote: > > Can you elaborate on this piece? What ICANN money, ICANN does some very > limited funding of research but doesn’t fund anything in the area of > advocacy, and there is very little research that is within ICANNs mission > anyway. > > > > -J > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Renata Avila > Sent: 13 July 2017 20:05 > To: Renata Aquino Ribeiro > Cc: Jeremy Malcolm ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as > big oil and big tobacco > > > > I second Renata. > > > > Our research and advocacy space is suffering from a funding problem and it > is harming its credibility. It will be great to have a larger pool of funds > supporting our efforts, which are becoming more mainstream and relevant for > the next 50 years (especially for developing countries). The production of > research is extremely concentrated and, as austerity is rampant all over the > World, State funding to research is shrinking by the day even for developed > countries at the same pace as tax evasion (or elusion) (Google is not guilt > free in this area http://fortune.com/2016/03/11/apple-google-taxes-eu/) > > > > And in small countries, priorities of both governments and private sector to > support research support traditional areas, such as health or education. > Certainly, local funds are not supporting local advocacy efforts for > privacy, net neutrality, etc. > > > > I think the problem is deeper and I think that, in order to continue our > work and efforts with impartiality and credibility, we need a coordinated > effort to get a diverse pool of donors and ways towards sustainability. I > think the comparisons of Big Oil funding Greenpeace, when we talk about > giants like Facebook or Google, is valid now. > > > > What about all the ICANN money? Will it be enough to fund all global and > local advocacy and at least part of the relevant research? A global fund? > Crowdfunding for advocacy and more pressure on governments for research? > > > > R > > > > > > > Renata Avila > > Senior Digital Rights Advisor > > renata.avila at webfoundation.org > > 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA | > www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro > wrote: > > Yes it does. > > Unless they are transparent about it and clear about it not interfering with > their research ethics. > > > > In the public education system in developing countries it is quite common to > see funding being misused. Researchers who get money from international > organizations, even some national ones, using public universities to advance > an agenda. And yes, this can be sometimes an astroturfing exercise. > > > > Which is why access and production of knowledge needs to be always > transparent and public. > > > > Unfortunately most of internet policy has not waken up to this yet. I wonder > if it ever will. > > > > Em 13/07/2017 15:09, "Jeremy Malcolm" escreveu: > > But here's an article putting the other side of the story: > > http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 > > We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too. Does that mean that whatever > work they do for the rest of their careers is tainted by the few thousand > they received to support their living expenses as an EFF fellow? > > On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote: > > Google has spent millions funding academic research in the US and Europe to > try to influence public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog has claimed. > > Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that appear to > support the technology company’s business interests and defend against > regulatory challenges such as antitrust and anti-piracy, the US-based > Campaign for Accountability (CfA) said in a report. > > “Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to influence > policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens, CfA executive director. > > ................ > > Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half of the cases and > in the rest of the cases funded indirectly by groups or institutions > supported by Google, the CfA said. Authors, who were paid between $5,000 and > $400,000 (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of their > funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases directly funded by > Google, according to the report. > > ........... > > “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour is exposed, it invariably points the finger > at someone else,” said Stevens. “Instead of deflecting blame, Google should > address its record of academic astroturfing, which puts it in the same > league as big oil and big tobacco.” > > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google-millions-academic-research-influence-opinion > > As we know Google has recently been fined $ 2.7 billion for anti-competitive > practices by the EU regulator, which only means that in all countries that > are too weak to take on google (or benefit from its profits, meaning the US) > Google remains in violation of competition (and many other) laws..... All > this Google funded research and advocacy, of dont regulate the Internet > (read, Internet companies), are playing a dangerous game, seriously > compromising public interest. > > It is time we declare the honeymoon of civil society and academic love for > digital global corporations over. They are today like big oil companies -- > no doubt the latter provide what is still the main energy resource that > keeps our societies ticking but in the bargain they very often, and > systemically, indulge in stuff that needs academics and NGOs to be watching > against. It is pretty difficult to undertake such watching while taking > considerable money from them. It is a simple truism, but the digital sector > tends to ignore it. > > parminder > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm > > Senior Global Policy Analyst > > Electronic Frontier Foundation > > https://eff.org > > jmalcolm at eff.org > > > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > > > > Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt > > PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > From nashton at consensus.pro Thu Jul 13 17:41:56 2017 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 23:41:56 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The CFA is also not as transparent as it urges everyone else to be, it has refused to say who funds it in the past, has no details of who funds it on its website, either - though Oracle confirmed at one point it was one of its funders. > On 13 Jul 2017, at 20:08, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > But here's an article putting the other side of the story: > > http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 > > We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too. Does that mean that whatever work they do for the rest of their careers is tainted by the few thousand they received to support their living expenses as an EFF fellow? > > On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote: >> Google has spent millions funding academic research in the US and Europe to try to influence public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog has claimed. >> >> Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that appear to support the technology company’s business interests and defend against regulatory challenges such as antitrust and anti-piracy, the US-based Campaign for Accountability (CfA) said in a report . >> >> “Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to influence policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens, CfA executive director. >> >> ................ >> Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half of the cases and in the rest of the cases funded indirectly by groups or institutions supported by Google, the CfA said. Authors, who were paid between $5,000 and $400,000 (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of their funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases directly funded by Google, according to the report. >> >> ........... >> >> “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour is exposed, it invariably points the finger at someone else,” said Stevens. “Instead of deflecting blame, Google should address its record of academic astroturfing, which puts it in the same league as big oil and big tobacco .” >> >> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google-millions-academic-research-influence-opinion >> As we know Google has recently been fined $ 2.7 billion for anti-competitive practices by the EU regulator, which only means that in all countries that are too weak to take on google (or benefit from its profits, meaning the US) Google remains in violation of competition (and many other) laws..... All this Google funded research and advocacy, of dont regulate the Internet (read, Internet companies), are playing a dangerous game, seriously compromising public interest. >> >> It is time we declare the honeymoon of civil society and academic love for digital global corporations over. They are today like big oil companies -- no doubt the latter provide what is still the main energy resource that keeps our societies ticking but in the bargain they very often, and systemically, indulge in stuff that needs academics and NGOs to be watching against. It is pretty difficult to undertake such watching while taking considerable money from them. It is a simple truism, but the digital sector tends to ignore it. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Global Policy Analyst > Electronic Frontier Foundation > https://eff.org > jmalcolm at eff.org > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > > Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt > PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daveb at dslprime.com Thu Jul 13 18:18:56 2017 From: daveb at dslprime.com (Dave Burstein) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 18:18:56 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The data is excellent, "Astroturf" is not. It's a very well done study with enough detail I'm going to report something like "Google spending millions to buy influence in DC & Europe." IT's also a convenient list of papers on key topics, some of which I missed. It's important to know who is funding what and to doublecheck with unbiased sources. But the Astroturf assertion is offbase. I know about two-thirds of the authors, the vast bulk of whom are legitimate scholars and similar. I'd retain the title "Astroturf" for people and organizations whose primary work is promoting the policies of the companies paying them. Astroturf is a plague in D.C. Some are organizations created by pr agencies; others are "consulting firms; some call themselves "think tanks." While some of them do good work, most of it should be ignored. Reporters never should use any of their work without strong confirmation. Dave On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > The CFA is also not as transparent as it urges everyone else to be, it has > refused to say who funds it in the past, has no details of who funds it on > its website, either - though Oracle confirmed at one point it was one of > its funders. > > > On 13 Jul 2017, at 20:08, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > But here's an article putting the other side of the story: > > http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 > > We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too. Does that mean that whatever > work they do for the rest of their careers is tainted by the few thousand > they received to support their living expenses as an EFF fellow? > > On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote: > > Google has spent millions funding academic research in the US and Europe > to try to influence > public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog has claimed. > > Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that appear to > support the technology company’s business interests and defend against > regulatory challenges such as antitrust and anti-piracy, the US-based > Campaign for Accountability (CfA) said in a report > > . > > “Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to influence > policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens, CfA executive director. > > ................ > > Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half of the cases > and in the rest of the cases funded indirectly by groups or institutions > supported by Google, the CfA said. Authors, who were paid between $5,000 > and $400,000 (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of > their funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases directly > funded by Google, according to the report. > > ........... > “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour is exposed, it invariably points the > finger at someone else,” said Stevens. “Instead of deflecting blame, Google > should address its record of academic astroturfing, which puts it in the > same league as big oil and big tobacco > .” > > > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google- > millions-academic-research-influence-opinion > > As we know Google has recently been fined $ 2.7 billion for > anti-competitive practices by the EU regulator, which only means that in > all countries that are too weak to take on google (or benefit from its > profits, meaning the US) Google remains in violation of competition (and > many other) laws..... All this Google funded research and advocacy, of dont > regulate the Internet (read, Internet companies), are playing a dangerous > game, seriously compromising public interest. > > It is time we declare the honeymoon of civil society and academic love for > digital global corporations over. They are today like big oil companies -- > no doubt the latter provide what is still the main energy resource that > keeps our societies ticking but in the bargain they very often, and > systemically, indulge in stuff that needs academics and NGOs to be watching > against. It is pretty difficult to undertake such watching while taking > considerable money from them. It is a simple truism, but the digital sector > tends to ignore it. > > parminder > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Global Policy Analyst > Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm at eff.org > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <(415)%20436-9333> > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > > Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt > PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Editor, Fast Net News, WIreless One.news, Net Policy News and DSL Prime Author with Jennie Bourne DSL (Wiley) and Web Video: Making It Great, Getting It Noticed (Peachpit) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Thu Jul 13 18:23:19 2017 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 00:23:19 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <74261741-BA0D-466E-BD5C-3731BC06189F@fastmail.net> I agree with the points about AstroTurf, though 'well done' is questionable given the number of people in the study who are listed as being funded that weren't. - Sent from VMware Boxer Original Quoted context has been removed as per policy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jul 16 09:01:12 2017 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 18:31:12 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Friday 14 July 2017 03:11 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > The CFA is also not as transparent as it urges everyone else to be, it > has refused to say who funds it in the past, has no details of who > funds it on its website, either - though Oracle confirmed at one point > it was one of its funders. It is certainly very odd that CfA (Campaign for Accountability) with the name and mandate it has, and which alleges Google funds academics but hides that information, while using the outcome research for its private purposes, itself refuses to divulge its donors.. I find it unacceptable. In fact I wrote to them questioning them on this strange policy and asking to let us know their list of donors. They responded, quite promptly, that they do not divulge their donors and "their work speaks for itself". I will presently forward our exchange to this elist. Meanwhile, we still do need to take the information that CfA divulges very seriously, for the implication it has for our sector. The information shows how their funding peaked when they were caught in regulatory problems. And of course we know from our own experience how google has gone around the world setting up Internet policy centres, supporting existing ones, and placing google policy fellows. It is never black and white. It depends on the total impact that a corporation is able to control in an area of its private interest. It depends on the extent to which it is into legal/ regulatory trouble, and can be considered as an offender in this respect, and such things. On all these counts, IMHO, Google has crossed the redline, big time and long ago, and we need to assess its funding of this sector, both civil society and academic. This must be discussed in these spaces. Google participates, indeed leads, many government transparency projects... That should also mean that they should themselves be transparent in what is supposed to be their public interest work Unless their academic and CS funding is not public interest but private interest work, which in that case is ipso facto problematic. We should be able to get up and ask this obvious question in numerous panels that we - as in civil society - sits alongside Google. I do, however, feel that the broad brush that the report applies to indiscriminately name academics that may at any time may have accepted google funds for some projects is problematic, and should have been avoided. But that does not serve to excuse those cases, which is a very huge number, where it seems that funds were directly accepted in areas in which google in involved in regularly trouble - current or possible future ones, and often such funding was not disclosed. As we accept that such reports should not take extreme black and white approach to condemn all kinds of corporate funding, similarly we as civil society groups, eager to watch out to protect public interest, cannot take a similar blanket view that everything is well with google and other cooperate funding. parminder > > >> On 13 Jul 2017, at 20:08, Jeremy Malcolm > > wrote: >> >> But here's an article putting the other side of the story: >> >> http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 >> >> We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too. Does that mean that >> whatever work they do for the rest of their careers is tainted by the >> few thousand they received to support their living expenses as an EFF >> fellow? >> >> On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote: >>> >>> Google has spent millions funding academic research in the >>> US and Europe >>> to try to >>> influence public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog has >>> claimed. >>> >>> Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that >>> appear to support the technology company’s business >>> interests and defend against regulatory challenges such as >>> antitrust and anti-piracy, the US-based Campaign for >>> Accountability (CfA) said in a report >>> . >>> >>> “Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to >>> influence policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens, >>> CfA executive director. >>> >>> ................ >>> >>> Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half >>> of the cases and in the rest of the cases funded indirectly >>> by groups or institutions supported by Google, the CfA said. >>> Authors, who were paid between $5,000 and $400,000 >>> (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of >>> their funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases >>> directly funded by Google, according to the report. >>> >>> ........... >>> >>> “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour is exposed, it invariably >>> points the finger at someone else,” said Stevens. “Instead >>> of deflecting blame, Google should address its record of >>> academic astroturfing, which puts it in the same league as >>> big oil and big tobacco >>> .” >>> >>> >>> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google-millions-academic-research-influence-opinion >>> >>> As we know Google has recently been fined $ 2.7 billion for >>> anti-competitive practices by the EU regulator, which only means >>> that in all countries that are too weak to take on google (or >>> benefit from its profits, meaning the US) Google remains in >>> violation of competition (and many other) laws..... All this Google >>> funded research and advocacy, of dont regulate the Internet (read, >>> Internet companies), are playing a dangerous game, seriously >>> compromising public interest. >>> >>> It is time we declare the honeymoon of civil society and academic >>> love for digital global corporations over. They are today like big >>> oil companies -- no doubt the latter provide what is still the main >>> energy resource that keeps our societies ticking but in the bargain >>> they very often, and systemically, indulge in stuff that needs >>> academics and NGOs to be watching against. It is pretty difficult to >>> undertake such watching while taking considerable money from them. >>> It is a simple truism, but the digital sector tends to ignore it. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Global Policy Analyst >> Electronic Frontier Foundation >> https://eff.org >> jmalcolm at eff.org >> >> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 >> >> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: >> >> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt >> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 Sun Jul 16 09:04:35 2017 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 18:34:35 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: Funding info for CfA In-Reply-To: <7d8e9a4b-9db7-eb0f-9dcb-2abfb41c1db0@itforchange.net> References: <7d8e9a4b-9db7-eb0f-9dcb-2abfb41c1db0@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4e6f462e-e16f-0972-8159-478b5e9361e3@itforchange.net> This is my recent exchange with the head of Campaign for Accountability. I tell him clearly that their policy of non disclosure of their donors is not at all fine. They do not explain why they do not disclose their funders.. parminder -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: Funding info for CfA Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 18:51:33 +0530 From: parminder To: Daniel Stevens Thanks Dan for your prompt response. It is much appreciated. While I still think it is useful to divulge donors, especially for this kind of work, I do greatly value your work. Best wishes for it. Meanwhile I will like to have your permission to share the below email from you on the public elist where I am having this discussion. parminder On Saturday 15 July 2017 06:10 PM, Daniel Stevens wrote: > > Good Morning, > > > Thanks for contacting us about our work. CfA does not disclose its > donors. We think our work speaks for itself. Over the past 18 > months, the Google Transparency Project has documented more than 425 > White House meetings by Google lobbyists, 250 revolving door hires > between Google and government and more than 325 academic papers paid > for by the company to help advance its policy interests. All of the > underlying data is published on the site, along with more than 40,000 > pages of Google emails with US government officials. The data in the > report has also been subject to analysis by The Wall Street Journal, > which cited the data in its own investigative article today. > > > Best, > > > Dan > > > --- > Daniel Stevens > Executive Director > Campaign for Accountability > 202.780.5750 (o) > http://campaignforaccountability.org/ > @Accountable_Org > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* parminder > *Sent:* Saturday, July 15, 2017 2:52:10 AM > *To:* Daniel Stevens > *Subject:* Funding info for CfA > > > Dear Madam/ Sir > > I think you do great work. But it looks more than a tad odd that an > organisation that seeks, and so actively too, accountability in public > life itself does not publish its annual report and funding sources on > its website. I am sure it must just have been an oversight, but will > you be able to share your annual funding statement with me. Thanks. > > Let me tell you the background of this request. I posted on an > Internet governance e-list the coverage of your story on how Google > funds so many academic reports in Internet policy space. A useful > discussion ensued. But someone pointed out that CfA itself does not > publicly disclose its funding sources. I agreed it was odd that it > doesnt. > > If you indeed are able to share your funding statement I will inform > all the skeptics of this fact. I myself work with an NGO and some > global civil society networks, and publishing our funding sources is > considered a simple necessity to have any credibility in this area. > > Thanks, for your great work, and look forward to an early response. > > Best regards > > parminder > > IT for Change (www.ITforChange.net) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike.oghia at gmail.com Sun Jul 16 09:13:40 2017 From: mike.oghia at gmail.com (Michael Oghia) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 15:13:40 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: Funding info for CfA In-Reply-To: <4e6f462e-e16f-0972-8159-478b5e9361e3@itforchange.net> References: <7d8e9a4b-9db7-eb0f-9dcb-2abfb41c1db0@itforchange.net> <4e6f462e-e16f-0972-8159-478b5e9361e3@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, Thanks for sharing this. I agree that it's odd they don't since they are an organization advocating for accountability – it is counterintuitive at best. Either way, thanks for investigating. Best, -Michael On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 3:04 PM, parminder wrote: > This is my recent exchange with the head of Campaign for Accountability. I > tell him clearly that their policy of non disclosure of their donors is not > at all fine. They do not explain why they do not disclose their funders.. > parminder > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: Funding info for CfA > Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 18:51:33 +0530 > From: parminder > To: Daniel Stevens > > > Thanks Dan for your prompt response. It is much appreciated. > > While I still think it is useful to divulge donors, especially for this > kind of work, I do greatly value your work. Best wishes for it. Meanwhile I > will like to have your permission to share the below email from you on the > public elist where I am having this discussion. parminder > > On Saturday 15 July 2017 06:10 PM, Daniel Stevens wrote: > > Good Morning, > > > Thanks for contacting us about our work. CfA does not disclose its > donors. We think our work speaks for itself. Over the past 18 months, > the Google Transparency Project has documented more than 425 White House > meetings by Google lobbyists, 250 revolving door hires between Google and > government and more than 325 academic papers paid for by the company to > help advance its policy interests. All of the underlying data is published > on the site, along with more than 40,000 pages of Google emails with US > government officials. The data in the report has also been subject to > analysis by The Wall Street Journal, which cited the data in its own > investigative article today. > > > Best, > > > Dan > > > --- > Daniel Stevens > Executive Director > Campaign for Accountability > 202.780.5750 (o) > http://campaignforaccountability.org/ > @Accountable_Org > > ------------------------------ > *From:* parminder > *Sent:* Saturday, July 15, 2017 2:52:10 AM > *To:* Daniel Stevens > *Subject:* Funding info for CfA > > > Dear Madam/ Sir > > I think you do great work. But it looks more than a tad odd that an > organisation that seeks, and so actively too, accountability in public life > itself does not publish its annual report and funding sources on its > website. I am sure it must just have been an oversight, but will you be > able to share your annual funding statement with me. Thanks. > > Let me tell you the background of this request. I posted on an Internet > governance e-list the coverage of your story on how Google funds so many > academic reports in Internet policy space. A useful discussion ensued. But > someone pointed out that CfA itself does not publicly disclose its funding > sources. I agreed it was odd that it doesnt. > > If you indeed are able to share your funding statement I will inform all > the skeptics of this fact. I myself work with an NGO and some global civil > society networks, and publishing our funding sources is considered a simple > necessity to have any credibility in this area. > > Thanks, for your great work, and look forward to an early response. > > Best regards > > parminder > > IT for Change (www.ITforChange.net) > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 Sun Jul 16 09:25:01 2017 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 18:55:01 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thursday 13 July 2017 11:38 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > But here's an article putting the other side of the story: > > http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 > > We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too. Does that mean that > whatever work they do for the rest of their careers is tainted by the > few thousand they received to support their living expenses as an EFF > fellow? I do not think so. But a huge amount of transparency must attend what these fellows work on, who sets their agenda, who shapes, vets, etc their outputs, and so on? Since you share EEF's experience with google fellows, let me ask you a direct question. A few NGOs where Google placed its fellows have told me in the past that Google closely vets final outcomes of any research from these fellows. Is it true by your experience/ knowledge? Meanwhile here is an old Washington Post's report of Google's funding related malfeasance, of pretty serious kind, including manipulating conferences, and influencing research and general thinktank outputs. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-transforming-power-and-politicsgoogle-once-disdainful-of-lobbying-now-a-master-of-washington-influence/2014/04/12/51648b92-b4d3-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html?utm_term=.fe86b3250d50 Not all these reports can be biased.... They had the following to say about google fellows (quoted without prejudice, since we are on the topic) Google “fellows” — young lawyers, writers and thinkers paid by the company — populate elite think tanks such as the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the New America Foundation. To critics, Google’s investments have effectively shifted the national discussion away from Internet policy questions that could affect the company’s business practices. Groups that might ordinarily challenge the policies and practices of a major corporation are holding their fire, those critics say. Thanks, parminder > > On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote: >> >> Google has spent millions funding academic research in the US >> and Europe to >> try to influence public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog >> has claimed. >> >> Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that >> appear to support the technology company’s business interests >> and defend against regulatory challenges such as antitrust >> and anti-piracy, the US-based Campaign for Accountability >> (CfA) said in a report >> . >> >> “Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to >> influence policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens, >> CfA executive director. >> >> ................ >> >> Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half of >> the cases and in the rest of the cases funded indirectly by >> groups or institutions supported by Google, the CfA said. >> Authors, who were paid between $5,000 and $400,000 >> (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of >> their funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases >> directly funded by Google, according to the report. >> >> ........... >> >> “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour is exposed, it invariably >> points the finger at someone else,” said Stevens. “Instead of >> deflecting blame, Google should address its record of >> academic astroturfing, which puts it in the same league as >> big oil and big tobacco >> .” >> >> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google-millions-academic-research-influence-opinion >> >> As we know Google has recently been fined $ 2.7 billion for >> anti-competitive practices by the EU regulator, which only means that >> in all countries that are too weak to take on google (or benefit from >> its profits, meaning the US) Google remains in violation of >> competition (and many other) laws..... All this Google funded >> research and advocacy, of dont regulate the Internet (read, Internet >> companies), are playing a dangerous game, seriously compromising >> public interest. >> >> It is time we declare the honeymoon of civil society and academic >> love for digital global corporations over. They are today like big >> oil companies -- no doubt the latter provide what is still the main >> energy resource that keeps our societies ticking but in the bargain >> they very often, and systemically, indulge in stuff that needs >> academics and NGOs to be watching against. It is pretty difficult to >> undertake such watching while taking considerable money from them. It >> is a simple truism, but the digital sector tends to ignore it. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Global Policy Analyst > Electronic Frontier Foundation > https://eff.org > jmalcolm at eff.org > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > > Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt > PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james at cyberinvasion.net Sun Jul 16 09:38:03 2017 From: james at cyberinvasion.net (James Gannon) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 13:38:03 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: Funding info for CfA In-Reply-To: References: <7d8e9a4b-9db7-eb0f-9dcb-2abfb41c1db0@itforchange.net> <4e6f462e-e16f-0972-8159-478b5e9361e3@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: Well they are not really. They are a single subject lobbying/PR firm. Sent from my iPhone On 16 Jul 2017, at 14:14, Michael Oghia > wrote: Hi Parminder, Thanks for sharing this. I agree that it's odd they don't since they are an organization advocating for accountability – it is counterintuitive at best. Either way, thanks for investigating. Best, -Michael On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 3:04 PM, parminder > wrote: This is my recent exchange with the head of Campaign for Accountability. I tell him clearly that their policy of non disclosure of their donors is not at all fine. They do not explain why they do not disclose their funders.. parminder -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: Funding info for CfA Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 18:51:33 +0530 From: parminder To: Daniel Stevens Thanks Dan for your prompt response. It is much appreciated. While I still think it is useful to divulge donors, especially for this kind of work, I do greatly value your work. Best wishes for it. Meanwhile I will like to have your permission to share the below email from you on the public elist where I am having this discussion. parminder On Saturday 15 July 2017 06:10 PM, Daniel Stevens wrote: Good Morning, Thanks for contacting us about our work. CfA does not disclose its donors. We think our work speaks for itself. Over the past 18 months, the Google Transparency Project has documented more than 425 White House meetings by Google lobbyists, 250 revolving door hires between Google and government and more than 325 academic papers paid for by the company to help advance its policy interests. All of the underlying data is published on the site, along with more than 40,000 pages of Google emails with US government officials. The data in the report has also been subject to analysis by The Wall Street Journal, which cited the data in its own investigative article today. Best, Dan --- Daniel Stevens Executive Director Campaign for Accountability 202.780.5750 (o) http://campaignforaccountability.org/ @Accountable_Org ________________________________ From: parminder Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 2:52:10 AM To: Daniel Stevens Subject: Funding info for CfA Dear Madam/ Sir I think you do great work. But it looks more than a tad odd that an organisation that seeks, and so actively too, accountability in public life itself does not publish its annual report and funding sources on its website. I am sure it must just have been an oversight, but will you be able to share your annual funding statement with me. Thanks. Let me tell you the background of this request. I posted on an Internet governance e-list the coverage of your story on how Google funds so many academic reports in Internet policy space. A useful discussion ensued. But someone pointed out that CfA itself does not publicly disclose its funding sources. I agreed it was odd that it doesnt. If you indeed are able to share your funding statement I will inform all the skeptics of this fact. I myself work with an NGO and some global civil society networks, and publishing our funding sources is considered a simple necessity to have any credibility in this area. Thanks, for your great work, and look forward to an early response. Best regards parminder IT for Change (www.ITforChange.net) ____________________________________________________________ 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 renata.avila at webfoundation.org Sun Jul 16 14:58:40 2017 From: renata.avila at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 20:58:40 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yet another good reference from the TNI https://www.tni.org/en/publication/manufactured-consent ​ Renata Avila *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* renata.avila at webfoundation.org *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA* *| * *www.webfoundation.org* * | Twitter: @webfoundation* On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 3:25 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Thursday 13 July 2017 11:38 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > But here's an article putting the other side of the story: > > http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 > > We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too. Does that mean that whatever > work they do for the rest of their careers is tainted by the few thousand > they received to support their living expenses as an EFF fellow? > > > I do not think so. But a huge amount of transparency must attend what > these fellows work on, who sets their agenda, who shapes, vets, etc their > outputs, and so on? > > Since you share EEF's experience with google fellows, let me ask you a > direct question. A few NGOs where Google placed its fellows have told me in > the past that Google closely vets final outcomes of any research from these > fellows. Is it true by your experience/ knowledge? > > Meanwhile here is an old Washington Post's report of Google's funding > related malfeasance, of pretty serious kind, including manipulating > conferences, and influencing research and general thinktank outputs. > https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is- > transforming-power-and-politicsgoogle-once-disdainful-of-lobbying-now-a- > master-of-washington-influence/2014/04/12/51648b92- > b4d3-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html?utm_term=.fe86b3250d50 > > Not all these reports can be biased.... > > They had the following to say about google fellows (quoted without > prejudice, since we are on the topic) > > Google “fellows” — young lawyers, writers and thinkers paid by the company > — populate elite think tanks such as the Cato Institute, the Competitive > Enterprise Institute and the New America Foundation. > > To critics, Google’s investments have effectively shifted the national > discussion away from Internet policy questions that could affect the > company’s business practices. Groups that might ordinarily challenge the > policies and practices of a major corporation are holding their fire, those > critics say. > > Thanks, parminder > > > On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote: > > Google has spent millions funding academic research in the US and Europe > to try to influence > public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog has claimed. > > Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that appear to > support the technology company’s business interests and defend against > regulatory challenges such as antitrust and anti-piracy, the US-based > Campaign for Accountability (CfA) said in a report > > . > > “Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to influence > policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens, CfA executive director. > > ................ > > Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half of the cases > and in the rest of the cases funded indirectly by groups or institutions > supported by Google, the CfA said. Authors, who were paid between $5,000 > and $400,000 (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of > their funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases directly > funded by Google, according to the report. > > ........... > “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour is exposed, it invariably points the > finger at someone else,” said Stevens. “Instead of deflecting blame, Google > should address its record of academic astroturfing, which puts it in the > same league as big oil and big tobacco > .” > > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google- > millions-academic-research-influence-opinion > > As we know Google has recently been fined $ 2.7 billion for > anti-competitive practices by the EU regulator, which only means that in > all countries that are too weak to take on google (or benefit from its > profits, meaning the US) Google remains in violation of competition (and > many other) laws..... All this Google funded research and advocacy, of dont > regulate the Internet (read, Internet companies), are playing a dangerous > game, seriously compromising public interest. > > It is time we declare the honeymoon of civil society and academic love for > digital global corporations over. They are today like big oil companies -- > no doubt the latter provide what is still the main energy resource that > keeps our societies ticking but in the bargain they very often, and > systemically, indulge in stuff that needs academics and NGOs to be watching > against. It is pretty difficult to undertake such watching while taking > considerable money from them. It is a simple truism, but the digital sector > tends to ignore it. > > parminder > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Global Policy Analyst > Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm at eff.org > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > > Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt > PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Screen Shot 2017-07-16 at 20.58.08.png Type: image/png Size: 347314 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jul 5 21:17:56 2017 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 06:47:56 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [governance] [JNC - Forum] After Microsoft now google calls for internationaldigital agreements In-Reply-To: <97ff2285-45d1-4862-d219-5e8ea0860c52@eff.org> References: <18A21C2E748840809B0D8CE03FB363AF@LAPTOP93L8QKEK> <97ff2285-45d1-4862-d219-5e8ea0860c52@eff.org> Message-ID: Thanks Jeremy. Not much discussion elsewhere, would be interested in what people think about this. Ian From: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 11:53 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Fwd: Re: [governance] [JNC - Forum] After Microsoft now google calls for internationaldigital agreements Also copying to the Best Bits list, because I know we have a number of members here who choose not to be on the IGC or Just Net lists... and this seems like a relevant and interesting discussion to have here. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [governance] [JNC - Forum] After Microsoft now google calls for internationaldigital agreements Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2017 15:36:46 +0530 From: Ian Peter mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com Reply-To: Ian Peter mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com To: Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Hi Parminder, I am copying this also to the IGC list: Because I am wondering if there is widespread support for developing a civil society statement supporting these efforts, and urging the development of (a framework?) (a set of principles?) to deal with these issues? Although Microsoft is approaching this more from cyberwarfare concerns, and Google more from lack of standards dealing with surveillance requests, there is a common ground here which relates to good governance which supports basic rights when dealing with requests for data for digital surveillance. In my own mind I am sure there is a set of good principles/guidelines which could (and should) be developed which could cover both of these concerns, and I personally feel that we in civil society should be supporting and encouraging such developments: while at the same time helping to set the agenda for what might be appropriate developments. GCCS2017 might be one event to move this forward: but in the mean time if we can develop a strong consensus statement welcoming further discussion and developments in this area, that might be a useful contribution. But others might feel another approach might be more productive? Ian Peter From: parminder Sent: Saturday, July 1, 2017 6:13 PM To: Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org Subject: [JNC - Forum] After Microsoft now google calls for internationaldigital agreements Microsoft recently called for a cyber geneva convention https://www.wired.com/2017/05/microsoft-right-need-digital-geneva-convention/ Now, Google has called for international agreement on legal access to data. "We need international agreements to lay out the rules of the road to deal with what is not a hypothetical problem,” said Walker. “We are dealing with tens of thousands of these requests every year, and we’re just one of the companies wrestling with this. We do need an international agreed upon framework to move forward in a reliable way that people can have confidence in.”" https://www.cyberscoop.com/google-governments-update-international-data-laws/ parminder -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Forum mailing list Forum at justnetcoalition.org http://mail.justnetcoalition.org/listinfo/forum -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jul 17 00:46:54 2017 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 10:16:54 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: Funding info for CfA In-Reply-To: References: <7d8e9a4b-9db7-eb0f-9dcb-2abfb41c1db0@itforchange.net> <4e6f462e-e16f-0972-8159-478b5e9361e3@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <59b55070-9c1b-4224-4e2d-14442b3a6ebe@itforchange.net> On Sunday 16 July 2017 07:08 PM, James Gannon wrote: > Well they are not really. > They are a single subject lobbying/PR firm. That is completely untrue. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_Accountability for the range of work they have done. And then is the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal also lobbying firms?? But you have evidently chosen to discredit the messenger to not address the message. The real tragedy lies somewhere else: This one is supposed to be a civil society group. I distinctly remember that the decision was taken early on that this is a civil society only group -- that too inclined more towards responsible, rather better organised civil society. But what we have here is reps of big business tear apart credible information on mis-doings of digital big business, when civil society actors want to share some information, and hope for a public interest discussion on it. And there is not much civil society voice coming out on the issue - certainly not enough. Big business actually is able to out shout civil society, on a civil society list. This is the bane of civil society engage with Internet/ digital policy issues . But then civil society leaders have largely brought it on themselves. It is time we revisit the state of Internet/ digital civil society. This specially when not only political and civil rights issues (where sometimes genuine sometimes fake alliances with big businesses were at times possible, and even prudent) but very strong social and economic rights issues have come to fore in this area, where big corporate in the key "other". It is tragic that civil society does its work in the name of the world's people but is not ready to do what is needed to advocate and fight for the true interests of the vast majority of them, which are disadvantaged in various ways. parminder > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 16 Jul 2017, at 14:14, Michael Oghia > wrote: > >> Hi Parminder, >> >> Thanks for sharing this. I agree that it's odd they don't since they >> are an organization advocating for accountability – it is >> counterintuitive at best. Either way, thanks for investigating. >> >> Best, >> -Michael >> >> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 3:04 PM, parminder > > wrote: >> >> This is my recent exchange with the head of Campaign for >> Accountability. I tell him clearly that their policy of non >> disclosure of their donors is not at all fine. They do not >> explain why they do not disclose their funders.. parminder >> >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: Re: Funding info for CfA >> Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 18:51:33 +0530 >> From: parminder >> >> To: Daniel Stevens >> >> >> >> >> Thanks Dan for your prompt response. It is much appreciated. >> >> While I still think it is useful to divulge donors, especially >> for this kind of work, I do greatly value your work. Best wishes >> for it. Meanwhile I will like to have your permission to share >> the below email from you on the public elist where I am having >> this discussion. parminder >> >> >> On Saturday 15 July 2017 06:10 PM, Daniel Stevens wrote: >>> >>> Good Morning, >>> >>> >>> Thanks for contacting us about our work. CfA does not disclose >>> its donors. We think our work speaks for itself. Over the past >>> 18 months, the Google Transparency Project has documented more >>> than 425 White House meetings by Google lobbyists, 250 revolving >>> door hires between Google and government and more than 325 >>> academic papers paid for by the company to help advance its >>> policy interests. All of the underlying data is published on the >>> site, along with more than 40,000 pages of Google emails with US >>> government officials. The data in the report has also been >>> subject to analysis by The Wall Street Journal, which cited the >>> data in its own investigative article today. >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> --- >>> Daniel Stevens >>> Executive Director >>> Campaign for Accountability >>> 202.780.5750 (o) >>> http://campaignforaccountability.org/ >>> >>> @Accountable_Org >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *From:* parminder >>> >>> *Sent:* Saturday, July 15, 2017 2:52:10 AM >>> *To:* Daniel Stevens >>> *Subject:* Funding info for CfA >>> >>> >>> Dear Madam/ Sir >>> >>> I think you do great work. But it looks more than a tad odd that >>> an organisation that seeks, and so actively too, accountability >>> in public life itself does not publish its annual report and >>> funding sources on its website. I am sure it must just have been >>> an oversight, but will you be able to share your annual funding >>> statement with me. Thanks. >>> >>> Let me tell you the background of this request. I posted on an >>> Internet governance e-list the coverage of your story on how >>> Google funds so many academic reports in Internet policy space. >>> A useful discussion ensued. But someone pointed out that CfA >>> itself does not publicly disclose its funding sources. I agreed >>> it was odd that it doesnt. >>> >>> If you indeed are able to share your funding statement I will >>> inform all the skeptics of this fact. I myself work with an NGO >>> and some global civil society networks, and publishing our >>> funding sources is considered a simple necessity to have any >>> credibility in this area. >>> >>> Thanks, for your great work, and look forward to an early response. >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> IT for Change (www.ITforChange.net ) >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jul 17 00:50:34 2017 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 10:20:34 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <74062c10-3390-3034-db2a-8ebb522e4220@itforchange.net> On Friday 14 July 2017 01:32 AM, James Gannon wrote: > > Agree on the final point for sure and 100% on transparency. > Sure, everybody is for 100 % transparency, but then only till we actually begin to talk what that means. So let me ask you, James, what would the 100% transparency be that you agree with..... Like civil society groups should disclose their funding (unless compelling circumstances which makes is counter-productive can be proved)? This is a long history of that discussion in the matter of formation and governance of this very group bestbits. Maybe you can contribute to it. Look forward to hearing your response. parminder > > > *From:*Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org] > *Sent:* 13 July 2017 21:00 > *To:* James Gannon > *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro ; Jeremy Malcolm > ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same > league as big oil and big tobacco > > > > I respectfully disagree on your restrictive interpretation of ICANN > mission. > > > > I also disagree on relaxing accountability on who funds academic > research and its impact. On the contrary, I think limiting our work to > some sort of transparency is insufficient. Strict accountability is > needed to limit the power of such powerful companies (which are > involved in broader sectors, like defense, health, etc.). > > > > We need more and better accountability and also make visible how big > companies (as big Pharma did) are influencing through lobby, research > and "philanthropy" the public agendas and apply the experience from > other sector, like public health and the environment. > > > > Happy to continue the dialogue off list. > > > > R > > > Renata Avila > > *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* > > renata.avila at webfoundation.org > > *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, > USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org* * | > Twitter: @webfoundation* > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:52 PM, James Gannon > wrote: > > No because the auction funds are also bounded by ICANN mission. > > > > I think that we should trust academics to be able to conduct > research in an independent manner, that we need to stop looking at > the GAFA conspiracy theories and that we shouldn’t sully those > academics who are working on critical areas of research for us by > claiming that once they are ever ‘tainted’ by corporate funding > that they should forever have to walk around with a a > Google/FB/etc disclaimer on every word they write or talk they > give or opinion they express. > > > > *From:*Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org > ] > *Sent:* 13 July 2017 20:31 > > > *To:* James Gannon > > *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro >; Jeremy Malcolm >; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > < > > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same > league as big oil and big tobacco > > > > Well, there is more: > > > > The proceeds from New gTLD Program auctions, *which will total > more than $230 million, are being reserved.* The multistakeholder > community will develop proposals for how these proceeds could be > distributed. A community-based drafting team is currently working > on a charter for a Cross-Community Working Group that will create > recommendations for Board consideration. > > > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-07-28-en > > > > My point: > > > > - Google funds everything, especially advocacy and research in > poor countries. > > - If not google, it is Facebook. > > - That harms legitimacy. > > > > Funds are really scarce for research, advocacy and policy. > > > > Meanwhile, ICANN = 230 million plus 70 million reserves. > > > > What if we advocate for those funds to *support public interest > research*, via a Foundation or similar, instead of Google (or > other companies) funding research. > > > > Is it clear now? > > > > R > > > Renata Avila > > *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* > > renata.avila at webfoundation.org > > *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, > USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org* > * | Twitter: @webfoundation* > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:21 PM, James Gannon > > wrote: > > The ICANN reserve fund is designed to keep ICANN running in > the event of financial distress and is not subject to any > external use outside of ICANN, and even if it was it would > still be bound by ICANNs mission. > > Im not seeing the relationship to the current discussion at all. > > > > -James > > > > *From:*Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org > ] > *Sent:* 13 July 2017 20:19 > *To:* James Gannon > > *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro >; Jeremy Malcolm >; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > < > > > > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in > same league as big oil and big tobacco > > > > Its reserve fund. > > > > It could be modified, any time, to support broader areas... > > > > Figures in USD (millions) Page 9. > > > > Link: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy17-unaudited-financials-31mar17-en.pdf > > > > R. > > > Renata Avila > > *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* > > renata.avila at webfoundation.org > > > *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, > USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org* > * | Twitter: @webfoundation* > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:09 PM, James Gannon > > wrote: > > Can you elaborate on this piece? What ICANN money, ICANN > does some very limited funding of research but doesn’t > fund anything in the area of advocacy, and there is very > little research that is within ICANNs mission anyway. > > > > -J > > > > *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > ] *On Behalf > Of *Renata Avila > *Sent:* 13 July 2017 20:05 > *To:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro > > *Cc:* Jeremy Malcolm >; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > < > > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google > in same league as big oil and big tobacco > > > > I second Renata. > > > > Our research and advocacy space is suffering from a > funding problem and it is harming its credibility. It will > be great to have a larger pool of funds supporting our > efforts, which are becoming more mainstream and relevant > for the next 50 years (especially for developing > countries). The production of research is extremely > concentrated and, as austerity is rampant all over the > World, State funding to research is shrinking by the day > even for developed countries at the same pace as tax > evasion (or elusion) (Google is not guilt free in this > area http://fortune.com/2016/03/11/apple-google-taxes-eu/) > > > > And in small countries, priorities of both governments and > private sector to support research support traditional > areas, such as health or education. Certainly, local funds > are not supporting local advocacy efforts for privacy, net > neutrality, etc. > > > > I think the problem is deeper and I think that, in order > to continue our work and efforts with impartiality and > credibility, we need a coordinated effort to get a diverse > pool of donors and ways towards sustainability. I think > the comparisons of Big Oil funding Greenpeace, when we > talk about giants like Facebook or Google, is valid now. > > > > What about all the ICANN money? Will it be enough to fund > all global and local advocacy and at least part of the > relevant research? A global fund? Crowdfunding for > advocacy and more pressure on governments for research? > > > > R > > > > > > > Renata Avila > > *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* > > renata.avila at webfoundation.org > > > *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, > USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org* > * | Twitter: @webfoundation* > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro > > wrote: > > Yes it does. > > Unless they are transparent about it and clear about > it not interfering with their research ethics. > > > > In the public education system in developing countries > it is quite common to see funding being misused. > Researchers who get money from international > organizations, even some national ones, using public > universities to advance an agenda. And yes, this can > be sometimes an astroturfing exercise. > > > > Which is why access and production of knowledge needs > to be always transparent and public. > > > > Unfortunately most of internet policy has not waken up > to this yet. I wonder if it ever will. > > > > Em 13/07/2017 15:09, "Jeremy Malcolm" > > escreveu: > > But here's an article putting the other side of > the story: > > http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 > > We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too. Does > that mean that whatever work they do for the rest > of their careers is tainted by the few thousand > they received to support their living expenses as > an EFF fellow? > > On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote: > > Google has spent millions funding > academic research in the US and Europe > to > try to influence public opinion and > policymakers, a watchdog has claimed. > > Over the last decade, Google has > funded research papers that appear to > support the technology company’s > business interests and defend against > regulatory challenges such as > antitrust and anti-piracy, the > US-based Campaign for Accountability > (CfA) said in a report > . > > “Google uses its immense wealth and > power to attempt to influence > policymakers at every level,” said > Daniel Stevens, CfA executive director. > > ................ > > Academics were directly funded by > Google in more than half of the cases > and in the rest of the cases funded > indirectly by groups or institutions > supported by Google, the CfA said. > Authors, who were paid between $5,000 > and $400,000 (£3,900-£310,000) by > Google, did not disclose the source of > their funding in 66% of all cases, and > in 26% of those cases directly funded > by Google, according to the report. > > ........... > > “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour is > exposed, it invariably points the > finger at someone else,” said Stevens. > “Instead of deflecting blame, Google > should address its record of academic > astroturfing, which puts it in the > same league as big oil and big tobacco > .” > > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google-millions-academic-research-influence-opinion > > As we know Google has recently been fined $ > 2.7 billion for anti-competitive practices by > the EU regulator, which only means that in all > countries that are too weak to take on google > (or benefit from its profits, meaning the US) > Google remains in violation of competition > (and many other) laws..... All this Google > funded research and advocacy, of dont regulate > the Internet (read, Internet companies), are > playing a dangerous game, seriously > compromising public interest. > > It is time we declare the honeymoon of civil > society and academic love for digital global > corporations over. They are today like big oil > companies -- no doubt the latter provide what > is still the main energy resource that keeps > our societies ticking but in the bargain they > very often, and systemically, indulge in stuff > that needs academics and NGOs to be watching > against. It is pretty difficult to undertake > such watching while taking considerable money > from them. It is a simple truism, but the > digital sector tends to ignore it. > > parminder > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > . > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm > > Senior Global Policy Analyst > > Electronic Frontier Foundation > > https://eff.org > > jmalcolm at eff.org > > > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > > > > Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt > > PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james at cyberinvasion.net Mon Jul 17 04:10:25 2017 From: james at cyberinvasion.net (James Gannon) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 08:10:25 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: <74062c10-3390-3034-db2a-8ebb522e4220@itforchange.net> References: <74062c10-3390-3034-db2a-8ebb522e4220@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hope I’m interpreting the question right but I would 100% support a requirement that where direct funding has been received by a civil society actor or an academic to support a campaign or a paper that that is disclosed as part of the documentation (Campaign info or in the acknowledgements of the paper/research). For indirect funding I think that yes similar to a non-profits 990 at the end of the fiscal year there should be a reporting of sources of indirect funding by both groups also. Topically webfoundations donor page is a great example http://webfoundation.org/about/funding-partners/, now an argument might be made that that might be a lot of overhead for an academic, maybe that is an opportunity for CS is out space to help, a small project setup to help academics report on their funding, I certainly don’t know of many academics that are looking to actively hide their funding, but rather there is no easy or standardised way of reporting it leading to situations like we have now. If this is not what your were aiming at please feel free to steer me in the right direction. -James From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 17 July 2017 05:51 To: James Gannon ; Renata Avila Cc: Renata Aquino Ribeiro ; Jeremy Malcolm ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < Subject: Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco On Friday 14 July 2017 01:32 AM, James Gannon wrote: Agree on the final point for sure and 100% on transparency. Sure, everybody is for 100 % transparency, but then only till we actually begin to talk what that means. So let me ask you, James, what would the 100% transparency be that you agree with..... Like civil society groups should disclose their funding (unless compelling circumstances which makes is counter-productive can be proved)? This is a long history of that discussion in the matter of formation and governance of this very group bestbits. Maybe you can contribute to it. Look forward to hearing your response. parminder From: Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org] Sent: 13 July 2017 21:00 To: James Gannon Cc: Renata Aquino Ribeiro ; Jeremy Malcolm ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < Subject: Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco I respectfully disagree on your restrictive interpretation of ICANN mission. I also disagree on relaxing accountability on who funds academic research and its impact. On the contrary, I think limiting our work to some sort of transparency is insufficient. Strict accountability is needed to limit the power of such powerful companies (which are involved in broader sectors, like defense, health, etc.). We need more and better accountability and also make visible how big companies (as big Pharma did) are influencing through lobby, research and "philanthropy" the public agendas and apply the experience from other sector, like public health and the environment. Happy to continue the dialogue off list. R Renata Avila Senior Digital Rights Advisor renata.avila at webfoundation.org 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:52 PM, James Gannon > wrote: No because the auction funds are also bounded by ICANN mission. I think that we should trust academics to be able to conduct research in an independent manner, that we need to stop looking at the GAFA conspiracy theories and that we shouldn’t sully those academics who are working on critical areas of research for us by claiming that once they are ever ‘tainted’ by corporate funding that they should forever have to walk around with a a Google/FB/etc disclaimer on every word they write or talk they give or opinion they express. From: Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org] Sent: 13 July 2017 20:31 To: James Gannon > Cc: Renata Aquino Ribeiro >; Jeremy Malcolm >; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco Well, there is more: The proceeds from New gTLD Program auctions, which will total more than $230 million, are being reserved. The multistakeholder community will develop proposals for how these proceeds could be distributed. A community-based drafting team is currently working on a charter for a Cross-Community Working Group that will create recommendations for Board consideration. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-07-28-en My point: - Google funds everything, especially advocacy and research in poor countries. - If not google, it is Facebook. - That harms legitimacy. Funds are really scarce for research, advocacy and policy. Meanwhile, ICANN = 230 million plus 70 million reserves. What if we advocate for those funds to support public interest research, via a Foundation or similar, instead of Google (or other companies) funding research. Is it clear now? R Renata Avila Senior Digital Rights Advisor renata.avila at webfoundation.org 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:21 PM, James Gannon > wrote: The ICANN reserve fund is designed to keep ICANN running in the event of financial distress and is not subject to any external use outside of ICANN, and even if it was it would still be bound by ICANNs mission. Im not seeing the relationship to the current discussion at all. -James From: Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org] Sent: 13 July 2017 20:19 To: James Gannon > Cc: Renata Aquino Ribeiro >; Jeremy Malcolm >; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco Its reserve fund. It could be modified, any time, to support broader areas... Figures in USD (millions) Page 9. Link: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy17-unaudited-financials-31mar17-en.pdf R. Renata Avila Senior Digital Rights Advisor renata.avila at webfoundation.org 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:09 PM, James Gannon > wrote: Can you elaborate on this piece? What ICANN money, ICANN does some very limited funding of research but doesn’t fund anything in the area of advocacy, and there is very little research that is within ICANNs mission anyway. -J From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Renata Avila Sent: 13 July 2017 20:05 To: Renata Aquino Ribeiro > Cc: Jeremy Malcolm >; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco I second Renata. Our research and advocacy space is suffering from a funding problem and it is harming its credibility. It will be great to have a larger pool of funds supporting our efforts, which are becoming more mainstream and relevant for the next 50 years (especially for developing countries). The production of research is extremely concentrated and, as austerity is rampant all over the World, State funding to research is shrinking by the day even for developed countries at the same pace as tax evasion (or elusion) (Google is not guilt free in this area http://fortune.com/2016/03/11/apple-google-taxes-eu/) And in small countries, priorities of both governments and private sector to support research support traditional areas, such as health or education. Certainly, local funds are not supporting local advocacy efforts for privacy, net neutrality, etc. I think the problem is deeper and I think that, in order to continue our work and efforts with impartiality and credibility, we need a coordinated effort to get a diverse pool of donors and ways towards sustainability. I think the comparisons of Big Oil funding Greenpeace, when we talk about giants like Facebook or Google, is valid now. What about all the ICANN money? Will it be enough to fund all global and local advocacy and at least part of the relevant research? A global fund? Crowdfunding for advocacy and more pressure on governments for research? R Renata Avila Senior Digital Rights Advisor renata.avila at webfoundation.org 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro > wrote: Yes it does. Unless they are transparent about it and clear about it not interfering with their research ethics. In the public education system in developing countries it is quite common to see funding being misused. Researchers who get money from international organizations, even some national ones, using public universities to advance an agenda. And yes, this can be sometimes an astroturfing exercise. Which is why access and production of knowledge needs to be always transparent and public. Unfortunately most of internet policy has not waken up to this yet. I wonder if it ever will. Em 13/07/2017 15:09, "Jeremy Malcolm" > escreveu: But here's an article putting the other side of the story: http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too. Does that mean that whatever work they do for the rest of their careers is tainted by the few thousand they received to support their living expenses as an EFF fellow? On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote: Google has spent millions funding academic research in the US and Europe to try to influence public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog has claimed. Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that appear to support the technology company’s business interests and defend against regulatory challenges such as antitrust and anti-piracy, the US-based Campaign for Accountability (CfA) said in a report. “Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to influence policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens, CfA executive director. ................ Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half of the cases and in the rest of the cases funded indirectly by groups or institutions supported by Google, the CfA said. Authors, who were paid between $5,000 and $400,000 (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of their funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases directly funded by Google, according to the report. ........... “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour is exposed, it invariably points the finger at someone else,” said Stevens. “Instead of deflecting blame, Google should address its record of academic astroturfing, which puts it in the same league as big oil and big tobacco.” https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google-millions-academic-research-influence-opinion As we know Google has recently been fined $ 2.7 billion for anti-competitive practices by the EU regulator, which only means that in all countries that are too weak to take on google (or benefit from its profits, meaning the US) Google remains in violation of competition (and many other) laws..... All this Google funded research and advocacy, of dont regulate the Internet (read, Internet companies), are playing a dangerous game, seriously compromising public interest. It is time we declare the honeymoon of civil society and academic love for digital global corporations over. They are today like big oil companies -- no doubt the latter provide what is still the main energy resource that keeps our societies ticking but in the bargain they very often, and systemically, indulge in stuff that needs academics and NGOs to be watching against. It is pretty difficult to undertake such watching while taking considerable money from them. It is a simple truism, but the digital sector tends to ignore it. parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 ____________________________________________________________ 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jul 17 05:44:28 2017 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 15:14:28 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: References: <74062c10-3390-3034-db2a-8ebb522e4220@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <41ed11ca-9c8f-3b36-ac65-66e646531a62@itforchange.net> Thanks James, you are very clear, and indeed I agree. These are clear and specific requirements of academic and civil society transparency, which should be upheld by all Alas though some participating groups asked for the same in the initial years of this bestbits coalition, in terms of those organisations that become key steer-ers of this global coalition. The involved major groups refused to divulge their funding (like as you mention, with an end of year annual reporting and such), and the people/ groups who had asked for accountability were kind of pushed off the group. One of them was a listed founding member of bestbits who asked to be removed from the list of founders as a consequence of this disagreement. Sorry, I digress here perhaps. But then just saying that, unfortunately, this civil society coalition itself does not pass the criterion of "transparency" that you rightly frame. parminder On Monday 17 July 2017 01:40 PM, James Gannon wrote: > > Hope I’m interpreting the question right but I would 100% support a > requirement that where direct funding has been received by a civil > society actor or an academic to support a campaign or a paper that > that is disclosed as part of the documentation (Campaign info or in > the acknowledgements of the paper/research). > > > > For indirect funding I think that yes similar to a non-profits 990 at > the end of the fiscal year there should be a reporting of sources of > indirect funding by both groups also. Topically webfoundations donor > page is a great example > http://webfoundation.org/about/funding-partners/ > , now an argument > might be made that that might be a lot of overhead for an academic, > maybe that is an opportunity for CS is out space to help, a small > project setup to help academics report on their funding, I certainly > don’t know of many academics that are looking to actively hide their > funding, but rather there is no easy or standardised way of reporting > it leading to situations like we have now. > > > > If this is not what your were aiming at please feel free to steer me > in the right direction. > > > > -James > > > > *From:*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* 17 July 2017 05:51 > *To:* James Gannon ; Renata Avila > > *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro ; Jeremy Malcolm > ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same > league as big oil and big tobacco > > > > > > > > On Friday 14 July 2017 01:32 AM, James Gannon wrote: > > Agree on the final point for sure and 100% on transparency. > > > Sure, everybody is for 100 % transparency, but then only till we > actually begin to talk what that means. > > So let me ask you, James, what would the 100% transparency be that you > agree with..... Like civil society groups should disclose their > funding (unless compelling circumstances which makes is > counter-productive can be proved)? This is a long history of that > discussion in the matter of formation and governance of this very > group bestbits. Maybe you can contribute to it. Look forward to > hearing your response. > parminder > > > > > > *From:*Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org] > *Sent:* 13 July 2017 21:00 > *To:* James Gannon > > *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro > ; Jeremy Malcolm > ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > < > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same > league as big oil and big tobacco > > > > I respectfully disagree on your restrictive interpretation of > ICANN mission. > > > > I also disagree on relaxing accountability on who funds academic > research and its impact. On the contrary, I think limiting our > work to some sort of transparency is insufficient. Strict > accountability is needed to limit the power of such powerful > companies (which are involved in broader sectors, like defense, > health, etc.). > > > > We need more and better accountability and also make visible how > big companies (as big Pharma did) are influencing through lobby, > research and "philanthropy" the public agendas and apply the > experience from other sector, like public health and the environment. > > > > Happy to continue the dialogue off list. > > > > R > > > Renata Avila > > *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* > > renata.avila at webfoundation.org > > *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, > USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org* > * | Twitter: @webfoundation* > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:52 PM, James Gannon > > wrote: > > No because the auction funds are also bounded by ICANN mission. > > > > I think that we should trust academics to be able to conduct > research in an independent manner, that we need to stop > looking at the GAFA conspiracy theories and that we shouldn’t > sully those academics who are working on critical areas of > research for us by claiming that once they are ever ‘tainted’ > by corporate funding that they should forever have to walk > around with a a Google/FB/etc disclaimer on every word they > write or talk they give or opinion they express. > > > > *From:*Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org > ] > *Sent:* 13 July 2017 20:31 > > > *To:* James Gannon > > *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro >; Jeremy Malcolm >; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > < > > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in > same league as big oil and big tobacco > > > > Well, there is more: > > > > The proceeds from New gTLD Program auctions, *which will total > more than $230 million, are being reserved.* The > multistakeholder community will develop proposals for how > these proceeds could be distributed. A community-based > drafting team is currently working on a charter for a > Cross-Community Working Group that will create recommendations > for Board consideration. > > > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-07-28-en > > > > My point: > > > > - Google funds everything, especially advocacy and research in > poor countries. > > - If not google, it is Facebook. > > - That harms legitimacy. > > > > Funds are really scarce for research, advocacy and policy. > > > > Meanwhile, ICANN = 230 million plus 70 million reserves. > > > > What if we advocate for those funds to *support public > interest research*, via a Foundation or similar, instead of > Google (or other companies) funding research. > > > > Is it clear now? > > > > R > > > Renata Avila > > *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* > > renata.avila at webfoundation.org > > > *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, > USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org* > * | Twitter: @webfoundation* > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:21 PM, James Gannon > > wrote: > > The ICANN reserve fund is designed to keep ICANN running > in the event of financial distress and is not subject to > any external use outside of ICANN, and even if it was it > would still be bound by ICANNs mission. > > Im not seeing the relationship to the current discussion > at all. > > > > -James > > > > *From:*Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org > ] > *Sent:* 13 July 2017 20:19 > *To:* James Gannon > > *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro >; Jeremy Malcolm > >; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > < > > > > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google > in same league as big oil and big tobacco > > > > Its reserve fund. > > > > It could be modified, any time, to support broader areas... > > > > Figures in USD (millions) Page 9. > > > > Link: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy17-unaudited-financials-31mar17-en.pdf > > > > R. > > > Renata Avila > > *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* > > renata.avila at webfoundation.org > > > *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, > USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org* > * | Twitter: @webfoundation* > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:09 PM, James Gannon > > > wrote: > > Can you elaborate on this piece? What ICANN money, > ICANN does some very limited funding of research but > doesn’t fund anything in the area of advocacy, and > there is very little research that is within ICANNs > mission anyway. > > > > -J > > > > *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > ] *On > Behalf Of *Renata Avila > *Sent:* 13 July 2017 20:05 > *To:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro > > *Cc:* Jeremy Malcolm >; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > < > > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts > Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco > > > > I second Renata. > > > > Our research and advocacy space is suffering from a > funding problem and it is harming its credibility. It > will be great to have a larger pool of funds > supporting our efforts, which are becoming more > mainstream and relevant for the next 50 years > (especially for developing countries). The production > of research is extremely concentrated and, as > austerity is rampant all over the World, State funding > to research is shrinking by the day even for developed > countries at the same pace as tax evasion (or elusion) > (Google is not guilt free in this > area http://fortune.com/2016/03/11/apple-google-taxes-eu/) > > > > And in small countries, priorities of both governments > and private sector to support research support > traditional areas, such as health or education. > Certainly, local funds are not supporting local > advocacy efforts for privacy, net neutrality, etc. > > > > I think the problem is deeper and I think that, in > order to continue our work and efforts with > impartiality and credibility, we need a coordinated > effort to get a diverse pool of donors and ways > towards sustainability. I think the comparisons of Big > Oil funding Greenpeace, when we talk about giants like > Facebook or Google, is valid now. > > > > What about all the ICANN money? Will it be enough to > fund all global and local advocacy and at least part > of the relevant research? A global fund? Crowdfunding > for advocacy and more pressure on governments for > research? > > > > R > > > > > > > Renata Avila > > *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* > > renata.avila at webfoundation.org > > > *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, > USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org* > * | Twitter: > @webfoundation* > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro > > wrote: > > Yes it does. > > Unless they are transparent about it and clear > about it not interfering with their research ethics. > > > > In the public education system in developing > countries it is quite common to see funding being > misused. Researchers who get money from > international organizations, even some national > ones, using public universities to advance an > agenda. And yes, this can be sometimes an > astroturfing exercise. > > > > Which is why access and production of knowledge > needs to be always transparent and public. > > > > Unfortunately most of internet policy has not > waken up to this yet. I wonder if it ever will. > > > > Em 13/07/2017 15:09, "Jeremy Malcolm" > > escreveu: > > But here's an article putting the other side > of the story: > > http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 > > We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too. > Does that mean that whatever work they do for > the rest of their careers is tainted by the > few thousand they received to support their > living expenses as an EFF fellow? > > On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote: > > Google has spent millions funding > academic research in the US > and Europe > to > try to influence public opinion > and policymakers, a watchdog has > claimed. > > Over the last decade, Google has > funded research papers that appear > to support the technology > company’s business interests and > defend against regulatory > challenges such as antitrust and > anti-piracy, the US-based Campaign > for Accountability (CfA) said in a > report > . > > “Google uses its immense wealth > and power to attempt to influence > policymakers at every level,” said > Daniel Stevens, CfA executive > director. > > ................ > > Academics were directly funded by > Google in more than half of the > cases and in the rest of the cases > funded indirectly by groups or > institutions supported by Google, > the CfA said. Authors, who were > paid between $5,000 and $400,000 > (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did > not disclose the source of their > funding in 66% of all cases, and > in 26% of those cases directly > funded by Google, according to the > report. > > ........... > > “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour > is exposed, it invariably points > the finger at someone else,” said > Stevens. “Instead of deflecting > blame, Google should address its > record of academic astroturfing, > which puts it in the same league > as big oil and big tobacco > .” > > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google-millions-academic-research-influence-opinion > > As we know Google has recently been fined > $ 2.7 billion for anti-competitive > practices by the EU regulator, which only > means that in all countries that are too > weak to take on google (or benefit from > its profits, meaning the US) Google > remains in violation of competition (and > many other) laws..... All this Google > funded research and advocacy, of dont > regulate the Internet (read, Internet > companies), are playing a dangerous game, > seriously compromising public interest. > > It is time we declare the honeymoon of > civil society and academic love for > digital global corporations over. They are > today like big oil companies -- no doubt > the latter provide what is still the main > energy resource that keeps our societies > ticking but in the bargain they very > often, and systemically, indulge in stuff > that needs academics and NGOs to be > watching against. It is pretty difficult > to undertake such watching while taking > considerable money from them. It is a > simple truism, but the digital sector > tends to ignore it. > > parminder > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > . > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm > > Senior Global Policy Analyst > > Electronic Frontier Foundation > > https://eff.org > > jmalcolm at eff.org > > > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > > > > Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt > > PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r.pollack at unesco.org Mon Jul 17 07:56:00 2017 From: r.pollack at unesco.org (Pollack, Rachel) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 11:56:00 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] UNESCO online consultation to develop Internet Universality Indicators Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, See below announcement for a chance to contribute to UNESCO's development of Internet Universality Indicators. Let's assess and improve the Internet: help UNESCO develop the tools [cid:image005.jpg at 01D2FF04.6B692290] 13 July 2017 UNESCO's project to define Internet Universality indicators aims to build a framework of indicators to assess levels of achievement of the Internet in individual countries. Do you work for a government, for an intergovernmental organization or for an NGO, the private sector or the technical community? Are you are an academic, a journalist or a person who wants to participate in your individual capacity? All of you, we want your input! You can all help shape UNESCO's Internet Universality Indicators by participating in this online consultation. In 2015, UNESCO put the concept of "Internet Universality" at the heart of its work to promote an Internet that works for all. Internet Universality points to four "fundamental norms that have been embodied in the broad evolution of the Internet to date, and which provide a comprehensive way to understand how multiple different aspects are part of a wider whole." These norms - known for short as the ROAM principles - are concerned with an Internet based on human Rights, that is Open, Accessible to all, and nurtured by Multistakeholder participation. UNESCO is now launching an inclusive global multistakeholder consultation to develop a set of Internet Universality indicators, covering these four fundamental norms and the cross-currents between them. The outcome will be a set of quantitative and qualitative indicators to help governments and all other stakeholders to assess their own national Internet environments, and to promote the values associated with Internet Universality. Special attention will be paid to gender and to the needs and interests of children and young people. Consultation with stakeholders is vital for tapping the world's wisdom in order to develop the best indicator framework possible. This first stage of online consultation, from June to October 2017, will be concerned with broad principles and ideas for the framework as a whole. Face-to-face consultations are also being organized by UNESCO in various regions. In November/December, we will launch a second round of consultations on the specific draft indicators. Please participate in the first stage of the online consultation by completing the questionnaire available at http://en.unesco.org/internetuniversality. The closing date for submissions is 31 October 2017, but the earlier we have your views the better! The questionnaire takes about 20 minutes. Contributions can be made in any of the six UN official languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish). -------------------------------------------- Work on the project is supported by SIDA and ISOC and is being led for UNESCO by the Association for Progressive Communications (APC)) on behalf of the Internet Indicators Consortium, which includes, in addition to APC, ict Development Associates, Research ICT Africa, LIRNEasia and DIRSI. [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: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2703 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1178 bytes Desc: image004.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 64325 bytes Desc: image005.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Leaflet of online questionaire of IU indicators Consultation_EN.DOCX Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 210130 bytes Desc: Leaflet of online questionaire of IU indicators Consultation_EN.DOCX URL: From jmalcolm at eff.org Mon Jul 17 13:13:26 2017 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 10:13:26 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02af1c60-4766-59c8-a7da-532d1bac0a81@eff.org> On 16/7/17 6:25 am, parminder wrote: >> We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too. Does that mean that >> whatever work they do for the rest of their careers is tainted by the >> few thousand they received to support their living expenses as an EFF >> fellow? > > I do not think so. But a huge amount of transparency must attend what > these fellows work on, who sets their agenda, who shapes, vets, etc > their outputs, and so on? > > Since you share EEF's experience with google fellows, let me ask you a > direct question. A few NGOs where Google placed its fellows have told > me in the past that Google closely vets final outcomes of any research > from these fellows. Is it true by your experience/ knowledge? No, it's not true at all. Who told you that? And EFF recently initiated a complaint about Google to the Federal Trade Commission, so you can judge from that how much having Google-funded policy fellows has influenced what we do. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 From jmalcolm at eff.org Mon Jul 17 13:25:25 2017 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 10:25:25 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: <41ed11ca-9c8f-3b36-ac65-66e646531a62@itforchange.net> References: <74062c10-3390-3034-db2a-8ebb522e4220@itforchange.net> <41ed11ca-9c8f-3b36-ac65-66e646531a62@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5cf01b41-7fba-2f92-cfe8-1e46ba279eee@eff.org> I am not going to reopen this discussion but Parminder you were on one side of it, and there is another side which has a very different perspective. I have written a paper which revisits this and gives both sides. Here is the link to the preprint: http://www.malcolm.id.au/owncloud/s/l1khaU4JGiPRnXR Don't worry the paper is very neutral and even-handed (compared to some of our earlier, more heated debates). On 17/7/17 2:44 am, parminder wrote: > > Thanks James, you are very clear, and indeed I agree. > > These are clear and specific requirements of academic and civil > society transparency, which should be upheld by all > > Alas though some participating groups asked for the same in the > initial years of this bestbits coalition, in terms of those > organisations that become key steer-ers of this global coalition. The > involved major groups refused to divulge their funding (like as you > mention, with an end of year annual reporting and such), and the > people/ groups who had asked for accountability were kind of pushed > off the group. One of them was a listed founding member of bestbits > who asked to be removed from the list of founders as a consequence of > this disagreement. Sorry, I digress here perhaps. But then just saying > that, unfortunately, this civil society coalition itself does not pass > the criterion of "transparency" that you rightly frame. > > parminder > > > On Monday 17 July 2017 01:40 PM, James Gannon wrote: >> >> Hope I’m interpreting the question right but I would 100% support a >> requirement that where direct funding has been received by a civil >> society actor or an academic to support a campaign or a paper that >> that is disclosed as part of the documentation (Campaign info or in >> the acknowledgements of the paper/research). >> >> >> >> For indirect funding I think that yes similar to a non-profits 990 at >> the end of the fiscal year there should be a reporting of sources of >> indirect funding by both groups also. Topically webfoundations donor >> page is a great example >> http://webfoundation.org/about/funding-partners/ >> , now an argument >> might be made that that might be a lot of overhead for an academic, >> maybe that is an opportunity for CS is out space to help, a small >> project setup to help academics report on their funding, I certainly >> don’t know of many academics that are looking to actively hide their >> funding, but rather there is no easy or standardised way of reporting >> it leading to situations like we have now. >> >> >> >> If this is not what your were aiming at please feel free to steer me >> in the right direction. >> >> >> >> -James >> >> >> >> *From:*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> *Sent:* 17 July 2017 05:51 >> *To:* James Gannon ; Renata Avila >> >> *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro ; Jeremy Malcolm >> ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >> >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same >> league as big oil and big tobacco >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Friday 14 July 2017 01:32 AM, James Gannon wrote: >> >> Agree on the final point for sure and 100% on transparency. >> >> >> Sure, everybody is for 100 % transparency, but then only till we >> actually begin to talk what that means. >> >> So let me ask you, James, what would the 100% transparency be that >> you agree with..... Like civil society groups should disclose their >> funding (unless compelling circumstances which makes is >> counter-productive can be proved)? This is a long history of that >> discussion in the matter of formation and governance of this very >> group bestbits. Maybe you can contribute to it. Look forward to >> hearing your response. >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:*Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org] >> *Sent:* 13 July 2017 21:00 >> *To:* James Gannon >> >> *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro >> ; Jeremy Malcolm >> ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >> < >> >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in >> same league as big oil and big tobacco >> >> >> >> I respectfully disagree on your restrictive interpretation of >> ICANN mission. >> >> >> >> I also disagree on relaxing accountability on who funds academic >> research and its impact. On the contrary, I think limiting our >> work to some sort of transparency is insufficient. Strict >> accountability is needed to limit the power of such powerful >> companies (which are involved in broader sectors, like defense, >> health, etc.). >> >> >> >> We need more and better accountability and also make visible how >> big companies (as big Pharma did) are influencing through lobby, >> research and "philanthropy" the public agendas and apply the >> experience from other sector, like public health and the environment. >> >> >> >> Happy to continue the dialogue off list. >> >> >> >> R >> >> >> Renata Avila >> >> *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* >> >> renata.avila at webfoundation.org >> >> >> *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, >> USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org* >> * | Twitter: @webfoundation* >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:52 PM, James Gannon >> > wrote: >> >> No because the auction funds are also bounded by ICANN mission. >> >> >> >> I think that we should trust academics to be able to conduct >> research in an independent manner, that we need to stop >> looking at the GAFA conspiracy theories and that we shouldn’t >> sully those academics who are working on critical areas of >> research for us by claiming that once they are ever ‘tainted’ >> by corporate funding that they should forever have to walk >> around with a a Google/FB/etc disclaimer on every word they >> write or talk they give or opinion they express. >> >> >> >> *From:*Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org >> ] >> *Sent:* 13 July 2017 20:31 >> >> >> *To:* James Gannon > > >> *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro > >; Jeremy Malcolm > >; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> > < >> > > >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in >> same league as big oil and big tobacco >> >> >> >> Well, there is more: >> >> >> >> The proceeds from New gTLD Program auctions, *which will >> total more than $230 million, are being reserved.* The >> multistakeholder community will develop proposals for how >> these proceeds could be distributed. A community-based >> drafting team is currently working on a charter for a >> Cross-Community Working Group that will create >> recommendations for Board consideration. >> >> >> >> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-07-28-en >> >> >> >> My point: >> >> >> >> - Google funds everything, especially advocacy and research >> in poor countries. >> >> - If not google, it is Facebook. >> >> - That harms legitimacy. >> >> >> >> Funds are really scarce for research, advocacy and policy. >> >> >> >> Meanwhile, ICANN = 230 million plus 70 million reserves. >> >> >> >> What if we advocate for those funds to *support public >> interest research*, via a Foundation or similar, instead of >> Google (or other companies) funding research. >> >> >> >> Is it clear now? >> >> >> >> R >> >> >> Renata Avila >> >> *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* >> >> renata.avila at webfoundation.org >> >> >> *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, >> USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org* >> * | Twitter: @webfoundation* >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:21 PM, James Gannon >> > wrote: >> >> The ICANN reserve fund is designed to keep ICANN running >> in the event of financial distress and is not subject to >> any external use outside of ICANN, and even if it was it >> would still be bound by ICANNs mission. >> >> Im not seeing the relationship to the current discussion >> at all. >> >> >> >> -James >> >> >> >> *From:*Renata Avila >> [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org >> ] >> *Sent:* 13 July 2017 20:19 >> *To:* James Gannon > > >> *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro > >; Jeremy Malcolm >> >; >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> > < >> > > >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts >> Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco >> >> >> >> Its reserve fund. >> >> >> >> It could be modified, any time, to support broader areas... >> >> >> >> Figures in USD (millions) Page 9. >> >> >> >> Link: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy17-unaudited-financials-31mar17-en.pdf >> >> >> >> R. >> >> >> Renata Avila >> >> *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* >> >> renata.avila at webfoundation.org >> >> >> *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, >> USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org* >> * | Twitter: @webfoundation* >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:09 PM, James Gannon >> > > wrote: >> >> Can you elaborate on this piece? What ICANN money, >> ICANN does some very limited funding of research but >> doesn’t fund anything in the area of advocacy, and >> there is very little research that is within ICANNs >> mission anyway. >> >> >> >> -J >> >> >> >> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> ] *On >> Behalf Of *Renata Avila >> *Sent:* 13 July 2017 20:05 >> *To:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro > > >> *Cc:* Jeremy Malcolm > >; >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> > < >> > > >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts >> Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco >> >> >> >> I second Renata. >> >> >> >> Our research and advocacy space is suffering from a >> funding problem and it is harming its credibility. It >> will be great to have a larger pool of funds >> supporting our efforts, which are becoming more >> mainstream and relevant for the next 50 years >> (especially for developing countries). The production >> of research is extremely concentrated and, as >> austerity is rampant all over the World, State >> funding to research is shrinking by the day even for >> developed countries at the same pace as tax evasion >> (or elusion) (Google is not guilt free in this >> area http://fortune.com/2016/03/11/apple-google-taxes-eu/) >> >> >> >> And in small countries, priorities of both >> governments and private sector to support research >> support traditional areas, such as health or >> education. Certainly, local funds are not supporting >> local advocacy efforts for privacy, net neutrality, etc. >> >> >> >> I think the problem is deeper and I think that, in >> order to continue our work and efforts with >> impartiality and credibility, we need a coordinated >> effort to get a diverse pool of donors and ways >> towards sustainability. I think the comparisons of >> Big Oil funding Greenpeace, when we talk about giants >> like Facebook or Google, is valid now. >> >> >> >> What about all the ICANN money? Will it be enough to >> fund all global and local advocacy and at least part >> of the relevant research? A global fund? Crowdfunding >> for advocacy and more pressure on governments for >> research? >> >> >> >> R >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Renata Avila >> >> *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* >> >> renata.avila at webfoundation.org >> >> >> *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, >> USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org* >> * | Twitter: >> @webfoundation* >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Renata Aquino >> Ribeiro > > wrote: >> >> Yes it does. >> >> Unless they are transparent about it and clear >> about it not interfering with their research ethics. >> >> >> >> In the public education system in developing >> countries it is quite common to see funding being >> misused. Researchers who get money from >> international organizations, even some national >> ones, using public universities to advance an >> agenda. And yes, this can be sometimes an >> astroturfing exercise. >> >> >> >> Which is why access and production of knowledge >> needs to be always transparent and public. >> >> >> >> Unfortunately most of internet policy has not >> waken up to this yet. I wonder if it ever will. >> >> >> >> Em 13/07/2017 15:09, "Jeremy Malcolm" >> > >> escreveu: >> >> But here's an article putting the other side >> of the story: >> >> http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 >> >> We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too. >> Does that mean that whatever work they do for >> the rest of their careers is tainted by the >> few thousand they received to support their >> living expenses as an EFF fellow? >> >> On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote: >> >> Google has spent millions funding >> academic research in the US >> and Europe >> to >> try to influence public opinion >> and policymakers, a watchdog has >> claimed. >> >> Over the last decade, Google has >> funded research papers that >> appear to support the technology >> company’s business interests and >> defend against regulatory >> challenges such as antitrust and >> anti-piracy, the US-based >> Campaign for Accountability (CfA) >> said in a report >> . >> >> “Google uses its immense wealth >> and power to attempt to influence >> policymakers at every level,” >> said Daniel Stevens, CfA >> executive director. >> >> ................ >> >> Academics were directly funded by >> Google in more than half of the >> cases and in the rest of the >> cases funded indirectly by groups >> or institutions supported by >> Google, the CfA said. Authors, >> who were paid between $5,000 and >> $400,000 (£3,900-£310,000) by >> Google, did not disclose the >> source of their funding in 66% of >> all cases, and in 26% of those >> cases directly funded by Google, >> according to the report. >> >> ........... >> >> “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour >> is exposed, it invariably points >> the finger at someone else,” said >> Stevens. “Instead of deflecting >> blame, Google should address its >> record of academic astroturfing, >> which puts it in the same league >> as big oil and big tobacco >> .” >> >> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google-millions-academic-research-influence-opinion >> >> As we know Google has recently been fined >> $ 2.7 billion for anti-competitive >> practices by the EU regulator, which only >> means that in all countries that are too >> weak to take on google (or benefit from >> its profits, meaning the US) Google >> remains in violation of competition (and >> many other) laws..... All this Google >> funded research and advocacy, of dont >> regulate the Internet (read, Internet >> companies), are playing a dangerous game, >> seriously compromising public interest. >> >> It is time we declare the honeymoon of >> civil society and academic love for >> digital global corporations over. They >> are today like big oil companies -- no >> doubt the latter provide what is still >> the main energy resource that keeps our >> societies ticking but in the bargain they >> very often, and systemically, indulge in >> stuff that needs academics and NGOs to be >> watching against. It is pretty difficult >> to undertake such watching while taking >> considerable money from them. It is a >> simple truism, but the digital sector >> tends to ignore it. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> . >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jeremy Malcolm >> >> Senior Global Policy Analyst >> >> Electronic Frontier Foundation >> >> https://eff.org >> >> jmalcolm at eff.org >> >> >> >> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 >> >> >> >> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: >> >> >> >> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt >> >> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the >> list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wisdom.dk at gmail.com Tue Jul 18 18:27:12 2017 From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:27:12 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] AFRICA OPEN DATA CONFERENCE 2017 WILL BE LIVE STREAM (17 - 21 JULY 2017) GHANA Message-ID: Dear Lynn and MAG Members, Is my pleasure to humbly bring to the attention of MAG members that, the Africa open data conference will be live stream at Live Stream Platform with chat link: wwww.http://aodclive.afriodirf.org/ Facebook Live link: https://www.facebook.com/africaodc The conference estimates five full days including hands-on training and building with plenary sessions, workshops, and breakouts convening in-person and virtual participants from across the continent, the Diaspora, and global stakeholders and influencers. Participants include government leadership, civil servants, industry executives, telecommunications organizations, researchers, students, innovators, entrepreneurs, donors, investors, farmers, health care workers, and others. The theme of the conference is: "OPEN DATA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA" and supported by 7 sub-themes: Gender, Health, Agriculture and Nutrition, Sustainable Development Goals, Energy, Extractives Industry, Education. All are cordially invited to join the Open Data Movement in Africa. For program schedule and information kindly visit the conference website at: www.africaopendata.net Thank you, *WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)* E-government and Open Government Data Platforms Specialist ICANN Fellow / Member, UN IGF MAG Member, ISOC Member, Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) Member, Diplo Foundation Member, OGP Open Data WG Member, GODAN Memember, ITAG Member Email: wisdom.dk at gmail.com Skype: wisdom_dk facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk Website: www.data.gov.gh www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: snapshot.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 98584 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Wed Jul 19 10:35:51 2017 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 10:35:51 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Right to privacy in India In-Reply-To: <5cf01b41-7fba-2f92-cfe8-1e46ba279eee@eff.org> References: <74062c10-3390-3034-db2a-8ebb522e4220@itforchange.net> <41ed11ca-9c8f-3b36-ac65-66e646531a62@itforchange.net> <5cf01b41-7fba-2f92-cfe8-1e46ba279eee@eff.org> Message-ID: <1e657d19-c8cf-247f-8b14-69cb0ece0433@softwarefreedom.org> For those of you following developments in India, this week, the Indian Supreme Court is hearing arguments on Indians' right to privacy under its Constitution. SFLC.in is providing real time updates through its Twitter handle and also detailed summaries at http://sflc.in/five-judge-constitution-bench-of-sc-refers-question-of-right-to-privacy-to-nine-judge-bench/ From chinmayiarun at gmail.com Wed Jul 19 10:55:31 2017 From: chinmayiarun at gmail.com (Chinmayi Arun) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 11:55:31 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Right to privacy in India In-Reply-To: <1e657d19-c8cf-247f-8b14-69cb0ece0433@softwarefreedom.org> References: <74062c10-3390-3034-db2a-8ebb522e4220@itforchange.net> <41ed11ca-9c8f-3b36-ac65-66e646531a62@itforchange.net> <5cf01b41-7fba-2f92-cfe8-1e46ba279eee@eff.org> <1e657d19-c8cf-247f-8b14-69cb0ece0433@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: This is great, thanks Mishi! If anyone needs background, my colleague Smitha has just written it up on our blog, and has referenced our archived work on this leading up to this hearing. On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Mishi Choudhary wrote: > For those of you following developments in India, this week, the Indian > Supreme Court is hearing arguments on Indians' right to privacy under > its Constitution. SFLC.in is providing real time updates through its > Twitter handle and also detailed summaries at > http://sflc.in/five-judge-constitution-bench-of-sc- > refers-question-of-right-to-privacy-to-nine-judge-bench/ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From raquino at gmail.com Thu Jul 6 09:37:24 2017 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 10:37:24 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] arrest of human rights activists in Turkey Message-ID: This is unfolding so many news sources and reactions Turkey police enters hotel and arrests human rights trainers https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/06/amnesty-says-turkey-director-and-activists-detained-in-istanbul http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40517184 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/world/europe/turkey-amnesty-idil-eser.html?smid=tw-nytimesworld&smtyp=cur&_r=0 Amnesty International starts campaign to send a message to Turkey gov. https://www.amnesty.org/en/get-involved/take-action/free-taner/ From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jul 20 00:45:25 2017 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:15:25 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: <02af1c60-4766-59c8-a7da-532d1bac0a81@eff.org> References: <02af1c60-4766-59c8-a7da-532d1bac0a81@eff.org> Message-ID: <550e026c-6d1d-c225-a339-623292590f30@itforchange.net> On Monday 17 July 2017 10:43 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 16/7/17 6:25 am, parminder wrote: >> snip >> Since you share EEF's experience with google fellows, let me ask you a >> direct question. A few NGOs where Google placed its fellows have told >> me in the past that Google closely vets final outcomes of any research >> from these fellows. Is it true by your experience/ knowledge? > No, it's not true at all. Who told you that? And EFF recently > initiated a complaint about Google to the Federal Trade Commission, so > you can judge from that how much having Google-funded policy fellows has > influenced what we do. I hold EFF's work in highest regard, and often consult it, and I have no doubt that it is not influenced by placing google fellows there. I was talking about the actual output of the google fellows. I cannot tell you who told me that, but I have it from authoritative sources that google does vet the output from google fellows in many places.... parminder > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 Thu Jul 20 00:55:31 2017 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:25:31 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: <5cf01b41-7fba-2f92-cfe8-1e46ba279eee@eff.org> References: <74062c10-3390-3034-db2a-8ebb522e4220@itforchange.net> <41ed11ca-9c8f-3b36-ac65-66e646531a62@itforchange.net> <5cf01b41-7fba-2f92-cfe8-1e46ba279eee@eff.org> Message-ID: On Monday 17 July 2017 10:55 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I am not going to reopen this discussion but Parminder you were on one > side of it, and there is another side which has a very different > perspective. I have written a paper which revisits this and gives > both sides. Here is the link to the preprint: > > http://www.malcolm.id.au/owncloud/s/l1khaU4JGiPRnXR > > Don't worry the paper is very neutral and even-handed (compared to > some of our earlier, more heated debates). I have not yet gone through the paper, but it is amusing that you, being right in the middle of that controversy yourself, claim neutrality and even-handedness for yourself, but find it necessary to affix to my opinions on this issue the qualifying fact that I was on one side of it :). Anyway, I am pretty proud of which side I was on - that of funding transparency for public interest organisations. But if you are indeed neutral you can perhaps tell us now what your view is about funding transparency of public interest organisations, especially those that seek to work at such scale as to be a major force in opinion and policy making circles (and of course unless some attenuating circumstances are shown which may expose that organisation to any real danger if it were transparent with its finding) .' And there is no reason to make it look like that such a discussion is not an important one for civil society groups and coalitions. Every outsider considers it a joke that civil society that takes its job to be to ask tough questions from those who exercise any kind of power runs away from such questions directed at itself. parminder > > On 17/7/17 2:44 am, parminder wrote: >> >> Thanks James, you are very clear, and indeed I agree. >> >> These are clear and specific requirements of academic and civil >> society transparency, which should be upheld by all >> >> Alas though some participating groups asked for the same in the >> initial years of this bestbits coalition, in terms of those >> organisations that become key steer-ers of this global coalition. The >> involved major groups refused to divulge their funding (like as you >> mention, with an end of year annual reporting and such), and the >> people/ groups who had asked for accountability were kind of pushed >> off the group. One of them was a listed founding member of bestbits >> who asked to be removed from the list of founders as a consequence of >> this disagreement. Sorry, I digress here perhaps. But then just >> saying that, unfortunately, this civil society coalition itself does >> not pass the criterion of "transparency" that you rightly frame. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Monday 17 July 2017 01:40 PM, James Gannon wrote: >>> >>> Hope I’m interpreting the question right but I would 100% support a >>> requirement that where direct funding has been received by a civil >>> society actor or an academic to support a campaign or a paper that >>> that is disclosed as part of the documentation (Campaign info or in >>> the acknowledgements of the paper/research). >>> >>> >>> >>> For indirect funding I think that yes similar to a non-profits 990 >>> at the end of the fiscal year there should be a reporting of sources >>> of indirect funding by both groups also. Topically webfoundations >>> donor page is a great example >>> http://webfoundation.org/about/funding-partners/ >>> , now an argument >>> might be made that that might be a lot of overhead for an academic, >>> maybe that is an opportunity for CS is out space to help, a small >>> project setup to help academics report on their funding, I certainly >>> don’t know of many academics that are looking to actively hide their >>> funding, but rather there is no easy or standardised way of >>> reporting it leading to situations like we have now. >>> >>> >>> >>> If this is not what your were aiming at please feel free to steer me >>> in the right direction. >>> >>> >>> >>> -James >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>> *Sent:* 17 July 2017 05:51 >>> *To:* James Gannon ; Renata Avila >>> >>> *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro ; Jeremy Malcolm >>> ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same >>> league as big oil and big tobacco >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday 14 July 2017 01:32 AM, James Gannon wrote: >>> >>> Agree on the final point for sure and 100% on transparency. >>> >>> >>> Sure, everybody is for 100 % transparency, but then only till we >>> actually begin to talk what that means. >>> >>> So let me ask you, James, what would the 100% transparency be that >>> you agree with..... Like civil society groups should disclose their >>> funding (unless compelling circumstances which makes is >>> counter-productive can be proved)? This is a long history of that >>> discussion in the matter of formation and governance of this very >>> group bestbits. Maybe you can contribute to it. Look forward to >>> hearing your response. >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:*Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org] >>> *Sent:* 13 July 2017 21:00 >>> *To:* James Gannon >>> >>> *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro >>> ; Jeremy Malcolm >>> ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >>> < >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in >>> same league as big oil and big tobacco >>> >>> >>> >>> I respectfully disagree on your restrictive interpretation of >>> ICANN mission. >>> >>> >>> >>> I also disagree on relaxing accountability on who funds academic >>> research and its impact. On the contrary, I think limiting our >>> work to some sort of transparency is insufficient. Strict >>> accountability is needed to limit the power of such powerful >>> companies (which are involved in broader sectors, like defense, >>> health, etc.). >>> >>> >>> >>> We need more and better accountability and also make visible how >>> big companies (as big Pharma did) are influencing through lobby, >>> research and "philanthropy" the public agendas and apply the >>> experience from other sector, like public health and the >>> environment. >>> >>> >>> >>> Happy to continue the dialogue off list. >>> >>> >>> >>> R >>> >>> >>> Renata Avila >>> >>> *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* >>> >>> renata.avila at webfoundation.org >>> >>> >>> *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, >>> USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org* >>> * | Twitter: @webfoundation* >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:52 PM, James Gannon >>> > wrote: >>> >>> No because the auction funds are also bounded by ICANN mission. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think that we should trust academics to be able to conduct >>> research in an independent manner, that we need to stop >>> looking at the GAFA conspiracy theories and that we >>> shouldn’t sully those academics who are working on critical >>> areas of research for us by claiming that once they are ever >>> ‘tainted’ by corporate funding that they should forever have >>> to walk around with a a Google/FB/etc disclaimer on every >>> word they write or talk they give or opinion they express. >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:*Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org >>> ] >>> *Sent:* 13 July 2017 20:31 >>> >>> >>> *To:* James Gannon >> > >>> *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro >> >; Jeremy Malcolm >>> >; >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> > < >>> >> > >>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google >>> in same league as big oil and big tobacco >>> >>> >>> >>> Well, there is more: >>> >>> >>> >>> The proceeds from New gTLD Program auctions, *which will >>> total more than $230 million, are being reserved.* The >>> multistakeholder community will develop proposals for how >>> these proceeds could be distributed. A community-based >>> drafting team is currently working on a charter for a >>> Cross-Community Working Group that will create >>> recommendations for Board consideration. >>> >>> >>> >>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-07-28-en >>> >>> >>> >>> My point: >>> >>> >>> >>> - Google funds everything, especially advocacy and research >>> in poor countries. >>> >>> - If not google, it is Facebook. >>> >>> - That harms legitimacy. >>> >>> >>> >>> Funds are really scarce for research, advocacy and policy. >>> >>> >>> >>> Meanwhile, ICANN = 230 million plus 70 million reserves. >>> >>> >>> >>> What if we advocate for those funds to *support public >>> interest research*, via a Foundation or similar, instead of >>> Google (or other companies) funding research. >>> >>> >>> >>> Is it clear now? >>> >>> >>> >>> R >>> >>> >>> Renata Avila >>> >>> *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* >>> >>> renata.avila at webfoundation.org >>> >>> >>> *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, >>> USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org* >>> * | Twitter: @webfoundation* >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:21 PM, James Gannon >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> The ICANN reserve fund is designed to keep ICANN running >>> in the event of financial distress and is not subject to >>> any external use outside of ICANN, and even if it was it >>> would still be bound by ICANNs mission. >>> >>> Im not seeing the relationship to the current discussion >>> at all. >>> >>> >>> >>> -James >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:*Renata Avila >>> [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org >>> ] >>> *Sent:* 13 July 2017 20:19 >>> *To:* James Gannon >> > >>> *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro >> >; Jeremy Malcolm >>> >; >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> > < >>> >> > >>> >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts >>> Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco >>> >>> >>> >>> Its reserve fund. >>> >>> >>> >>> It could be modified, any time, to support broader areas... >>> >>> >>> >>> Figures in USD (millions) Page 9. >>> >>> >>> >>> Link: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy17-unaudited-financials-31mar17-en.pdf >>> >>> >>> >>> R. >>> >>> >>> Renata Avila >>> >>> *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* >>> >>> renata.avila at webfoundation.org >>> >>> >>> *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, >>> USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org* >>> * | Twitter: @webfoundation* >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:09 PM, James Gannon >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> Can you elaborate on this piece? What ICANN money, >>> ICANN does some very limited funding of research but >>> doesn’t fund anything in the area of advocacy, and >>> there is very little research that is within ICANNs >>> mission anyway. >>> >>> >>> >>> -J >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> >>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> ] *On >>> Behalf Of *Renata Avila >>> *Sent:* 13 July 2017 20:05 >>> *To:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro >> > >>> *Cc:* Jeremy Malcolm >> >; >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> > < >>> >> > >>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts >>> Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco >>> >>> >>> >>> I second Renata. >>> >>> >>> >>> Our research and advocacy space is suffering from a >>> funding problem and it is harming its credibility. >>> It will be great to have a larger pool of funds >>> supporting our efforts, which are becoming more >>> mainstream and relevant for the next 50 years >>> (especially for developing countries). The >>> production of research is extremely concentrated >>> and, as austerity is rampant all over the World, >>> State funding to research is shrinking by the day >>> even for developed countries at the same pace as tax >>> evasion (or elusion) (Google is not guilt free in >>> this >>> area http://fortune.com/2016/03/11/apple-google-taxes-eu/) >>> >>> >>> >>> And in small countries, priorities of both >>> governments and private sector to support research >>> support traditional areas, such as health or >>> education. Certainly, local funds are not supporting >>> local advocacy efforts for privacy, net neutrality, >>> etc. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think the problem is deeper and I think that, in >>> order to continue our work and efforts with >>> impartiality and credibility, we need a coordinated >>> effort to get a diverse pool of donors and ways >>> towards sustainability. I think the comparisons of >>> Big Oil funding Greenpeace, when we talk about >>> giants like Facebook or Google, is valid now. >>> >>> >>> >>> What about all the ICANN money? Will it be enough to >>> fund all global and local advocacy and at least part >>> of the relevant research? A global fund? >>> Crowdfunding for advocacy and more pressure on >>> governments for research? >>> >>> >>> >>> R >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Renata Avila >>> >>> *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* >>> >>> renata.avila at webfoundation.org >>> >>> >>> *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC >>> 20005, USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org* >>> * | Twitter: >>> @webfoundation* >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Renata Aquino >>> Ribeiro >> > wrote: >>> >>> Yes it does. >>> >>> Unless they are transparent about it and clear >>> about it not interfering with their research ethics. >>> >>> >>> >>> In the public education system in developing >>> countries it is quite common to see funding >>> being misused. Researchers who get money from >>> international organizations, even some national >>> ones, using public universities to advance an >>> agenda. And yes, this can be sometimes an >>> astroturfing exercise. >>> >>> >>> >>> Which is why access and production of knowledge >>> needs to be always transparent and public. >>> >>> >>> >>> Unfortunately most of internet policy has not >>> waken up to this yet. I wonder if it ever will. >>> >>> >>> >>> Em 13/07/2017 15:09, "Jeremy Malcolm" >>> > >>> escreveu: >>> >>> But here's an article putting the other side >>> of the story: >>> >>> http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 >>> >>> We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too. >>> Does that mean that whatever work they do >>> for the rest of their careers is tainted by >>> the few thousand they received to support >>> their living expenses as an EFF fellow? >>> >>> On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote: >>> >>> Google has spent millions >>> funding academic research in the >>> US and Europe >>> to >>> try to influence public opinion >>> and policymakers, a watchdog has >>> claimed. >>> >>> Over the last decade, Google has >>> funded research papers that >>> appear to support the technology >>> company’s business interests and >>> defend against regulatory >>> challenges such as antitrust and >>> anti-piracy, the US-based >>> Campaign for Accountability >>> (CfA) said in a report >>> . >>> >>> “Google uses its immense wealth >>> and power to attempt to >>> influence policymakers at every >>> level,” said Daniel Stevens, CfA >>> executive director. >>> >>> ................ >>> >>> Academics were directly funded >>> by Google in more than half of >>> the cases and in the rest of the >>> cases funded indirectly by >>> groups or institutions supported >>> by Google, the CfA said. >>> Authors, who were paid between >>> $5,000 and $400,000 >>> (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did >>> not disclose the source of their >>> funding in 66% of all cases, and >>> in 26% of those cases directly >>> funded by Google, according to >>> the report. >>> >>> ........... >>> >>> “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour >>> is exposed, it invariably points >>> the finger at someone else,” >>> said Stevens. “Instead of >>> deflecting blame, Google should >>> address its record of academic >>> astroturfing, which puts it in >>> the same league as big oil and >>> big tobacco >>> .” >>> >>> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google-millions-academic-research-influence-opinion >>> >>> As we know Google has recently been >>> fined $ 2.7 billion for anti-competitive >>> practices by the EU regulator, which >>> only means that in all countries that >>> are too weak to take on google (or >>> benefit from its profits, meaning the >>> US) Google remains in violation of >>> competition (and many other) laws..... >>> All this Google funded research and >>> advocacy, of dont regulate the Internet >>> (read, Internet companies), are playing >>> a dangerous game, seriously compromising >>> public interest. >>> >>> It is time we declare the honeymoon of >>> civil society and academic love for >>> digital global corporations over. They >>> are today like big oil companies -- no >>> doubt the latter provide what is still >>> the main energy resource that keeps our >>> societies ticking but in the bargain >>> they very often, and systemically, >>> indulge in stuff that needs academics >>> and NGOs to be watching against. It is >>> pretty difficult to undertake such >>> watching while taking considerable money >>> from them. It is a simple truism, but >>> the digital sector tends to ignore it. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> . >>> >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Jeremy Malcolm >>> >>> Senior Global Policy Analyst >>> >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>> >>> https://eff.org >>> >>> jmalcolm at eff.org >>> >>> >>> >>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 >>> >>> >>> >>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: >>> >>> >>> >>> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt >>> >>> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the >>> list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>> >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Global Policy Analyst > Electronic Frontier Foundation > https://eff.org > jmalcolm at eff.org > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > > Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt > PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 wisdom.dk at gmail.com Thu Jul 20 05:56:25 2017 From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:56:25 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] AFRICA OPEN DATA CONFERENCE 2017 WILL BE LIVE STREAM (17 - 21 JULY 2017) GHANA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Lynn and MAG Members, The president of Ghana will be opening the Africa Open Data Conference in few minutes. He will be addressing the whole world. He will be live stream @ wwww.http://aodclive.afriodirf.org/ Facebook Live link: https://www.facebook.com/africaodc Thank you, *WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)* E-government and Open Government Data Platforms Specialist ICANN Fellow / Member, UN IGF MAG Member, ISOC Member, Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) Member, Diplo Foundation Member, OGP Open Data WG Member, GODAN Memember, ITAG Member Email: wisdom.dk at gmail.com Skype: wisdom_dk facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk Website: www.data.gov.gh www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh -- *WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)* E-government and Open Government Data Platforms Specialist ICANN Fellow / Member, UN IGF MAG Member, ISOC Member, Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) Member, Diplo Foundation Member, OGP Open Data WG Member, GODAN Memember, ITAG Member Email: wisdom.dk at gmail.com Skype: wisdom_dk facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk Website: www.data.gov.gh www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca Thu Jul 20 08:09:11 2017 From: roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:09:11 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco Message-ID: Re Parminder¹s recent posts concerning NGO funding transparency: This issue is much more complex than what is being represented in this most recent go-between/rehashing of a topic that affects not only the BB community but also every other NGO issue sector (see https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0385535597 ). That said, NN is one area where transparency is critical: see > https://m.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/03/net_neutrality_rage_hits_academia/ > > http://www.computerworld.com/article/2838972/secretive-funding-fuels-debate-ab > out-net-neutrality-astroturfing.html > > https://openpolicyresearch.com/2014/10/28/astroturfing-in-the-net-neutrality-d > ebate/. Having worked in philanthropy and now researching and teaching about its complex/contentious role in policy advocacy (http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/6399; https://lbj.utexas.edu/spring-2017-61510-pa388l-advanced-topics-management), I offer two comments. First, EFF is to be applauded for making its 990 form accessible on its website: https://www.eff.org/document/public-990-fiscal-year-2015. From this form one can see that there is an endowment along with several income streams. In other words, this is more here than simply grants; there are resources indicated that seem independent from donor influence. Would other civil society groups in the BB community concerned about transparency in funding consider posting their tax filings as a resource for civil society researchers? Second, these resources are available for researching the financials of US-based non profits: > https://www.guidestar.org/Home.aspx > http://foundationcenter.org/find-funding/990-finder > https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/search-for-forms-990-n-filed-by-smal > l-tax-exempt-organizations Please feel free to email me off-list for additional information and questions and also how to research the financials of non US based NGOs. Also feel free to contact me if you would like to consider participating in an emerging research project related to this topic. Cheers, B. Lentz, McGill University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmalcolm at eff.org Thu Jul 20 14:02:46 2017 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:02:46 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: References: <74062c10-3390-3034-db2a-8ebb522e4220@itforchange.net> <41ed11ca-9c8f-3b36-ac65-66e646531a62@itforchange.net> <5cf01b41-7fba-2f92-cfe8-1e46ba279eee@eff.org> Message-ID: On 19/7/17 9:55 pm, parminder wrote: > But if you are indeed neutral you can perhaps tell us now what your > view is about funding transparency of public interest organisations, > especially those that seek to work at such scale as to be a major > force in opinion and policy making circles (and of course unless some > attenuating circumstances are shown which may expose that organisation > to any real danger if it were transparent with its finding) .' > > And there is no reason to make it look like that such a discussion is > not an important one for civil society groups and coalitions. Every > outsider considers it a joke that civil society that takes its job to > be to ask tough questions from those who exercise any kind of power > runs away from such questions directed at itself. I sent you the link to the paper precisely because I don't want to have that kind of discussion on this list. Past experience shows us how divisive and unproductive it is. For example, already know that some people on this list think that researchers need to forever carry a disclaimer that they were once hired under a Google Policy Fellowship, whereas others think that's ridiculous. It's a topic about which participants can legitimately have different opinions. Further discussion or finger-pointing here will only produce further discord rather than consensus. As for my opinion, please read the paper and you'll find out. I'm not going to say anything more on the topic here. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From ycompanys at gmail.com Thu Jul 20 14:30:06 2017 From: ycompanys at gmail.com (Yosem Companys) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:30:06 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco In-Reply-To: References: <74062c10-3390-3034-db2a-8ebb522e4220@itforchange.net> <41ed11ca-9c8f-3b36-ac65-66e646531a62@itforchange.net> <5cf01b41-7fba-2f92-cfe8-1e46ba279eee@eff.org> Message-ID: I agree with Jeremy. There's a scientific research literature on the impact of money on people and organizations, whether they are researchers or government officials and universities or private companies. In resource dependence theory , an organization that provides resources to a person (or organization) puts the latter in a dependent position because the latter depends on the former for resources. In empirical evidence, the extent of the dependence is influenced a lot by how the resources are awarded. In other words, the devil is in the details. In this case, the devil is in the details of the contract. For example, research has shown that universities (or university departments) that receive money from private corporations with strings attached tend to conform to the dictates of the funding entity. But many university departments receive money with no strings attached, so inferring a dependence in such a situation would be wrong. In a different vein, research has shown that companies that rely on one supplier tend to follow the dictates of that supplier. Think the car industry and oil companies. Cars have internal combustion engines that rely on gasoline, and the gas industry is an oligopoly. So the gas industry as a supplier exerts significant control over car manufacturers. If the market were more competitive, car manufacturers would not be as dependent. This is one reason the electric car has taken so much time to build. Going back to our discussion, as Jeremy notes, EFF has received Google funding but has also been at times one of the fiercest critics of the company. I assume that is because EFF doesn't have a contractual obligation to do Google's bidding based on that funding. Similarly, Google donated a significant amount of money to start Stanford Liberationtech, yet Stanford Liberationtech regularly critiqued Google when the company's actions went contrary to the spirit of Liberationtech. To say that everyone who gets money from an entity is beholden to that entity is the same as saying that anyone connected to a nefarious individual is nefarious. Correlation does not imply causation. One needs to examine the details of the relationships (the how and why) to know for sure. That said, in the U.S., we tend to hold openness and transparency as a public good, meaning that both people and organizations should disclose the origins of their resources and let people evaluate their actions both on their merits and relationships. For example, that is why we have SEC filing disclosures for public companies. At universities like Stanford, we teach our students not to take what they read for granted. We ask them always to ask who the author of a written piece is. Everyone should do the same. What is the author's biography? How and why has the author chosen to write about a particular subject? What are the author's relationships to specific people and organizations? Often the answers to these questions tell you a lot you need to know about whether to take the work seriously or not. But again it is because of the why and how and not the what of the relationships. Just my two cents, Yosem On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 19/7/17 9:55 pm, parminder wrote: > > But if you are indeed neutral you can perhaps tell us now what your > > view is about funding transparency of public interest organisations, > > especially those that seek to work at such scale as to be a major > > force in opinion and policy making circles (and of course unless some > > attenuating circumstances are shown which may expose that organisation > > to any real danger if it were transparent with its finding) .' > > > > And there is no reason to make it look like that such a discussion is > > not an important one for civil society groups and coalitions. Every > > outsider considers it a joke that civil society that takes its job to > > be to ask tough questions from those who exercise any kind of power > > runs away from such questions directed at itself. > > I sent you the link to the paper precisely because I don't want to have > that kind of discussion on this list. Past experience shows us how > divisive and unproductive it is. For example, already know that some > people on this list think that researchers need to forever carry a > disclaimer that they were once hired under a Google Policy Fellowship, > whereas others think that's ridiculous. It's a topic about which > participants can legitimately have different opinions. Further > discussion or finger-pointing here will only produce further discord > rather than consensus. As for my opinion, please read the paper and > you'll find out. I'm not going to say anything more on the topic here. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Global Policy Analyst > Electronic Frontier Foundation > https://eff.org > jmalcolm at eff.org > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > > Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt > PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From listes at stephcouture.info Thu Jul 20 16:26:59 2017 From: listes at stephcouture.info (=?UTF-8?Q?St=C3=A9phane_Couture?=) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 16:26:59 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Research Chair in Media, Datafication and Governance - York University Message-ID: Hi, This might be of interest for some of you or your colleagues in the academia. We are looking for applications from scholars outside of Canada, for a Research Chair in "Media, Datafication and Governance". The delays are very short due the the restrictions of the funding program, but it is worth the effort. We are particularly interested in candidates with diverse backgrounds and especially encourage candidates in equity, diversity and inclusion categories. I personally think it would be great to have applications from people outside Europe and North America. Best, Stéphane Couture ============ Glendon College, York University, invites applications from individuals interested in nomination for a Canada 150 Research Chair in Media, Datafication and Governance, to commence July 1, 2018. Glendon is a bilingual liberal arts college and a faculty of York University. Applicants must be able to work in English and French. The position is a tenure stream appointment at the rank of Assistant or Associate Professor conditional on the successful nomination of the applicant as a Canada 150 Research Chair. To be eligible for this award, nominees must be internationally based at the time of the application (both working and residing outside of Canada), including Canadian expatriates. The individual sought will be nominated for a Canada 150 Research Chairs at the $350,000 per year level. Appointments to Canada 150 Chairs are for 7 years and are accompanied by a full-time tenure-stream faculty position. Further information about the Canada 150 Research Chair program is available at http://www.canada150.chairs-chaires.gc.ca. The successful candidate will have a record of excellence in scholarly research including publications appropriate to their stage of career, and will demonstrate a commitment to excellence in teaching at all levels. The successful candidate will be prepared to participate actively in one or more Glendon departments and be suitable for prompt appointment to the Faculty of Graduate Studies. Following the 7 year research chair period, the successful candidate will join the Communications Program of Glendon`s School of Translation. For this nomination, York is particularly interested in candidates with diverse backgrounds and especially encourages candidates in equity, diversity and inclusion categories. York acknowledges the potential impact that career interruptions can have on a candidate’s record of research achievement and encourages applicants to explain in their application the impact that career interruptions may have had on their record of research achievement. York University is an Affirmative Action (AA) employer and strongly values diversity, including gender and sexual diversity, within its community. The AA program, which applies to Aboriginal people, visible minorities, people with disabilities, and women, can be found at www.yorku.ca/acadjobs or by calling the AA office at 416-736-5713. All qualified candidates are encouraged to apply; however, Canadian citizens and permanent residents will be given priority. The institutional commitment to ensuring that the opportunities of the award will be made available to individuals from the four designated groups (women, members of visible minorities, Aboriginal Peoples, and persons with disabilities), including: • quality of the recruitment and outreach strategy in terms of demonstrated commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion; and • quality and extent of the institution’s commitment to ensuring that the opportunities of the chairholder’s research program will be made available to individuals from the four designated groups. Applicants should submit a signed letter of application outlining their professional experience and research interests, an up-to-date curriculum vitae, a sample of their scholarly writing (maximum 50 pp.), and a teaching dossier, and arrange for three confidential letters of recommendation to be sent to: Professor Dominique Scheffel-Dundand, Associate Principal, Research & Graduate Studies, Glendon Hall 100, • 2275 Bayview Avenue, Toronto ON • Canada M4N 3M6, APRGS at glendon.yorku.ca - (Subject line: "Media/Datafication/Governance "). The deadline for applications is July 26, 2017. Salary will be commensurate with qualifications and experience. All York University positions are subject to budgetary approval. Our apologies for the tight deadline. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Communications- Canada 150 Posting.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 167596 bytes Desc: not available URL: From raquino at gmail.com Thu Jul 20 16:33:56 2017 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 17:33:56 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Statement - Amazonians speak about .amazon Message-ID: Amazonians speak about .amazon We, the people in the Amazon, would like you to stop talking about us without hearing us first ***** This is a response about the latest decision in the delegation process of the .amazon new gTLD domain by the Independent Review Panel at ICANN to Amazon https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-amazon-final-declaration-11jul17-en.pdf The context of this dispute is summarised in this article http://domainnamewire.com/2017/07/18/amazon-com-gets-big-win-domain-battle-may-yet-get-amazon-domain/ **** In light of the twists in the process of the new gTLD .amazon, many parties have come forward speaking "for the benefit of the people of the Amazon" and staking their claim that they were doing what is best for the region development. Not once, during all this time, anyone cared to ask what our thoughts are or what we think the best for our region is. Well, we would like to ask all parties to stop talking about us as if we can't speak for ourselves. It must not be forgotten that the Amazon region involves the population of nine South American nation-states. For us, this is a time of challenges over the Amazon such as illegal mining, deforestation, water pollution among others. Any policy decision about the region or its name (in any language) is a matter of great interest for all of us, and we cannot be left aside. Let's start with the view of .amazon being a brand as well as a region and a river. We were never asked, again, when the name was used in the first place. The consequences of this can be seen now, when we are mistaken as a faceless, plain, uncharacteristic area in a world map without content or people, an exoticly empty part of the world to be conquered and debated abstractly by trademark lobbyists, private companies and governments. We have faces, names, content, history. Using our name to tell another story, a company's history, would de-characterize us? Likely not. We will not disappear. Instead the Amazon is a vibrant region, which bets on sustainable development and becomes increasingly more involved with internet governance, alongside with Northeast Brazil, which hosted IGF2015. However, using our name without acknowledging our importance is certainly a mistake. Using our name refers directly to a vast land of rich diversity, with much to uncover and with many cultural gems already discovered. So if using our name, at least acknowledge us, respect us. Give back to the "lung of the Earth," to a river which hosts hundreds of communities by its riverbanks. Invest on us. We want the same you do, more education, a thriving internet market and respect to sustainable development for a better future. It is also important to note that ICANN's Independent Review Panel comes at a moment when the discussion about the use of geographical names is very controversial, as it was seen in meetings in Johannesburg. And it is surprising, given there is no consensus yet about this theme in the community. Governments of nine nations also speak our name. With such ownership and familiarity that you could sometimes forget that we do not belong only to one of them. The Wikipedia, which also does not belong to only one company or government, can enlighten that: "This region includes territory belonging to nine nations. The majority of the forest is contained within Brazil, with 60% of the rainforest, followed by Peru with 13%, Colombia with 10%, and with minor amounts in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana. States or departments in four nations contain "Amazonas" in their names. The Amazon represents over half of the planet's remaining rainforests, and comprises the largest and most biodiverse tract of tropical rainforest in the world, with an estimated 390 billion individual trees divided into 16,000 species." This means that even if you agree with nine governments on whatever decision they take on the Amazon, you could still be in disagreement to half of the planet, and their thoughts on the importance of our region. Governments representational crisis is real and does not belong to one country or another. Governments should listen to their citizens. Yet, none of our major political powers are located in the Amazon and have not spoken to us about any aspect of the recent process. This becomes much more complicated when the Amazon is referred to as an area of indigenous population. Our indigenous population was not asked when colonized, the majority did not elect the government of the nine nation-states which comprise the Amazon. Likely, the majority of our indigenous population suffers from abandonment, land conflicts, health crisis and lack of an education system. More importantly, our indigenous population wants, just as companies or governments, an internet market which provides jobs and enables development. Indigenous population may not speak only Portuguese or Spanish but they can speak too. So why does everyone insists on talking about us without listening to us? The rainforest is disappearing fast. This process is not going to slow down unless there is responsibility from all stakeholders in a dialogue about our region and how to respect it. When referring to the new gTLDs or any issue of public policy, public and private sector need to address us, we are all part of a cross border region and an strategic navigation channel and this dialogue has to take this unique situation in account. It must not be forgotten that, after all, the multistakeholder model that we all support to have a free and open Internet, involves multiple parties. This is not only an issue of the private sector and governments, the population is a key participant, that in this particular matter was never consulted. So please, consult us. Don't take our name without talking to us. Stop talking about us as if we can't speak. Renata Aquino Ribeiro - Brasil Worked with Amazon region researchers and maintains an independent research group with collaborators in the region. Mixed ethnicity with relatives and friends in the region. Lives in NE Brazil. NCUC ICANN LAC representative. IGF MAG Civil Society 2016-2017. Lilian Ivete Deluque Bruges - Colombia Lives in Barranquilla, Colombia. Works in local government with indigenous population and vulnerable groups. Mixed ethnicity. Alumni from the South School of Internet Governance 2016. LACNIC27 fellow. Bertnell Auclene Malisa Richards - Guyana Lives in Georgetown, Guyana. Works with education and technology. Plans on creating IGF Guyana. ICANN58 fellow. NCUC ICANN member. LACRALO ICANN Member, ISOC Guyana. Patricia Vargas - Peru Researcher, PhD Candidate, School of Information Studies, Syracuse University. . Lia Solis - Bolivia LACNOG Program Committee member, LACNIC member, ICANN Fellow, LACRALO ICANN participant, ISOC Bolivia Board. Maureen Hernandez - Venezuela. ISOC Venezuela board of directors. Systems Engineer working with community networks in Central and Latin America. Born and raised in Venezuela and has been meeting indigenous communities for connectivity development for the last 2 years. Jessica Botelho - Brazil Journalist. Researcher at the Federal University of Amazonas / CNPq. Member of the ISOC Youth Observatory and the Center for Studies and Practices in Cyberculture (Manaus, Amazonas, Northern Brazil). Student of the Brazil Internet Governance School 2016 and the InternetLab School 2017. Maurília Gomes - Brazil Public Relations. Master in Communication Sciences. Researcher of cyberculture and social activism. Member of ISOC Brazil. Lives in Manaus, Amazon. Member of the Popular Audiovisual Center (CPA), an organization that works on human rights, indigenous population, land conflicts and climate change. Is also a member of the Center for Studies and Practices in Ciberculture (NepCiber). Mixed ethnicity with indigenous descent. Alumni from the Brazilian School of Internet Governance 2015. Hemanuel Veras - Brazil Journalist. Master in Communication Sciences. Researcher of cyberculture and democracy. Lives in Manaus, Amazon. Member of the Popular Audiovisual Center and the Center for Studies and Practices in Ciberculture (CPA/NepCiber). Alumni from the Brazilian School of Internet Governance 2016. Allan Gomes - Brazil Journalist. Researcher of cyberculture. Lives in Manaus, Amazon. Coordinator of the Popular Audiovisual Center (CPA) and member of the Center for Studies and Practices in Ciberculture (NepCiber). Approved to the Brazilian School of Internet Governance 2017. Sebastian Roa - Brazil Currently lives in the state of Amazonas. Journalism student and researcher of the study group of urban anthropology. Also research adolescents indigenous in the urban context and TICS. Currently work with UN with the Venezuelan emergency. Member of the Center for Studies and Practices in Ciberculture (NepCiber). Approved to the Brazilian School of Internet Governance 2017. Sinuhe Nascimento e Cruz - Brasil Born and raised in the State of Acre, the most werstern state in the brazilian amazon. Currently lives in São Paulo, where is developing a bachelor’s degree in Law at the University of São Paulo. Founder member of the Nucleum of Studies on Technology and Society of the University of São Paulo and also a member of the Environmental Law Clinic Paulo Nogueira Neto at the Law School of the University of São Paulo. Paola Perez - Venezuela Vice - president ISOC Venezuela and co- Chair LACNIC Public Policy Forum, OEA Cybersecurity Bootcamp fellow 2017, South School internet Governance 2016 alumni, ICANN LACRALO and NCUC member. Luã Fergus Researcher, born and raised in the Amazon region, Master's degree student in Sao Paulo, Brazil. From raquino at gmail.com Fri Jul 21 14:17:39 2017 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:17:39 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Statement - Amazonians speak about .amazon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi This statement is open now for endorsments https://bestbits.net/amazon/ On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote: > Amazonians speak about .amazon > > > We, the people in the Amazon, would like you to stop talking about us > without hearing us first > > > ***** > This is a response about the latest decision in the delegation process > of the .amazon new gTLD domain by the Independent Review Panel at > ICANN to Amazon > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-amazon-final-declaration-11jul17-en.pdf > > The context of this dispute is summarised in this article > > http://domainnamewire.com/2017/07/18/amazon-com-gets-big-win-domain-battle-may-yet-get-amazon-domain/ > **** > > In light of the twists in the process of the new gTLD .amazon, many > parties have come forward speaking "for the benefit of the people of > the Amazon" and staking their claim that they were doing what is best > for the region development. > > > Not once, during all this time, anyone cared to ask what our thoughts > are or what we think the best for our region is. > > > Well, we would like to ask all parties to stop talking about us as if > we can't speak for ourselves. It must not be forgotten that the Amazon > region involves the population of nine South American nation-states. > For us, this is a time of challenges over the Amazon such as illegal > mining, deforestation, water pollution among others. Any policy > decision about the region or its name (in any language) is a matter of > great interest for all of us, and we cannot be left aside. > > > Let's start with the view of .amazon being a brand as well as a region > and a river. We were never asked, again, when the name was used in the > first place. The consequences of this can be seen now, when we are > mistaken as a faceless, plain, uncharacteristic area in a world map > without content or people, an exoticly empty part of the world to be > conquered and debated abstractly by trademark lobbyists, private > companies and governments. > > > We have faces, names, content, history. Using our name to tell another > story, a company's history, would de-characterize us? Likely not. We > will not disappear. Instead the Amazon is a vibrant region, which bets > on sustainable development and becomes increasingly more involved with > internet governance, alongside with Northeast Brazil, which hosted > IGF2015. > > > However, using our name without acknowledging our importance is > certainly a mistake. Using our name refers directly to a vast land of > rich diversity, with much to uncover and with many cultural gems > already discovered. So if using our name, at least acknowledge us, > respect us. Give back to the "lung of the Earth," to a river which > hosts hundreds of communities by its riverbanks. Invest on us. We want > the same you do, more education, a thriving internet market and > respect to sustainable development for a better future. > > > It is also important to note that ICANN's Independent Review Panel > comes at a moment when the discussion about the use of geographical > names is very controversial, as it was seen in meetings in > Johannesburg. And it is surprising, given there is no consensus yet > about this theme in the community. > > > Governments of nine nations also speak our name. With such ownership > and familiarity that you could sometimes forget that we do not belong > only to one of them. The Wikipedia, which also does not belong to only > one company or government, can enlighten that: > > > "This region includes territory belonging to nine nations. The > majority of the forest is contained within Brazil, with 60% of the > rainforest, followed by Peru with 13%, Colombia with 10%, and with > minor amounts in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guyana, Suriname and > French Guiana. States or departments in four nations contain > "Amazonas" in their names. The Amazon represents over half of the > planet's remaining rainforests, and comprises the largest and most > biodiverse tract of tropical rainforest in the world, with an > estimated 390 billion individual trees divided into 16,000 species." > > > This means that even if you agree with nine governments on whatever > decision they take on the Amazon, you could still be in disagreement > to half of the planet, and their thoughts on the importance of our > region. Governments representational crisis is real and does not > belong to one country or another. Governments should listen to their > citizens. Yet, none of our major political powers are located in the > Amazon and have not spoken to us about any aspect of the recent > process. > > > This becomes much more complicated when the Amazon is referred to as > an area of indigenous population. Our indigenous population was not > asked when colonized, the majority did not elect the government of the > nine nation-states which comprise the Amazon. Likely, the majority of > our indigenous population suffers from abandonment, land conflicts, > health crisis and lack of an education system. More importantly, our > indigenous population wants, just as companies or governments, an > internet market which provides jobs and enables development. > Indigenous population may not speak only Portuguese or Spanish but > they can speak too. > > > So why does everyone insists on talking about us without listening to us? > > > The rainforest is disappearing fast. This process is not going to slow > down unless there is responsibility from all stakeholders in a > dialogue about our region and how to respect it. When referring to the > new gTLDs or any issue of public policy, public and private sector > need to address us, we are all part of a cross border region and an > strategic navigation channel and this dialogue has to take this unique > situation in account. It must not be forgotten that, after all, the > multistakeholder model that we all support to have a free and open > Internet, involves multiple parties. This is not only an issue of the > private sector and governments, the population is a key participant, > that in this particular matter was never consulted. > > > So please, consult us. > > Don't take our name without talking to us. > > Stop talking about us as if we can't speak. > > > > Renata Aquino Ribeiro - Brasil > > Worked with Amazon region researchers and maintains an independent > research group with collaborators in the region. Mixed ethnicity with > relatives and friends in the region. Lives in NE Brazil. NCUC ICANN > LAC representative. IGF MAG Civil Society 2016-2017. > > Lilian Ivete Deluque Bruges - Colombia > > Lives in Barranquilla, Colombia. Works in local government with > indigenous population and vulnerable groups. Mixed ethnicity. Alumni > from the South School of Internet Governance 2016. LACNIC27 fellow. > > > Bertnell Auclene Malisa Richards - Guyana > > Lives in Georgetown, Guyana. Works with education and technology. > Plans on creating IGF Guyana. ICANN58 fellow. NCUC ICANN member. > LACRALO ICANN Member, ISOC Guyana. > > Patricia Vargas - Peru > > Researcher, PhD Candidate, School of Information Studies, Syracuse University. . > > > Lia Solis - Bolivia > > LACNOG Program Committee member, LACNIC member, ICANN Fellow, LACRALO > ICANN participant, ISOC Bolivia Board. > > > Maureen Hernandez - Venezuela. > > ISOC Venezuela board of directors. Systems Engineer working with > community networks in Central and Latin America. Born and raised in > Venezuela and has been meeting indigenous communities for connectivity > development for the last 2 years. > > > Jessica Botelho - Brazil > > Journalist. Researcher at the Federal University of Amazonas / CNPq. > Member of the ISOC Youth Observatory and the Center for Studies and > Practices in Cyberculture (Manaus, Amazonas, Northern Brazil). Student > of the Brazil Internet Governance School 2016 and the InternetLab > School 2017. > > > Maurília Gomes - Brazil > > Public Relations. Master in Communication Sciences. Researcher of > cyberculture and social activism. Member of ISOC Brazil. Lives in > Manaus, Amazon. Member of the Popular Audiovisual Center (CPA), an > organization that works on human rights, indigenous population, land > conflicts and climate change. Is also a member of the Center for > Studies and Practices in Ciberculture (NepCiber). Mixed ethnicity with > indigenous descent. Alumni from the Brazilian School of Internet > Governance 2015. > > > Hemanuel Veras - Brazil > > Journalist. Master in Communication Sciences. Researcher of > cyberculture and democracy. Lives in Manaus, Amazon. Member of the > Popular Audiovisual Center and the Center for Studies and Practices in > Ciberculture (CPA/NepCiber). Alumni from the Brazilian School of > Internet Governance 2016. > > > Allan Gomes - Brazil > Journalist. Researcher of cyberculture. Lives in Manaus, Amazon. > Coordinator of the Popular Audiovisual Center (CPA) and member of the > Center for Studies and Practices in Ciberculture (NepCiber). Approved > to the Brazilian School of Internet Governance 2017. > > > Sebastian Roa - Brazil > > Currently lives in the state of Amazonas. Journalism student and > researcher of the study group of urban anthropology. Also research > adolescents indigenous in the urban context and TICS. Currently work > with UN with the Venezuelan emergency. Member of the Center for > Studies and Practices in Ciberculture (NepCiber). Approved to the > Brazilian School of Internet Governance 2017. > > > Sinuhe Nascimento e Cruz - Brasil > > Born and raised in the State of Acre, the most werstern state in the > brazilian amazon. Currently lives in São Paulo, where is developing a > bachelor’s degree in Law at the University of São Paulo. Founder > member of the Nucleum of Studies on Technology and Society of the > University of São Paulo and also a member of the Environmental Law > Clinic Paulo Nogueira Neto at the Law School of the University of São > Paulo. > > > Paola Perez - Venezuela > > Vice - president ISOC Venezuela and co- Chair LACNIC Public Policy > Forum, OEA Cybersecurity Bootcamp fellow 2017, South School internet > Governance 2016 alumni, ICANN LACRALO and NCUC member. > > > Luã Fergus > > Researcher, born and raised in the Amazon region, Master's degree > student in Sao Paulo, Brazil. From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Sat Jul 22 05:36:43 2017 From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 05:36:43 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Statement - Amazonians speak about .amazon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6d0b9a8e-fab8-05bf-3ee5-b03777b54098@riseup.net> Dear Reanata, many thanks for this great explanation. greetings, willi Asuncion, Paraguay Am 20/7/2017 um 16:33 schrieb Renata Aquino Ribeiro: > Amazonians speak about .amazon > > > We, the people in the Amazon, would like you to stop talking about us > without hearing us first > > > ***** > This is a response about the latest decision in the delegation process > of the .amazon new gTLD domain by the Independent Review Panel at > ICANN to Amazon > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-amazon-final-declaration-11jul17-en.pdf > > The context of this dispute is summarised in this article > > http://domainnamewire.com/2017/07/18/amazon-com-gets-big-win-domain-battle-may-yet-get-amazon-domain/ > **** > > In light of the twists in the process of the new gTLD .amazon, many > parties have come forward speaking "for the benefit of the people of > the Amazon" and staking their claim that they were doing what is best > for the region development. > > > Not once, during all this time, anyone cared to ask what our thoughts > are or what we think the best for our region is. > > > Well, we would like to ask all parties to stop talking about us as if > we can't speak for ourselves. It must not be forgotten that the Amazon > region involves the population of nine South American nation-states. > For us, this is a time of challenges over the Amazon such as illegal > mining, deforestation, water pollution among others. Any policy > decision about the region or its name (in any language) is a matter of > great interest for all of us, and we cannot be left aside. > > > Let's start with the view of .amazon being a brand as well as a region > and a river. We were never asked, again, when the name was used in the > first place. The consequences of this can be seen now, when we are > mistaken as a faceless, plain, uncharacteristic area in a world map > without content or people, an exoticly empty part of the world to be > conquered and debated abstractly by trademark lobbyists, private > companies and governments. > > > We have faces, names, content, history. Using our name to tell another > story, a company's history, would de-characterize us? Likely not. We > will not disappear. Instead the Amazon is a vibrant region, which bets > on sustainable development and becomes increasingly more involved with > internet governance, alongside with Northeast Brazil, which hosted > IGF2015. > > > However, using our name without acknowledging our importance is > certainly a mistake. Using our name refers directly to a vast land of > rich diversity, with much to uncover and with many cultural gems > already discovered. So if using our name, at least acknowledge us, > respect us. Give back to the "lung of the Earth," to a river which > hosts hundreds of communities by its riverbanks. Invest on us. We want > the same you do, more education, a thriving internet market and > respect to sustainable development for a better future. > > > It is also important to note that ICANN's Independent Review Panel > comes at a moment when the discussion about the use of geographical > names is very controversial, as it was seen in meetings in > Johannesburg. And it is surprising, given there is no consensus yet > about this theme in the community. > > > Governments of nine nations also speak our name. With such ownership > and familiarity that you could sometimes forget that we do not belong > only to one of them. The Wikipedia, which also does not belong to only > one company or government, can enlighten that: > > > "This region includes territory belonging to nine nations. The > majority of the forest is contained within Brazil, with 60% of the > rainforest, followed by Peru with 13%, Colombia with 10%, and with > minor amounts in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guyana, Suriname and > French Guiana. States or departments in four nations contain > "Amazonas" in their names. The Amazon represents over half of the > planet's remaining rainforests, and comprises the largest and most > biodiverse tract of tropical rainforest in the world, with an > estimated 390 billion individual trees divided into 16,000 species." > > > This means that even if you agree with nine governments on whatever > decision they take on the Amazon, you could still be in disagreement > to half of the planet, and their thoughts on the importance of our > region. Governments representational crisis is real and does not > belong to one country or another. Governments should listen to their > citizens. Yet, none of our major political powers are located in the > Amazon and have not spoken to us about any aspect of the recent > process. > > > This becomes much more complicated when the Amazon is referred to as > an area of indigenous population. Our indigenous population was not > asked when colonized, the majority did not elect the government of the > nine nation-states which comprise the Amazon. Likely, the majority of > our indigenous population suffers from abandonment, land conflicts, > health crisis and lack of an education system. More importantly, our > indigenous population wants, just as companies or governments, an > internet market which provides jobs and enables development. > Indigenous population may not speak only Portuguese or Spanish but > they can speak too. > > > So why does everyone insists on talking about us without listening to us? > > > The rainforest is disappearing fast. This process is not going to slow > down unless there is responsibility from all stakeholders in a > dialogue about our region and how to respect it. When referring to the > new gTLDs or any issue of public policy, public and private sector > need to address us, we are all part of a cross border region and an > strategic navigation channel and this dialogue has to take this unique > situation in account. It must not be forgotten that, after all, the > multistakeholder model that we all support to have a free and open > Internet, involves multiple parties. This is not only an issue of the > private sector and governments, the population is a key participant, > that in this particular matter was never consulted. > > > So please, consult us. > > Don't take our name without talking to us. > > Stop talking about us as if we can't speak. > > > > Renata Aquino Ribeiro - Brasil > > Worked with Amazon region researchers and maintains an independent > research group with collaborators in the region. Mixed ethnicity with > relatives and friends in the region. Lives in NE Brazil. NCUC ICANN > LAC representative. IGF MAG Civil Society 2016-2017. > > Lilian Ivete Deluque Bruges - Colombia > > Lives in Barranquilla, Colombia. Works in local government with > indigenous population and vulnerable groups. Mixed ethnicity. Alumni > from the South School of Internet Governance 2016. LACNIC27 fellow. > > > Bertnell Auclene Malisa Richards - Guyana > > Lives in Georgetown, Guyana. Works with education and technology. > Plans on creating IGF Guyana. ICANN58 fellow. NCUC ICANN member. > LACRALO ICANN Member, ISOC Guyana. > > Patricia Vargas - Peru > > Researcher, PhD Candidate, School of Information Studies, Syracuse University. . > > > Lia Solis - Bolivia > > LACNOG Program Committee member, LACNIC member, ICANN Fellow, LACRALO > ICANN participant, ISOC Bolivia Board. > > > Maureen Hernandez - Venezuela. > > ISOC Venezuela board of directors. Systems Engineer working with > community networks in Central and Latin America. Born and raised in > Venezuela and has been meeting indigenous communities for connectivity > development for the last 2 years. > > > Jessica Botelho - Brazil > > Journalist. Researcher at the Federal University of Amazonas / CNPq. > Member of the ISOC Youth Observatory and the Center for Studies and > Practices in Cyberculture (Manaus, Amazonas, Northern Brazil). Student > of the Brazil Internet Governance School 2016 and the InternetLab > School 2017. > > > Maurília Gomes - Brazil > > Public Relations. Master in Communication Sciences. Researcher of > cyberculture and social activism. Member of ISOC Brazil. Lives in > Manaus, Amazon. Member of the Popular Audiovisual Center (CPA), an > organization that works on human rights, indigenous population, land > conflicts and climate change. Is also a member of the Center for > Studies and Practices in Ciberculture (NepCiber). Mixed ethnicity with > indigenous descent. Alumni from the Brazilian School of Internet > Governance 2015. > > > Hemanuel Veras - Brazil > > Journalist. Master in Communication Sciences. Researcher of > cyberculture and democracy. Lives in Manaus, Amazon. Member of the > Popular Audiovisual Center and the Center for Studies and Practices in > Ciberculture (CPA/NepCiber). Alumni from the Brazilian School of > Internet Governance 2016. > > > Allan Gomes - Brazil > Journalist. Researcher of cyberculture. Lives in Manaus, Amazon. > Coordinator of the Popular Audiovisual Center (CPA) and member of the > Center for Studies and Practices in Ciberculture (NepCiber). Approved > to the Brazilian School of Internet Governance 2017. > > > Sebastian Roa - Brazil > > Currently lives in the state of Amazonas. Journalism student and > researcher of the study group of urban anthropology. Also research > adolescents indigenous in the urban context and TICS. Currently work > with UN with the Venezuelan emergency. Member of the Center for > Studies and Practices in Ciberculture (NepCiber). Approved to the > Brazilian School of Internet Governance 2017. > > > Sinuhe Nascimento e Cruz - Brasil > > Born and raised in the State of Acre, the most werstern state in the > brazilian amazon. Currently lives in São Paulo, where is developing a > bachelor’s degree in Law at the University of São Paulo. Founder > member of the Nucleum of Studies on Technology and Society of the > University of São Paulo and also a member of the Environmental Law > Clinic Paulo Nogueira Neto at the Law School of the University of São > Paulo. > > > Paola Perez - Venezuela > > Vice - president ISOC Venezuela and co- Chair LACNIC Public Policy > Forum, OEA Cybersecurity Bootcamp fellow 2017, South School internet > Governance 2016 alumni, ICANN LACRALO and NCUC member. > > > Luã Fergus > > Researcher, born and raised in the Amazon region, Master's degree > student in Sao Paulo, Brazil. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > From raquino at gmail.com Thu Jul 6 09:43:01 2017 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 10:43:01 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] arrest of human rights activists in Turkey In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And this STATEMENT Turkey: Amnesty International, Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly representatives and other activists detained during digital security training https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/38822/en/turkey:-amnesty-international,-helsinki-citizens%E2%80%99-assembly-representatives-and-other-activists-detained-during-digital-security-training On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote: > This is unfolding so many news sources and reactions > > > Turkey police enters hotel and arrests human rights trainers > > https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/06/amnesty-says-turkey-director-and-activists-detained-in-istanbul > > http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40517184 > > https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/world/europe/turkey-amnesty-idil-eser.html?smid=tw-nytimesworld&smtyp=cur&_r=0 > > Amnesty International starts campaign to send a message to Turkey gov. > > https://www.amnesty.org/en/get-involved/take-action/free-taner/ From jmalcolm at eff.org Mon Jul 24 19:04:00 2017 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 16:04:00 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Brussels Principles on Medication Sales over the Internet Message-ID: I would like to draw everyone's attention to the Brussels Principles on Medication Sales over the Internet, a document that came out of a RightsCon workshop that I was involved with. It is about balancing the needs for affordability, accessibility and safety of medicines that are sold online. I have personally endorsed the petition, even though EFF isn't able to do so because it goes too far outside our issue areas. Nevertheless I thought that I should bring it to attention of Best Bits participants because I'm sure some others of you might wish to endorse or circulate it: https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/brussels-principles-medication-over-the-net If you are interested I can also put you in touch with the other authors of the document so that you can get more information or become involved in related activities. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jmalcolm at eff.org Tue Jul 25 18:23:31 2017 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:23:31 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] On the future of Best Bits and the pre-IGF meeting Message-ID: <1b084042-c225-f75f-fb93-bb6a972ff9ca@eff.org> 15 new members have joined this list since last week, and a new sign-on statement has been posted on our website, both of which mark an uptick in interest in this civil society network on Internet policy. So I thought it would be a good time to gather your thoughts on future directions for Best Bits. For those who are new, this group was originally formed in 2012 primarily to provide an action-oriented network of CSOs that could share information and coordinate their response to various current Internet threats, most notably at that time various proposals for the ITU World Conference on International Telecommunications. Since then it has been used as a platform for communication (mainly through this list, there have been others from time to time but none remain active), joint actions such as the sign-on statements that we host, coordination between people involved in similar activities, and an annual meeting held prior to the IGF. Around 2014 calls for greater accountability in the operation of what had, until then, been a fairly loosely and informally organised group, led to the establishment of a steering committee and agreement on a set of rules . But that turned out to be counterproductive and so we have regressed to being ad hoc and informal again. This is fine, except that it means that it's difficult to raise funding for events, and that you have to rely on a benevolent dictator (which is, by default, me) to moderate the list and and keep the server ticking over. For now I'm OK with doing this, and our server remains functional and funded for the near future. Last year we turned over our regular pre-IGF meeting to co-ownership with the other major civil society networks working in Internet policy spaces, viz. the groups that are under the umbrella of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group . That went pretty well, marking something of a return to the original Best Bits vision. At this point, I don't have a clear personal vision for Best Bits going forward, so I would like to turn this question over to you, the participants to find out what you want to be done. To break it down into a simple choice between two options, we should collectively choose between either one of these: 1. Maintain the current low-key status quo, and remove the currently unused or underused features of our web such as our joint event calendar (which currently doesn't have anyone to maintain it), along with most of the resources under the "Tools" menu on our website. Rely on other groups to pitch in on an annual meeting. 2. Conversely, seek to reestablish a steering committee of people with time, energy and vision to reinvigorate Best Bits and re-establish a program of activities, which could include actively organizing and raising funds for a broad annual civil society meeting, and/or drafting joint statements, supporting fluid working groups, etc. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From raquino at gmail.com Tue Jul 25 19:26:30 2017 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:26:30 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] On the future of Best Bits and the pre-IGF meeting In-Reply-To: <1b084042-c225-f75f-fb93-bb6a972ff9ca@eff.org> References: <1b084042-c225-f75f-fb93-bb6a972ff9ca@eff.org> Message-ID: Hi Jeremy It is good to see the longevity of Bestbits, in its 5 year-old run. This is a space which has done a lot for civil society and it will certainly continue to do so. There are many new groups and activists in civil society looking forward to learn from the steps taken here and to collaborate. I would like to help bring together the experienced and the new participants here. So my option would be #2 and I'd be glad to work with others interested in thinking of new ways for Bestbits. I believe rebuilding the Steering Committee (3 years old) is important but also to bring in new voices who have ideas for the shape of the platform and who are interested in participating of internet governance communities. If we can broaden this search for new members and collaborators among ISOC Ambassadors, ICANN fellows, Youth IG movements, grassroots internet freedom initiatives, it would be great. Best, Renata On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > 15 new members have joined this list since last week, and a new sign-on > statement has been posted on our website, both of which mark an uptick in > interest in this civil society network on Internet policy. So I thought it > would be a good time to gather your thoughts on future directions for Best > Bits. > > For those who are new, this group was originally formed in 2012 primarily > to provide an action-oriented network of CSOs that could share information > and coordinate their response to various current Internet threats, most > notably at that time various proposals for the ITU World Conference on > International Telecommunications. > > Since then it has been used as a platform for communication (mainly > through this list, there have been others from time to time but none remain > active), joint actions such as the sign-on statements that we host, > coordination between people involved in similar activities, and an annual > meeting held prior to the IGF. > > Around 2014 calls for greater accountability in the operation of what had, > until then, been a fairly loosely and informally organised group, led to > the establishment of a steering committee > and agreement on a set > of rules . But that turned > out to be counterproductive and so we have regressed to being ad hoc and > informal again. > > This is fine, except that it means that it's difficult to raise funding > for events, and that you have to rely on a benevolent dictator (which is, > by default, me) to moderate the list and and keep the server ticking over. > For now I'm OK with doing this, and our server remains functional and > funded for the near future. > > Last year we turned over our regular pre-IGF meeting to co-ownership with > the other major civil society networks working in Internet policy spaces, > viz. the groups that are under the umbrella of the Internet Governance > Civil Society Coordination Group . That went > pretty well, marking something of a return to the original Best Bits vision. > > At this point, I don't have a clear personal vision for Best Bits going > forward, so I would like to turn this question over to you, the > participants to find out what you want to be done. To break it down into a > simple choice between two options, we should collectively choose between > either one of these: > > 1. Maintain the current low-key status quo, and remove the currently > unused or underused features of our web such as our joint event calendar > (which currently doesn't have anyone to maintain it), along with most of > the resources under the "Tools" menu on our website. Rely on other groups > to pitch in on an annual meeting. > 2. Conversely, seek to reestablish a steering committee of people with > time, energy and vision to reinvigorate Best Bits and re-establish a > program of activities, which could include actively organizing and raising > funds for a broad annual civil society meeting, and/or drafting joint > statements, supporting fluid working groups, etc. > > I look forward to hearing your thoughts. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Global Policy Analyst > Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm at eff.org > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > > Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt > PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Wed Jul 26 06:52:41 2017 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 10:52:41 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] On the future of Best Bits and the pre-IGF meeting In-Reply-To: References: <1b084042-c225-f75f-fb93-bb6a972ff9ca@eff.org> Message-ID: Dear Jeremy, Thanks for your email, I definitel;y concur and support Renata and will go with Option #2, I look forward too in working with others towards this process. Kind Regards Poncelet On 25 July 2017 at 23:26, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote: > Hi Jeremy > > It is good to see the longevity of Bestbits, in its 5 year-old run. > This is a space which has done a lot for civil society and it will > certainly continue to do so. > There are many new groups and activists in civil society looking forward > to learn from the steps taken here and to collaborate. > I would like to help bring together the experienced and the new > participants here. > So my option would be #2 and I'd be glad to work with others interested in > thinking of new ways for Bestbits. > I believe rebuilding the Steering Committee (3 years old) is important but > also to bring in new voices who have ideas for the shape of the platform > and who are interested in participating of internet governance communities. > If we can broaden this search for new members and collaborators among ISOC > Ambassadors, ICANN fellows, Youth IG movements, grassroots internet freedom > initiatives, it would be great. > > Best, > > Renata > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> 15 new members have joined this list since last week, and a new sign-on >> statement has been posted on our website, both of which mark an uptick in >> interest in this civil society network on Internet policy. So I thought it >> would be a good time to gather your thoughts on future directions for Best >> Bits. >> >> For those who are new, this group was originally formed in 2012 primarily >> to provide an action-oriented network of CSOs that could share information >> and coordinate their response to various current Internet threats, most >> notably at that time various proposals for the ITU World Conference on >> International Telecommunications. >> >> Since then it has been used as a platform for communication (mainly >> through this list, there have been others from time to time but none remain >> active), joint actions such as the sign-on statements that we host, >> coordination between people involved in similar activities, and an annual >> meeting held prior to the IGF. >> >> Around 2014 calls for greater accountability in the operation of what >> had, until then, been a fairly loosely and informally organised group, led >> to the establishment of a steering committee >> and agreement on a set >> of rules . But that turned >> out to be counterproductive and so we have regressed to being ad hoc and >> informal again. >> >> This is fine, except that it means that it's difficult to raise funding >> for events, and that you have to rely on a benevolent dictator (which is, >> by default, me) to moderate the list and and keep the server ticking over. >> For now I'm OK with doing this, and our server remains functional and >> funded for the near future. >> >> Last year we turned over our regular pre-IGF meeting to co-ownership with >> the other major civil society networks working in Internet policy spaces, >> viz. the groups that are under the umbrella of the Internet Governance >> Civil Society Coordination Group . That >> went pretty well, marking something of a return to the original Best Bits >> vision. >> >> At this point, I don't have a clear personal vision for Best Bits going >> forward, so I would like to turn this question over to you, the >> participants to find out what you want to be done. To break it down into a >> simple choice between two options, we should collectively choose between >> either one of these: >> >> 1. Maintain the current low-key status quo, and remove the currently >> unused or underused features of our web such as our joint event calendar >> (which currently doesn't have anyone to maintain it), along with most of >> the resources under the "Tools" menu on our website. Rely on other groups >> to pitch in on an annual meeting. >> 2. Conversely, seek to reestablish a steering committee of people >> with time, energy and vision to reinvigorate Best Bits and re-establish a >> program of activities, which could include actively organizing and raising >> funds for a broad annual civil society meeting, and/or drafting joint >> statements, supporting fluid working groups, etc. >> >> I look forward to hearing your thoughts. >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Global Policy Analyst >> Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm at eff.org >> >> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 >> >> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: >> >> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt >> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike.oghia at gmail.com Wed Jul 26 07:29:02 2017 From: mike.oghia at gmail.com (Michael Oghia) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:29:02 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] On the future of Best Bits and the pre-IGF meeting In-Reply-To: References: <1b084042-c225-f75f-fb93-bb6a972ff9ca@eff.org> Message-ID: Hi all, Thanks for this Jeremy and your work with the group. While I prefer option 2 in general, I must admit that I am slightly confused at times about which group is best for what -- for instance, if there's a civil society-related link, should it be sent to this list, the IG Caucus list, CSCG list, or another? While the example is seemingly trivial, the point is that it seems that there is a lot of unnecessary overlap in these resources, so perhaps a bit more centralization would be helpful (as far as the lists are concerned at least, not necessarily the leadership). If we go with option 2, then I also suggest we think about focusing the mission/mandate of this group, and also differentiating it from the other civil society-focused IG groups. Best, -Michael On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Poncelet Ileleji wrote: > Dear Jeremy, > > Thanks for your email, I definitely concur and support Renata and will go > with Option #2, I look forward too in working with others towards this > process. > > Kind Regards > > Poncelet > > On 25 July 2017 at 23:26, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote: > >> Hi Jeremy >> >> It is good to see the longevity of Bestbits, in its 5 year-old run. >> This is a space which has done a lot for civil society and it will >> certainly continue to do so. >> There are many new groups and activists in civil society looking forward >> to learn from the steps taken here and to collaborate. >> I would like to help bring together the experienced and the new >> participants here. >> So my option would be #2 and I'd be glad to work with others interested >> in thinking of new ways for Bestbits. >> I believe rebuilding the Steering Committee (3 years old) is important >> but also to bring in new voices who have ideas for the shape of the >> platform and who are interested in participating of internet governance >> communities. >> If we can broaden this search for new members and collaborators among >> ISOC Ambassadors, ICANN fellows, Youth IG movements, grassroots internet >> freedom initiatives, it would be great. >> >> Best, >> >> Renata >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> 15 new members have joined this list since last week, and a new sign-on >>> statement has been posted on our website, both of which mark an uptick in >>> interest in this civil society network on Internet policy. So I thought it >>> would be a good time to gather your thoughts on future directions for Best >>> Bits. >>> >>> For those who are new, this group was originally formed in 2012 >>> primarily to provide an action-oriented network of CSOs that could share >>> information and coordinate their response to various current Internet >>> threats, most notably at that time various proposals for the ITU World >>> Conference on International Telecommunications. >>> >>> Since then it has been used as a platform for communication (mainly >>> through this list, there have been others from time to time but none remain >>> active), joint actions such as the sign-on statements that we host, >>> coordination between people involved in similar activities, and an annual >>> meeting held prior to the IGF. >>> >>> Around 2014 calls for greater accountability in the operation of what >>> had, until then, been a fairly loosely and informally organised group, led >>> to the establishment of a steering committee >>> and agreement on a set >>> of rules . But that turned >>> out to be counterproductive and so we have regressed to being ad hoc and >>> informal again. >>> >>> This is fine, except that it means that it's difficult to raise funding >>> for events, and that you have to rely on a benevolent dictator (which is, >>> by default, me) to moderate the list and and keep the server ticking over. >>> For now I'm OK with doing this, and our server remains functional and >>> funded for the near future. >>> >>> Last year we turned over our regular pre-IGF meeting to co-ownership >>> with the other major civil society networks working in Internet policy >>> spaces, viz. the groups that are under the umbrella of the Internet >>> Governance Civil Society Coordination Group . >>> That went pretty well, marking something of a return to the original Best >>> Bits vision. >>> >>> At this point, I don't have a clear personal vision for Best Bits going >>> forward, so I would like to turn this question over to you, the >>> participants to find out what you want to be done. To break it down into a >>> simple choice between two options, we should collectively choose between >>> either one of these: >>> >>> 1. Maintain the current low-key status quo, and remove the currently >>> unused or underused features of our web such as our joint event calendar >>> (which currently doesn't have anyone to maintain it), along with most of >>> the resources under the "Tools" menu on our website. Rely on other groups >>> to pitch in on an annual meeting. >>> 2. Conversely, seek to reestablish a steering committee of people >>> with time, energy and vision to reinvigorate Best Bits and re-establish a >>> program of activities, which could include actively organizing and raising >>> funds for a broad annual civil society meeting, and/or drafting joint >>> statements, supporting fluid working groups, etc. >>> >>> I look forward to hearing your thoughts. >>> >>> -- >>> Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Global Policy Analyst >>> Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm at eff.org >>> >>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 >>> >>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: >>> >>> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt >>> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > > > > > > > *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ > www.waigf.org > www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > *www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From judith at jhellerstein.com Wed Jul 26 08:16:25 2017 From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 08:16:25 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] On the future of Best Bits and the pre-IGF meeting In-Reply-To: References: <1b084042-c225-f75f-fb93-bb6a972ff9ca@eff.org> Message-ID: <62413af3-8dda-ba9e-f536-a46471519862@jhellerstein.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Wed Jul 26 12:53:50 2017 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:53:50 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] On the future of Best Bits and the pre-IGF meeting In-Reply-To: <62413af3-8dda-ba9e-f536-a46471519862@jhellerstein.com> References: <1b084042-c225-f75f-fb93-bb6a972ff9ca@eff.org> <62413af3-8dda-ba9e-f536-a46471519862@jhellerstein.com> Message-ID: Dear Jeremy, all, Thanks for this discussion and reflection, which is much welcome at this 5-year junction! I completely concur with the sentiments expressed so far about the value of Bestbits as a platform to support and coordinate global CS action and share information. Bestbits also seems to have the added or unique value of not only being able to produce tangible actions or inputs but also in doing this across a wider set of policy issues than other similar networks and facilitating a broader group of voices to input into discussions (like ITU, WSIS etc where its provided a stronger/more united and yet diverse CS voice than would otherwise have existed). At this point, I agree we should be aiming to not only replicate previous successes in that regard but improve and achieve more. As has been pointed out the attempt to do this though with a more formalised structure like a SC and set of rules descended into discussions that were counterproductive to the achievement of bestbits objectives. Before re-instituting that structure, it'd be interesting to hear more reflections on why that was counterproductive previously. For example, the points made by others earlier about the need for clearer identification of purpose/more focused mission around what we're trying to achieve (beyond the general, common objectives listed) make sense. How would this be done? Via a strategy? And if so, how would that be developed/buy-in for that be achieved?/who or how would the leadership for that to happen be provided? Again, I really welcome this discussion and opportunity to reflect on how we can leverage the existing strengths & successes of this platform in the future. Interested in hearing others thoughts! Best Sheetal. On 26 July 2017 at 13:16, Judith Hellerstein wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > > I concur with Renata and Poncelet and choose Option 2. I also agree with > Michael but I agree that we are duplicating resources but not sure anything > can be done about this as each group has different views and I think people > have tried and failed to put the two together but it has not worked. > However, the steering group can help focus the mission of the group more > and differentiate it from the other groups > > Best, > > Judith > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO > Hellerstein & Associates > 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 > Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein > Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 <(202)%20333-6517> > E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com > Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ > Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide > > > On 7/26/2017 7:29 AM, Michael Oghia wrote: > > Hi all, > > Thanks for this Jeremy and your work with the group. While I prefer option > 2 in general, I must admit that I am slightly confused at times about which > group is best for what -- for instance, if there's a civil society-related > link, should it be sent to this list, the IG Caucus list, CSCG list, or > another? > > While the example is seemingly trivial, the point is that it seems that > there is a lot of unnecessary overlap in these resources, so perhaps a bit > more centralization would be helpful (as far as the lists are concerned at > least, not necessarily the leadership). If we go with option 2, then I also > suggest we think about focusing the mission/mandate of this group, and also > differentiating it from the other civil society-focused IG groups. > > Best, > -Michael > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Poncelet Ileleji > wrote: > >> Dear Jeremy, >> >> Thanks for your email, I definitely concur and support Renata and will go >> with Option #2, I look forward too in working with others towards this >> process. >> >> Kind Regards >> >> Poncelet >> >> On 25 July 2017 at 23:26, Renata Aquino Ribeiro >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Jeremy >>> >>> It is good to see the longevity of Bestbits, in its 5 year-old run. >>> This is a space which has done a lot for civil society and it will >>> certainly continue to do so. >>> There are many new groups and activists in civil society looking forward >>> to learn from the steps taken here and to collaborate. >>> I would like to help bring together the experienced and the new >>> participants here. >>> So my option would be #2 and I'd be glad to work with others interested >>> in thinking of new ways for Bestbits. >>> I believe rebuilding the Steering Committee (3 years old) is important >>> but also to bring in new voices who have ideas for the shape of the >>> platform and who are interested in participating of internet governance >>> communities. >>> If we can broaden this search for new members and collaborators among >>> ISOC Ambassadors, ICANN fellows, Youth IG movements, grassroots internet >>> freedom initiatives, it would be great. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Renata >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Jeremy Malcolm >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 15 new members have joined this list since last week, and a new sign-on >>>> statement has been posted on our website, both of which mark an uptick in >>>> interest in this civil society network on Internet policy. So I thought it >>>> would be a good time to gather your thoughts on future directions for Best >>>> Bits. >>>> >>>> For those who are new, this group was originally formed in 2012 >>>> primarily to provide an action-oriented network of CSOs that could share >>>> information and coordinate their response to various current Internet >>>> threats, most notably at that time various proposals for the ITU World >>>> Conference on International Telecommunications. >>>> >>>> Since then it has been used as a platform for communication (mainly >>>> through this list, there have been others from time to time but none remain >>>> active), joint actions such as the sign-on statements that we host, >>>> coordination between people involved in similar activities, and an annual >>>> meeting held prior to the IGF. >>>> >>>> Around 2014 calls for greater accountability in the operation of what >>>> had, until then, been a fairly loosely and informally organised group, led >>>> to the establishment of a steering committee >>>> and agreement on a >>>> set of rules . But that >>>> turned out to be counterproductive and so we have regressed to being ad hoc >>>> and informal again. >>>> >>>> This is fine, except that it means that it's difficult to raise funding >>>> for events, and that you have to rely on a benevolent dictator (which is, >>>> by default, me) to moderate the list and and keep the server ticking over. >>>> For now I'm OK with doing this, and our server remains functional and >>>> funded for the near future. >>>> >>>> Last year we turned over our regular pre-IGF meeting to co-ownership >>>> with the other major civil society networks working in Internet policy >>>> spaces, viz. the groups that are under the umbrella of the Internet >>>> Governance Civil Society Coordination Group >>>> . That went pretty well, marking >>>> something of a return to the original Best Bits vision. >>>> >>>> At this point, I don't have a clear personal vision for Best Bits going >>>> forward, so I would like to turn this question over to you, the >>>> participants to find out what you want to be done. To break it down into a >>>> simple choice between two options, we should collectively choose between >>>> either one of these: >>>> >>>> 1. Maintain the current low-key status quo, and remove the >>>> currently unused or underused features of our web such as our joint event >>>> calendar (which currently doesn't have anyone to maintain it), along with >>>> most of the resources under the "Tools" menu on our website. Rely on other >>>> groups to pitch in on an annual meeting. >>>> 2. Conversely, seek to reestablish a steering committee of people >>>> with time, energy and vision to reinvigorate Best Bits and re-establish a >>>> program of activities, which could include actively organizing and raising >>>> funds for a broad annual civil society meeting, and/or drafting joint >>>> statements, supporting fluid working groups, etc. >>>> >>>> I look forward to hearing your thoughts. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst >>>> Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm at eff.org >>>> >>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <(415)%20436-9333> >>>> >>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: >>>> >>>> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt >>>> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >> Coordinator >> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >> MDI Road Kanifing South >> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >> The Gambia, West Africa >> Tel: (220) 4370240 <(220)%20437-0240> >> Fax:(220) 4390793 <(220)%20439-0793> >> Cell:(220) 9912508 <(220)%20991-2508> >> 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 >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- *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 | PGP ID: AAEDBF8AFE87EF53 | PGP Fingerprint: 9CD3 46A5 21A1 DFD9 FDD0 457D AAED BF8A FE87 EF53 | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gus at publicknowledge.org Wed Jul 26 14:25:06 2017 From: gus at publicknowledge.org (Gus Rossi) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:25:06 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] On the future of Best Bits and the pre-IGF meeting In-Reply-To: References: <1b084042-c225-f75f-fb93-bb6a972ff9ca@eff.org> <62413af3-8dda-ba9e-f536-a46471519862@jhellerstein.com> Message-ID: Hi everyone, Thanks for the initiative Jeremy. I'm newer than many of you in this list, but I have some second-hand knowledge and PK has been a member for long. I think there is a middle ground between options 1 and 2. We can make the effort to meet in the different events that already exist and that many of us attend (like IGF, LACIGF, or RightsCon) and use those gatherings to coordinate strategy on specific issues. That would give us the opportunity to identify which are moments or issues on which we want to have common action. For example, I think that bestbits is going to be really useful for Plenipot 2018. I think that it is easier to coordinate through action, that to coordinate to have action. So, we could start with the LACIGF. I will be attending, anyone else from bestbits going? Those are my two-cents. ---- # # # # • # # # *Gus Rossi* Global Policy Director (202) 861-0020 (x123) | (202) 651 1337 <(202)%651-1337> (mobile) | @agustinrs *Public Knowledge* | @publicknowledge | www.publicknowledge.org 1818 N St. NW, Suite 410 | Washington, DC 20036 | CFC 12259 *The IP3 Awards are September 28th!* RSVP at publicknowledge.org/IP32017. On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear Jeremy, all, > > Thanks for this discussion and reflection, which is much welcome at this > 5-year junction! > > I completely concur with the sentiments expressed so far about the value > of Bestbits as a platform to support and coordinate global CS action and > share information. Bestbits also seems to have the added or unique value of > not only being able to produce tangible actions or inputs but also in doing > this across a wider set of policy issues than other similar networks and > facilitating a broader group of voices to input into discussions (like ITU, > WSIS etc where its provided a stronger/more united and yet diverse CS voice > than would otherwise have existed). At this point, I agree we should be > aiming to not only replicate previous successes in that regard but improve > and achieve more. > > As has been pointed out the attempt to do this though with a more > formalised structure like a SC and set of rules descended into discussions > that were counterproductive to the achievement of bestbits objectives. > Before re-instituting that structure, it'd be interesting to hear more > reflections on why that was counterproductive previously. For example, the > points made by others earlier about the need for clearer identification of > purpose/more focused mission around what we're trying to achieve (beyond > the general, common objectives listed) make sense. How would this be done? > Via a strategy? And if so, how would that be developed/buy-in for that be > achieved?/who or how would the leadership for that to happen be provided? > > Again, I really welcome this discussion and opportunity to reflect on how > we can leverage the existing strengths & successes of this platform in the > future. Interested in hearing others thoughts! > > Best > > Sheetal. > > On 26 July 2017 at 13:16, Judith Hellerstein > wrote: > >> Hi Jeremy, >> >> I concur with Renata and Poncelet and choose Option 2. I also agree with >> Michael but I agree that we are duplicating resources but not sure anything >> can be done about this as each group has different views and I think people >> have tried and failed to put the two together but it has not worked. >> However, the steering group can help focus the mission of the group more >> and differentiate it from the other groups >> >> Best, >> >> Judith >> >> _________________________________________________________________________ >> Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO >> Hellerstein & Associates >> 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 >> Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein >> Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 <(202)%20333-6517> >> E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com >> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ >> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >> >> >> On 7/26/2017 7:29 AM, Michael Oghia wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Thanks for this Jeremy and your work with the group. While I prefer >> option 2 in general, I must admit that I am slightly confused at times >> about which group is best for what -- for instance, if there's a civil >> society-related link, should it be sent to this list, the IG Caucus list, >> CSCG list, or another? >> >> While the example is seemingly trivial, the point is that it seems that >> there is a lot of unnecessary overlap in these resources, so perhaps a bit >> more centralization would be helpful (as far as the lists are concerned at >> least, not necessarily the leadership). If we go with option 2, then I also >> suggest we think about focusing the mission/mandate of this group, and also >> differentiating it from the other civil society-focused IG groups. >> >> Best, >> -Michael >> >> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Poncelet Ileleji >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Jeremy, >>> >>> Thanks for your email, I definitely concur and support Renata and will >>> go with Option #2, I look forward too in working with others towards this >>> process. >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> >>> Poncelet >>> >>> On 25 July 2017 at 23:26, Renata Aquino Ribeiro >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Jeremy >>>> >>>> It is good to see the longevity of Bestbits, in its 5 year-old run. >>>> This is a space which has done a lot for civil society and it will >>>> certainly continue to do so. >>>> There are many new groups and activists in civil society looking >>>> forward to learn from the steps taken here and to collaborate. >>>> I would like to help bring together the experienced and the new >>>> participants here. >>>> So my option would be #2 and I'd be glad to work with others interested >>>> in thinking of new ways for Bestbits. >>>> I believe rebuilding the Steering Committee (3 years old) is important >>>> but also to bring in new voices who have ideas for the shape of the >>>> platform and who are interested in participating of internet governance >>>> communities. >>>> If we can broaden this search for new members and collaborators among >>>> ISOC Ambassadors, ICANN fellows, Youth IG movements, grassroots internet >>>> freedom initiatives, it would be great. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Renata >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Jeremy Malcolm >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 15 new members have joined this list since last week, and a new >>>>> sign-on statement has been posted on our website, both of which mark an >>>>> uptick in interest in this civil society network on Internet policy. So I >>>>> thought it would be a good time to gather your thoughts on future >>>>> directions for Best Bits. >>>>> >>>>> For those who are new, this group was originally formed in 2012 >>>>> primarily to provide an action-oriented network of CSOs that could share >>>>> information and coordinate their response to various current Internet >>>>> threats, most notably at that time various proposals for the ITU World >>>>> Conference on International Telecommunications. >>>>> >>>>> Since then it has been used as a platform for communication (mainly >>>>> through this list, there have been others from time to time but none remain >>>>> active), joint actions such as the sign-on statements that we host, >>>>> coordination between people involved in similar activities, and an annual >>>>> meeting held prior to the IGF. >>>>> >>>>> Around 2014 calls for greater accountability in the operation of what >>>>> had, until then, been a fairly loosely and informally organised group, led >>>>> to the establishment of a steering committee >>>>> and agreement on a >>>>> set of rules . But that >>>>> turned out to be counterproductive and so we have regressed to being ad hoc >>>>> and informal again. >>>>> >>>>> This is fine, except that it means that it's difficult to raise >>>>> funding for events, and that you have to rely on a benevolent dictator >>>>> (which is, by default, me) to moderate the list and and keep the server >>>>> ticking over. For now I'm OK with doing this, and our server remains >>>>> functional and funded for the near future. >>>>> >>>>> Last year we turned over our regular pre-IGF meeting to co-ownership >>>>> with the other major civil society networks working in Internet policy >>>>> spaces, viz. the groups that are under the umbrella of the Internet >>>>> Governance Civil Society Coordination Group >>>>> . That went pretty well, marking >>>>> something of a return to the original Best Bits vision. >>>>> >>>>> At this point, I don't have a clear personal vision for Best Bits >>>>> going forward, so I would like to turn this question over to you, the >>>>> participants to find out what you want to be done. To break it down into a >>>>> simple choice between two options, we should collectively choose between >>>>> either one of these: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Maintain the current low-key status quo, and remove the >>>>> currently unused or underused features of our web such as our joint event >>>>> calendar (which currently doesn't have anyone to maintain it), along with >>>>> most of the resources under the "Tools" menu on our website. Rely on other >>>>> groups to pitch in on an annual meeting. >>>>> 2. Conversely, seek to reestablish a steering committee of people >>>>> with time, energy and vision to reinvigorate Best Bits and re-establish a >>>>> program of activities, which could include actively organizing and raising >>>>> funds for a broad annual civil society meeting, and/or drafting joint >>>>> statements, supporting fluid working groups, etc. >>>>> >>>>> I look forward to hearing your thoughts. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Jeremy Malcolm >>>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst >>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm at eff.org >>>>> >>>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <(415)%20436-9333> >>>>> >>>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: >>>>> >>>>> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt >>>>> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >>> Coordinator >>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >>> MDI Road Kanifing South >>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >>> The Gambia, West Africa >>> Tel: (220) 4370240 <(220)%20437-0240> >>> Fax:(220) 4390793 <(220)%20439-0793> >>> Cell:(220) 9912508 <(220)%20991-2508> >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > > -- > > > *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> | > > PGP ID: AAEDBF8AFE87EF53 | PGP Fingerprint: 9CD3 46A5 21A1 DFD9 FDD0 > 457D AAED BF8A FE87 EF53 | > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 jmalcolm at eff.org Wed Jul 26 18:54:37 2017 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:54:37 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] On the future of Best Bits and the pre-IGF meeting In-Reply-To: References: <1b084042-c225-f75f-fb93-bb6a972ff9ca@eff.org> Message-ID: On 26/7/17 4:29 am, Michael Oghia wrote: > Thanks for this Jeremy and your work with the group. While I prefer > option 2 in general, I must admit that I am slightly confused at times > about which group is best for what -- for instance, if there's a civil > society-related link, should it be sent to this list, the IG Caucus > list, CSCG list, or another? This is a good point, as I indicated some of the reasons why Best Bits was originally formed became less relevant over time as new groups like the Coordination Group were formed and as the dysfunctions of the IGC became less (or, to be frank, similar dysfunctions arose in Best Bits). Maybe there should be an "Option 3" which would be for Best Bits to merge with one of the other networks? As for the many nice expressions of support for Option 2, these are very gratifying and I'm continuing to follow that discussion for now. My only concern is that it *does* require people to back up their words with action. The worst thing that could happen would be for lots of people to say that they want more active leadership/facilitation, but for nobody to volunteer to provide it. :-) -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 From yannis at registry.asia Wed Jul 26 19:23:43 2017 From: yannis at registry.asia (Yannis Li) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 07:23:43 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] APrIGF 2017 Starts TODAY (Remote Participation Available) References: <4B5F079D-0103-4E0A-96DA-47D944381FCB@aprigf.asia> Message-ID: <863E213C-BBF7-429E-9ADC-992E74FF3795@registry.asia> Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum APrIGF Bangkok 2017 26 - 29 July Mahitaladhibesra Building, Chulalongkorn University The APrIGF Bangkok 2017 hosted by the Chulalongkorn University and the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission has started yesterday with side events and newcomers capacity building day. The event is officially beginning today with the Opening Plenary at 09:00am UTC+7 Bangkok time (02:00UTC) This year’s main theme is “ENSURING AN INCLUSIVE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN ASIA PACIFIC: A REGIONAL AGENDA FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE” with a diverse list of parallel sessions in different formats under the 4 sub-themes: Access, Empowerment & Diversity Cybersecurity, Privacy and Safer Internet Digital Economy & Enabling Innovations Human Rights Online The latest program agenda is available at http://2017.aprigf.asia/program . Remote participation links are also available on our website. Join us online! All meetings recordings and transcripts will be archived after the conference. Best Regards, Secretariat of APrIGF -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APrIGF2017banner.png Type: image/png Size: 277920 bytes Desc: not available URL: From james at cyberinvasion.net Fri Jul 7 05:26:37 2017 From: james at cyberinvasion.net (James Gannon) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 09:26:37 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [Internet Policy] RootsAction: Like it or not (and we don't), they could destroy the world In-Reply-To: References: <130b8d9b-a1bc-fa50-2826-1d5f1e02c780@riseup.net> Message-ID: Please stop spamming this list. You have been asked multiple times over the last few months. -James From: InternetPolicy [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of srajukanumuri Sent: 07 July 2017 09:24 To: willi uebelherr Cc: ISOC Internet Policy ; IUF list ; IGF gov ; Best Bits ; APC list Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] RootsAction: Like it or not (and we don't), they could destroy the world Dear one and all . Last seven years globally it really disturbing with wars for resources , oil and gas , crony capitalists looting banks ( global banking bankruptcy ) , Knowledge theft's ( china etc ) , Drugs and lastly all governments trying to control their own citizens and social media getting used to reach other countries falls ( great march in Egypt) and making ICT as cyber war to kill economies with fake news with controlled media ,Internet, news 's companies which lead to all developing countries under poverty and also most all middle class poor suffering. USA / RUSSIA fragmented geo political issues made china occupy Tibet and other Indian lands and also making pakistan and other rouge countries as their partners to reach its foot print all over the world the same way BRITISH and other colonial rulers / countries occupied other countries. Recent brit ext is classic example and using terrorism to impact voters and also becoming common hidden cold war model's in the form of new Burka - cyber war's and hate politics . Divide and rule. From last 70 years India is facing terrorism and other forms of proxy war's. now other parts of world are getting impacted. There is no good and bad. China last 6 months threatening India , stopped Hindu's famous mansarovar / muount kilash pilgrimage and also threatening to occupy other Indian lands and also liberate skkim etc all china wars with India is to loot TIBET and other parts where it can control water and also make Buddhism / Hinduism vanish as communists. Now world order in place. TAIWAN , HONGKONG , VIETNAM. JAPAN etc countries are getting bully-ed with PAK , Silk route projects etc. Most of China GDP came with other countries opting for cheap goods and others thinking that they can save billions of dollars they used this to over come others to expand even to Africa to kill animals ( elephants , Rhino's ) , Iron ore and other precious metals the same looting happened from India to build Olympics stadiums with looted IRON ore and red sandal wood smugglers and lastly drugs. this story is every where with script in different forms and different news head lines Destabilized world ( south America , Africa ). history is one way repeating making G - 20 countries fighting each other for their own survival or to become top 7 countries rule rest of world in various types of Governance. (POLITICAL DATA VIRUS RANSOM GOVERNMENTS NETWORKS ). Now once again weapons of mass cyber destruction is getting to play role.Transmitting controlling people ( TCP) as Incompatible politics ( IP ) are coming into effect to create new world order for destruction of Eco system & ECHO between citizens of world who are humans living with animals and trees water etc around them. Pollute every thing. The day TIBET , HONG KONG and other occupied lands are liberated to original owners from country levels to village levels than only world will change thinking as one family from country to village levels. world is flat distracting every body / killing every body with out self growth self knowledge self sufficient self values etc E - commerce , M - commerce is over now it is " RSV -commerce " Ransom Surveillance Virus ware Commerce. Good day to you all kanumuri s raju " We Connect human contacts " " We make net to think and act " " Survival is h-commerce -human commerce or human knowledge commerce based on Bartering of knowledge Globally with out money as instrument " -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- kkkrkstrust - Social and community empowerment and support services Create Green world: Share your Knowledge to make India Green - Eco System and self sustainability of world through communities and Internet technologies collaboration knowledge collaboration commerce sustainable smart villages to connect next 3.4 billion people. On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 4:59 AM, willi uebelherr > wrote: For your information. -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: Like it or not (and we don't), they could destroy the world Datum: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 13:37:00 -0400 (EDT) Von: RootsAction Team > Antwort an: info at rootsaction.org An: wube at gmx.net UPDATE: More than 10,000 people signed this urgent petition over the weekend. Please join them by signing and sharing! ______________ What happens during the announced meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in a few days, at the G-20 summit in Germany, could determine the fate of the Earth. The" Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" continues to warn the world that *the hands of the risk-estimate "Doomsday Clock" have moved even closer to catastrophic midnight*. The dangers of global nuclear holocaust are increasing -- and a major factor is the rise of tensions between the United States and Russia. So, profoundly, this is not about Trump or Putin. *This is about whether relations between the two nuclear-weapons superpowers will continue to spin out, worsening the risks of military confrontation.* This is about whether the young people we love -- and so many others around the world -- will have a future. And whether subsequent generations will even exist. *If you want to express support for seeking détente instead of boosting U.S.-Russian tensions, please click here to sign a petition with a vital message for Trump and Putin.* [ https://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action4/common/public/?action_KEY=12985 ] " "To: President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump" We vehemently urge you to take a constructive approach to your planned meeting at the G-20 summit. Whatever our differences, we must reduce rather than increase the risks of nuclear war. The future of humanity is at stake." To read about the "Doomsday Clock," please click on a Background link at the bottom of this email. After signing the petition, *please use the tools on the next webpage to share it with your friends*. -- The RootsAction.org Team Share this action on Facebook [ https://www.facebook.com/RootsAction/photos/a.190111267690401.43547.170004579701070/1594050773963103/?type=3&theater ] Share this action on Twitter [ http://bit.ly/2sxpXcv ] P.S. RootsAction is an independent online force endorsed by Jim Hightower, Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, Daniel Ellsberg, Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Klein, Bill Fletcher Jr., Laura Flanders, former U.S. Senator James Abourezk, Frances Fox Piven, Lila Garrett, Phil Donahue, Sonali Kolhatkar, and many others. Background: "AFP:" Trump to Meet Putin at G-20, Seek "More Constructive" Ties [ https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-meet-putin-g20-seek-more-constructive-ties-183200130.html ] "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:" Doomsday Clock [ http://thebulletin.org/timeline ] Norman Solomon, "The Nation: "Fifty Years Later, Rekindle the "Spirit of Glassboro" [ https://www.thenation.com/article/fifty-years-later-rekindle-the-spirit-of-glassboro/ ] Robert David English, "Foreign Affairs: "Russia, Trump, and a New Détente [ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/2017-03-10/russia-trump-and-new-d-tente ] http://www.rootsaction.org _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From raquino at gmail.com Wed Jul 26 19:28:05 2017 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 20:28:05 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] On the future of Best Bits and the pre-IGF meeting In-Reply-To: References: <1b084042-c225-f75f-fb93-bb6a972ff9ca@eff.org> Message-ID: Hi I'll be in LACIGF and there are informal groups chatting about it. I believe we should do a Bestbits member gathering there and talk about this. As for the options/focus Yes, some points made are very valid. Focus of the community depends largely on which direction community members want to take. I see Bestbits as created later than other communities. Perhaps w/ more CSOs well structured involved (everybody in the SC has an institutional link prominent). However, I think times have changed in the last 3 years. Decentralized movements like youth, gender and other groups grow more and more and I think Bestbits has some of these groups. In another direction, other communities have been structuring themselves quite formally for participation in CS events and that's good too. So other than avoiding cross posting unless necessary, I don't see much problem. All communities can coexist and certainly work together. A merger maybe would weaken them. It's not as if Civil Society is completely comfortable, totally lacking threats in the internet governance front so, the more the merrier. Seriousness, though, in taking tasks forward is always a challenge in a volunteer community. I'd like to suggest that we use the website coordinated w/ the list, update it w/ content and, more than that, give credit to those who move tasks forward. So a few concrete suggestions: 1 - There is an interest in electing leaders and SC? If so, should we take nominations and start the process? 2 - Proposals or tasks to be done by members who want to be more involved can be sent to the list and moved forward by consensus or "by Bestbits members". I guess it can start as simple as that for starters. If we can't get consensus then nothing changes. But I think we are halfway there already. Best, Renata -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmalcolm at eff.org Wed Jul 26 19:46:32 2017 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:46:32 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] On the future of Best Bits and the pre-IGF meeting In-Reply-To: References: <1b084042-c225-f75f-fb93-bb6a972ff9ca@eff.org> Message-ID: <19b3e499-2e6f-ca22-4539-d501fcd14214@eff.org> On 26/7/17 4:28 pm, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote: > So a few concrete suggestions: > > 1 - There is an interest in electing leaders and SC? If so, should we > take nominations and start the process? I would be happy to coordinate the process and to act as returning officer, if that helps (which implies not nominating myself; I have had a good run already). I could also offer some secretariat support to the committee. But let's ensure we have enough volunteers to run, first. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gus at publicknowledge.org Thu Jul 27 16:38:28 2017 From: gus at publicknowledge.org (Gus Rossi) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:38:28 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Bestbits meeting @ LACIGF Message-ID: Hi everyone! As you may know, next week is the LACIGF in Panama. It would be great to have a BestBits meeting. If you are going, let me know so we can organize something. Hope to see you there! ---- # # # # • # # # *Gus Rossi* Global Policy Director (202) 861-0020 (x123) | (202) 651 1337 <(202)%651-1337> (mobile) | @agustinrs *Public Knowledge* | @publicknowledge | www.publicknowledge.org 1818 N St. NW, Suite 410 | Washington, DC 20036 | CFC 12259 *The IP3 Awards are September 28th!* RSVP at publicknowledge.org/IP32017. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From raquino at gmail.com Thu Jul 27 18:28:16 2017 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:28:16 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Bestbits meeting @ LACIGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Gus I've consulted the LACIGF group too and would be great to have this meeting Thanks On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Gus Rossi wrote: > Hi everyone! > > As you may know, next week is the LACIGF in Panama. > > It would be great to have a BestBits meeting. > > If you are going, let me know so we can organize something. > > Hope to see you there! > > ---- > # # # > # • # > # # > > *Gus Rossi* > Global Policy Director (202) 861-0020 (x123) | (202) 651 1337 > <(202)%651-1337> (mobile) | @agustinrs > *Public Knowledge* | @publicknowledge > | www.publicknowledge.org > 1818 N St. NW, Suite 410 | Washington, DC 20036 | CFC 12259 > > *The IP3 Awards are September 28th!* RSVP at publicknowledge.org/IP32017. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From raquino at gmail.com Thu Jul 27 18:46:16 2017 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:46:16 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] On the future of Best Bits and the pre-IGF meeting In-Reply-To: <19b3e499-2e6f-ca22-4539-d501fcd14214@eff.org> References: <1b084042-c225-f75f-fb93-bb6a972ff9ca@eff.org> <19b3e499-2e6f-ca22-4539-d501fcd14214@eff.org> Message-ID: Hi Yes, I agree it would be good to have more people volunteering for a new Steering Committee But it seems that this is a bit of a dilemma now because a new Steering Committee would also bring in more people Or even not necessarily an SC but a new volunteer group for activities. As per the procedures if the number for 10 volunteers for SC is not found, fewer positions can be filled, forming a smaller group. So maybe start small and then see how we go from there? Best, Renata -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nigel.hickson at icann.org Fri Jul 28 00:50:17 2017 From: nigel.hickson at icann.org (Nigel Hickson) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 04:50:17 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [Ext] APrIGF 2017 Starts TODAY (Remote Participation Available) In-Reply-To: <863E213C-BBF7-429E-9ADC-992E74FF3795@registry.asia> References: <4B5F079D-0103-4E0A-96DA-47D944381FCB@aprigf.asia> <863E213C-BBF7-429E-9ADC-992E74FF3795@registry.asia> Message-ID: Yannis Good morning; congratulations to you and all the team; this is really an excellent and vibrant event, great energy in the room. Best Nigel   From: on behalf of Yannis Li Reply-To: Yannis Li Date: Thursday, 27 July 2017 at 06:24 To: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Subject: [Ext] [bestbits] APrIGF 2017 Starts TODAY (Remote Participation Available) Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum APrIGF Bangkok 2017 26 - 29 July Mahitaladhibesra Building, Chulalongkorn University The APrIGF Bangkok 2017 hosted by the Chulalongkorn University and the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission has started yesterday with side events and newcomers capacity building day. The event is officially beginning today with the Opening Plenary at 09:00am UTC+7 Bangkok time (02:00UTC) This year’s main theme is “ENSURING AN INCLUSIVE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN ASIA PACIFIC: A REGIONAL AGENDA FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE” with a diverse list of parallel sessions in different formats under the 4 sub-themes: Access, Empowerment & Diversity Cybersecurity, Privacy and Safer Internet Digital Economy & Enabling Innovations Human Rights Online The latest program agenda is available at http://2017.aprigf.asia/program[2017.aprigf.asia]. Remote participation links are also available on our website. Join us online! All meetings recordings and transcripts will be archived after the conference. Best Regards, Secretariat of APrIGF -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 175963 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4587 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nadira.araj at gmail.com Fri Jul 28 09:54:42 2017 From: nadira.araj at gmail.com (Nadira Alaraj) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:54:42 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] On the future of Best Bits and the pre-IGF meeting In-Reply-To: References: <1b084042-c225-f75f-fb93-bb6a972ff9ca@eff.org> Message-ID: Thanks Jeremy for triggering the discussion about Best Bits. One observation from this email thread that only less​ than handful who got into the discussions. This "might" give some signal but could be a false signal, that there are not enough members are really interested of what is being shared here. If possible to direct the scope of this group to a youth segment per the recommendation of Renata and others in this thread. Having the hybrid between the experienced and the young will feed into knowledge exchange an might activate the group. Then let the group have new SC to come up with fresh ideas. Best, Nadira On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote: > Hi > > I'll be in LACIGF and there are informal groups chatting about it. > I believe we should do a Bestbits member gathering there and talk about > this. > > As for the options/focus > > Yes, some points made are very valid. > > Focus of the community depends largely on which direction community > members want to take. > I see Bestbits as created later than other communities. > Perhaps w/ more CSOs well structured involved (everybody in the SC has an > institutional link prominent). > However, I think times have changed in the last 3 years. > Decentralized movements like youth, gender and other groups grow more and > more and I think Bestbits has some of these groups. > In another direction, other communities have been structuring themselves > quite formally for participation in CS events and that's good too. > > So other than avoiding cross posting unless necessary, I don't see much > problem. > All communities can coexist and certainly work together. A merger maybe > would weaken them. > > It's not as if Civil Society is completely comfortable, totally lacking > threats in the internet governance front so, the more the merrier. > > Seriousness, though, in taking tasks forward is always a challenge in a > volunteer community. > > I'd like to suggest that we use the website coordinated w/ the list, > update it w/ content and, more than that, give credit to those who move > tasks forward. > > So a few concrete suggestions: > > 1 - There is an interest in electing leaders and SC? If so, should we take > nominations and start the process? > 2 - Proposals or tasks to be done by members who want to be more involved > can be sent to the list and moved forward by consensus or "by Bestbits > members". > > I guess it can start as simple as that for starters. > If we can't get consensus then nothing changes. > But I think we are halfway there already. > > Best, > > Renata > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Fri Jul 28 13:22:17 2017 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 13:22:17 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] On the future of Best Bits and the pre-IGF meeting In-Reply-To: References: <1b084042-c225-f75f-fb93-bb6a972ff9ca@eff.org> Message-ID: I am ambivalent to either option, though tend to think some small incremental tuning to the status quo might be a lot easier than trying to artificially reinvigorate BestBits à la option 2. That said, I note that I am not an active contributor to BestBits, having only been signed up to this mailing list for around 18 months and having not attended any of the annual meetings that BestBits has previously hosted. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline) > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [bestbits] On the future of Best Bits and the pre-IGF meeting > Local Time: July 28, 2017 2:54 PM > UTC Time: July 28, 2017 1:54 PM > From: nadira.araj at gmail.com > To: Renata Aquino Ribeiro > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < > > Thanks Jeremy for triggering the discussion about Best Bits. > One observation from this email thread that only less than handful who got into the discussions. > This "might" give some signal but could be a false signal, that there are not enough members are really interested of what is being shared here. > If possible to direct the scope of this group to a youth segment per the recommendation of Renata and others in this thread. Having the hybrid between the experienced and the young will feed into knowledge exchange an might activate the group. > Then let the group have new SC to come up with fresh ideas. > Best, > Nadira > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote: > >> Hi >> I'll be in LACIGF and there are informal groups chatting about it. >> I believe we should do a Bestbits member gathering there and talk about this. >> As for the options/focus >> Yes, some points made are very valid. >> Focus of the community depends largely on which direction community members want to take. >> I see Bestbits as created later than other communities. >> Perhaps w/ more CSOs well structured involved (everybody in the SC has an institutional link prominent). >> However, I think times have changed in the last 3 years. >> Decentralized movements like youth, gender and other groups grow more and more and I think Bestbits has some of these groups. >> In another direction, other communities have been structuring themselves quite formally for participation in CS events and that's good too. >> So other than avoiding cross posting unless necessary, I don't see much problem. >> All communities can coexist and certainly work together. A merger maybe would weaken them. >> It's not as if Civil Society is completely comfortable, totally lacking threats in the internet governance front so, the more the merrier. >> Seriousness, though, in taking tasks forward is always a challenge in a volunteer community. >> I'd like to suggest that we use the website coordinated w/ the list, update it w/ content and, more than that, give credit to those who move tasks forward. >> So a few concrete suggestions: >> 1 - There is an interest in electing leaders and SC? If so, should we take nominations and start the process? >> 2 - Proposals or tasks to be done by members who want to be more involved can be sent to the list and moved forward by consensus or "by Bestbits members". >> I guess it can start as simple as that for starters. >> If we can't get consensus then nothing changes. >> But I think we are halfway there already. >> Best, >> Renata >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From javier at accessnow.org Fri Jul 28 16:15:46 2017 From: javier at accessnow.org (Javier Pallero) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:15:46 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Connectivity issues raise red flags in Venezuela Message-ID: FYI. Please share! *Once more, we are seeing reports of throttling and connectivity disruptions in Venezuela. That’s a threat to free expression and other human rights at a critical moment: this Sunday, July 30, Venezuelans will vote on a Constitutional Assembly that could cement authoritarian rule for the beleaguered nation.* https://www.accessnow.org/connectivity-problems-raise-red-flags-ahead-venezuelan-elections/ --- *Javier Pallero* Policy Analyst / Analista de Politicas Access Now | accessnow.org PGP 0xEBFD028A Fingerprint 0503 FBA1 10B2 B83C 61FC FE3B 4E7E EBDD EBFD 028A *Sign up *for updates on RightsCon Toronto 2018 *Subscribe *to the Access Now Express , our weekly newsletter on digital rights *Protect* digital rights around the world? Support Access Now with a donation today -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike.oghia at gmail.com Mon Jul 31 08:35:58 2017 From: mike.oghia at gmail.com (Michael Oghia) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:35:58 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Digital rights youth publication Message-ID: Hi everyone, Earlier this year, I joined the organizing team for a youth seminar on cybersecurity and digital rights hosted by the Cooperation and Development Network of Eastern Europe (CDN), which was held in April in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. I am pleased to present one of our follow-up projects, which is a publication including articles, sci-fi stories, infographics, and even a stop-motion animation relevant to the theme – all written by youth. The publication along with a related toolkit is available at: https://www.cdnee.org/digital-rights-toolkit/ We would like to once again thank all of those individuals and organizations that helped us with this project, including One World Platform and ISOC. Best, -Michael __________________ Michael J. Oghia Independent #netgov consultant & editor Belgrade, Serbia Skype: mikeoghia Twitter *|* LinkedIn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james at cyberinvasion.net Fri Jul 7 08:37:26 2017 From: james at cyberinvasion.net (James Gannon) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 12:37:26 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [Internet Policy] RootsAction: Like it or not (and we don't), they could destroy the world In-Reply-To: <018001d2f718$3f39bcf0$bdad36d0$@gmail.com> References: <130b8d9b-a1bc-fa50-2826-1d5f1e02c780@riseup.net> <018001d2f718$3f39bcf0$bdad36d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I was replying to kanumuri s raju email which rambled on about “Now once again weapons of mass cyber destruction is getting to play role.Transmitting controlling people ( TCP) as Incompatible politics ( IP ) are coming into effect to create new world order for destruction of Eco system & ECHO between citizens of world who are humans living with animals and trees water etc around them. Pollute every thing.” If this is the level of discourse we want on this list then Ill head elsewhere at this stage, this list was at one stage a place for good intelligent discourse but in the last year is degraded a lot to be honest (with some exceptions) From: Brandt Dainow [mailto:brandt.dainow at gmail.com] Sent: 07 July 2017 12:58 To: James Gannon Cc: 'Best Bits' ; 'ISOC Internet Policy' ; 'IUF list' ; 'IGF gov' ; 'APC list' ; 'srajukanumuri' ; 'willi uebelherr' Subject: RE: [Internet Policy] RootsAction: Like it or not (and we don't), they could destroy the world Hi James, With the greatest respect, I don’t think this is spamming. Willi may not be the best writer of English, but it’s not his first language and we shouldn’t dismiss someone’s ideas just because they can’t express themselves as we would like, especially in an international forum. His ideas may be very left-wing by European standards, but they’re fairly mainstream within many communities in Latin America. He thus represents a genuine political view, and one which actually dominates the governments of some Latin American countries since the rise of Morales, which sees western, especially US, businesses as imperialist enterprises and regards capitalism, even Chinese capitalism, as nothing but an evil force aimed at reducing most people to a state of slavery. This may sound extreme, but when you look at the living conditions of many poor people in Latin America, their domination by corrupt politicians and local leaders, often descendants of conquistador families who have dominated their communities for centuries, you see that the reality of their lives is not much more than serfdom. The same is true in India and other countries. There is a tendency of ISOC policy to become dominated by western political opinion from the centrist to neoliberal range, with insufficient weight given to Marxist and other views, which genuinely represent the opinions of hundreds of millions of people, especially in poorer parts of the world. I am not advocating Marxism over capitalism, but I think Willi does us a service by continually representing this view. To be an educated westerner is to be a member of the global elite. The average westerner is unaware of how much of their comfortable existence is dependant on a western-dominated global trade system based on exploitation of the poor in other parts of the world by extracting resources corruptly and not paying their full value, thus passing the financial benefit to the western consumer in unjustly cheap consumer pricing. You may not like Willi’s opinions, you may even find them silly, and sometimes the wording means understanding requires some effort, but that doesn’t make it spam. I may not always agree with Willi, and I often think him too extreme, but I think he provides a valuable contribution to this forum, and they are typically relevant to ISOC policy. Regards, Brandt Dainow brandt.dainow at gmail.com https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brandt_Dainow http://www.imediaconnection.com/profiles/brandt.dainow Regards, Brandt Dainow brandt.dainow at gmail.com https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brandt_Dainow http://www.imediaconnection.com/profiles/brandt.dainow From: InternetPolicy [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: 07 July 2017 10:27 To: srajukanumuri; willi uebelherr Cc: Best Bits; ISOC Internet Policy; IUF list; IGF gov; APC list Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] RootsAction: Like it or not (and we don't), they could destroy the world Please stop spamming this list. You have been asked multiple times over the last few months. -James From: InternetPolicy [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of srajukanumuri Sent: 07 July 2017 09:24 To: willi uebelherr > Cc: ISOC Internet Policy >; IUF list >; IGF gov >; Best Bits >; APC list > Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] RootsAction: Like it or not (and we don't), they could destroy the world Dear one and all . Last seven years globally it really disturbing with wars for resources , oil and gas , crony capitalists looting banks ( global banking bankruptcy ) , Knowledge theft's ( china etc ) , Drugs and lastly all governments trying to control their own citizens and social media getting used to reach other countries falls ( great march in Egypt) and making ICT as cyber war to kill economies with fake news with controlled media ,Internet, news 's companies which lead to all developing countries under poverty and also most all middle class poor suffering. USA / RUSSIA fragmented geo political issues made china occupy Tibet and other Indian lands and also making pakistan and other rouge countries as their partners to reach its foot print all over the world the same way BRITISH and other colonial rulers / countries occupied other countries. Recent brit ext is classic example and using terrorism to impact voters and also becoming common hidden cold war model's in the form of new Burka - cyber war's and hate politics . Divide and rule. From last 70 years India is facing terrorism and other forms of proxy war's. now other parts of world are getting impacted. There is no good and bad. China last 6 months threatening India , stopped Hindu's famous mansarovar / muount kilash pilgrimage and also threatening to occupy other Indian lands and also liberate skkim etc all china wars with India is to loot TIBET and other parts where it can control water and also make Buddhism / Hinduism vanish as communists. Now world order in place. TAIWAN , HONGKONG , VIETNAM. JAPAN etc countries are getting bully-ed with PAK , Silk route projects etc. Most of China GDP came with other countries opting for cheap goods and others thinking that they can save billions of dollars they used this to over come others to expand even to Africa to kill animals ( elephants , Rhino's ) , Iron ore and other precious metals the same looting happened from India to build Olympics stadiums with looted IRON ore and red sandal wood smugglers and lastly drugs. this story is every where with script in different forms and different news head lines Destabilized world ( south America , Africa ). history is one way repeating making G - 20 countries fighting each other for their own survival or to become top 7 countries rule rest of world in various types of Governance. (POLITICAL DATA VIRUS RANSOM GOVERNMENTS NETWORKS ). Now once again weapons of mass cyber destruction is getting to play role.Transmitting controlling people ( TCP) as Incompatible politics ( IP ) are coming into effect to create new world order for destruction of Eco system & ECHO between citizens of world who are humans living with animals and trees water etc around them. Pollute every thing. The day TIBET , HONG KONG and other occupied lands are liberated to original owners from country levels to village levels than only world will change thinking as one family from country to village levels. world is flat distracting every body / killing every body with out self growth self knowledge self sufficient self values etc E - commerce , M - commerce is over now it is " RSV -commerce " Ransom Surveillance Virus ware Commerce. Good day to you all kanumuri s raju " We Connect human contacts " " We make net to think and act " " Survival is h-commerce -human commerce or human knowledge commerce based on Bartering of knowledge Globally with out money as instrument " -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- kkkrkstrust - Social and community empowerment and support services Create Green world: Share your Knowledge to make India Green - Eco System and self sustainability of world through communities and Internet technologies collaboration knowledge collaboration commerce sustainable smart villages to connect next 3.4 billion people. On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 4:59 AM, willi uebelherr > wrote: For your information. -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: Like it or not (and we don't), they could destroy the world Datum: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 13:37:00 -0400 (EDT) Von: RootsAction Team > Antwort an: info at rootsaction.org An: wube at gmx.net UPDATE: More than 10,000 people signed this urgent petition over the weekend. Please join them by signing and sharing! ______________ What happens during the announced meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in a few days, at the G-20 summit in Germany, could determine the fate of the Earth. The" Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" continues to warn the world that *the hands of the risk-estimate "Doomsday Clock" have moved even closer to catastrophic midnight*. The dangers of global nuclear holocaust are increasing -- and a major factor is the rise of tensions between the United States and Russia. So, profoundly, this is not about Trump or Putin. *This is about whether relations between the two nuclear-weapons superpowers will continue to spin out, worsening the risks of military confrontation.* This is about whether the young people we love -- and so many others around the world -- will have a future. And whether subsequent generations will even exist. *If you want to express support for seeking détente instead of boosting U.S.-Russian tensions, please click here to sign a petition with a vital message for Trump and Putin.* [ https://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action4/common/public/?action_KEY=12985 ] " "To: President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump" We vehemently urge you to take a constructive approach to your planned meeting at the G-20 summit. Whatever our differences, we must reduce rather than increase the risks of nuclear war. The future of humanity is at stake." To read about the "Doomsday Clock," please click on a Background link at the bottom of this email. After signing the petition, *please use the tools on the next webpage to share it with your friends*. -- The RootsAction.org Team Share this action on Facebook [ https://www.facebook.com/RootsAction/photos/a.190111267690401.43547.170004579701070/1594050773963103/?type=3&theater ] Share this action on Twitter [ http://bit.ly/2sxpXcv ] P.S. RootsAction is an independent online force endorsed by Jim Hightower, Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, Daniel Ellsberg, Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Klein, Bill Fletcher Jr., Laura Flanders, former U.S. Senator James Abourezk, Frances Fox Piven, Lila Garrett, Phil Donahue, Sonali Kolhatkar, and many others. Background: "AFP:" Trump to Meet Putin at G-20, Seek "More Constructive" Ties [ https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-meet-putin-g20-seek-more-constructive-ties-183200130.html ] "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:" Doomsday Clock [ http://thebulletin.org/timeline ] Norman Solomon, "The Nation: "Fifty Years Later, Rekindle the "Spirit of Glassboro" [ https://www.thenation.com/article/fifty-years-later-rekindle-the-spirit-of-glassboro/ ] Robert David English, "Foreign Affairs: "Russia, Trump, and a New Détente [ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/2017-03-10/russia-trump-and-new-d-tente ] http://www.rootsaction.org _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jul 31 10:18:58 2017 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 09:18:58 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Mid-year IG review -- what do you think? Message-ID: We're already preparing for the IGF2017... I found this to be a good way to get the big picture for my topic planning, and you might find it interesting as well: Jovan Kurbalija (Diplo) has just published the mid-year review of digital policy trends, revisiting the predictions made in the beginning of the year, and predicting what we can expect until the end of the year. https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/ten-major-trends-internet-governance-2017-mid -year-review This might be a good place to reflect on how the trends affect our own country/region, or on the relevance of trends in IG policy that we should keep on our radar? Cheers, Ginger Virginia Paque DiploFoundation *Upcoming courses: * Master in Contemporary Diplomacy; Education Diplomacy; Consular and Diaspora Diplomacy; Cybersecurity; Development Diplomacy; Economic Diplomacy; Language and Diplomacy http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses * * Virus-free. www.avast.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Mon Jul 31 10:40:11 2017 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:40:11 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Mid-year IG review -- what do you think? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for sharing again Ginger, Have gone through Jovan report I think for me in "my neck of the woods: the following are very important to us Content policy, fake news, and violent extremism contentEncryption: security and privacy *Cyber Security* *Big Data* I feel within the global lanscape the report gives a true pictuyre of relative stuff to look at with the IG space, however based on region to region some do mattrer more to some than others. Again I have ranked it from within my own Neck of the woods in the other written and it will vary regional and at contry level too. Good analysis. Kind Regards Poncelet On 31 July 2017 at 14:18, Ginger Paque wrote: > We're already preparing for the IGF2017... I found this to be a good way > to get the big picture for my topic planning, and you might find it > interesting as well: Jovan Kurbalija (Diplo) has just published the mid- > year review of digital policy trends, revisiting the predictions made in > the beginning of the year, and predicting what we can expect until the > end of the year. > > https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/ten-major-trends-internet-governance-2017- > mid-year-review > > > This might be a good place to reflect on how the trends affect our own > country/region, or on the relevance of trends in IG policy that we should > keep on our radar? > > Cheers, Ginger > > Virginia Paque > DiploFoundation > > *Upcoming courses: * Master in Contemporary Diplomacy; Education > Diplomacy; Consular and Diaspora Diplomacy; Cybersecurity; Development > Diplomacy; Economic Diplomacy; Language and Diplomacy http://www. > diplomacy.edu/courses > > > * * > > > > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > > <#m_4349187370516692139_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 wisdom.dk at gmail.com Mon Jul 31 11:09:03 2017 From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:09:03 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [governance] Topics on the 2017 IG barometer -- how are they faring? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)* E-government and Open Government Data Platforms Specialist ICANN Fellow / Member, UN IGF MAG Member, ISOC Member, Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) Member, Diplo Foundation Member, OGP Open Data WG Member, GODAN Memember, ITAG Member Email: wisdom.dk at gmail.com Skype: wisdom_dk facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk Website: www.data.gov.gh www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ginger Paque Date: Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 2:20 PM Subject: [governance] Topics on the 2017 IG barometer -- how are they faring? To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Cc: Jovan Kurbalija , Steph Mobile < stephaniep at diplomacy.edu> We're already preparing for the IGF2017... I found this to be a good way to get the big picture for my topic planning, and you might find it interesting as well: Jovan Kurbalija (Diplo) has just published the mid-year review of digital policy trends, revisiting the predictions made in the beginning of the year, and predicting what we can expect until the end of the year. https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/ten-major-trends-internet-governance-2017-mid -year-review This might be a good place to reflect on how the trends affect our own country/region, or on the relevance of trends in IG policy that we should keep on our radar as we plan? Cheers, Ginger Virginia Paque DiploFoundation *Upcoming courses: * Master in Contemporary Diplomacy; Education Diplomacy; Consular and Diaspora Diplomacy; Cybersecurity; Development Diplomacy; Economic Diplomacy; Language and Diplomacy http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses * * Virus-free. www.avast.com <#m_-8807874806802305508_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> To unsubscribe from this list, click here: http://lists.igcaucus.org/ sympa/auto_signoff/governance/wisdom.dk%40gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wisdom.dk at gmail.com Mon Jul 31 11:10:21 2017 From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:10:21 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Mid-year IG review -- what do you think? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Ginger for the information. Very informative. Cheers, *WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)* E-government and Open Government Data Platforms Specialist ICANN Fellow / Member, UN IGF MAG Member, ISOC Member, Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) Member, Diplo Foundation Member, OGP Open Data WG Member, GODAN Memember, ITAG Member Email: wisdom.dk at gmail.com Skype: wisdom_dk facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk Website: www.data.gov.gh www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > We're already preparing for the IGF2017... I found this to be a good way > to get the big picture for my topic planning, and you might find it > interesting as well: Jovan Kurbalija (Diplo) has just published the mid- > year review of digital policy trends, revisiting the predictions made in > the beginning of the year, and predicting what we can expect until the > end of the year. > > https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/ten-major-trends-internet-governance-2017- > mid-year-review > > > This might be a good place to reflect on how the trends affect our own > country/region, or on the relevance of trends in IG policy that we should > keep on our radar? > > Cheers, Ginger > > Virginia Paque > DiploFoundation > > *Upcoming courses: * Master in Contemporary Diplomacy; Education > Diplomacy; Consular and Diaspora Diplomacy; Cybersecurity; Development > Diplomacy; Economic Diplomacy; Language and Diplomacy http://www. > diplomacy.edu/courses > > > * * > > > > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > > <#m_-6139098466261609455_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 sheetal at gp-digital.org Mon Jul 31 12:51:31 2017 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 17:51:31 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] On the future of Best Bits and the pre-IGF meeting In-Reply-To: References: <1b084042-c225-f75f-fb93-bb6a972ff9ca@eff.org> Message-ID: Dear all, I agree with the sentiment expressed by Nadira that although this discussion is very welcome, it is so far only been engaged with by a handful of individuals. Would suggesting everyone respond by a specific date (say end of August?) - and perhaps doing offlist outreach to encourage participation -on the two options so far proposed and other suggestions, and agreeing on a rough timeline after the responses from that to chart a way forward be a next step? Best Sheetal. On 28 July 2017 at 18:22, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > I am ambivalent to either option, though tend to think some small > incremental tuning to the status quo might be a lot easier than trying to > artificially reinvigorate BestBits à la option 2. > > That said, I note that I am not an active contributor to BestBits, having > only been signed up to this mailing list for around 18 months and having > not attended any of the annual meetings that BestBits has previously > hosted. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline > linkedin.com/in/ferdeline > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [bestbits] On the future of Best Bits and the pre-IGF meeting > Local Time: July 28, 2017 2:54 PM > UTC Time: July 28, 2017 1:54 PM > From: nadira.araj at gmail.com > To: Renata Aquino Ribeiro > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < > > Thanks Jeremy for triggering the discussion about Best Bits. > One observation from this email thread that only less than handful who got > into the discussions. > This "might" give some signal but could be a false signal, that there are > not enough members are really interested of what is being shared here. > > If possible to direct the scope of this group to a youth segment per the > recommendation of Renata and others in this thread. Having the hybrid > between the experienced and the young will feed into knowledge exchange an > might activate the group. > > Then let the group have new SC to come up with fresh ideas. > Best, > Nadira > > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro > wrote: > >> Hi >> >> I'll be in LACIGF and there are informal groups chatting about it. >> I believe we should do a Bestbits member gathering there and talk about >> this. >> >> As for the options/focus >> >> Yes, some points made are very valid. >> >> Focus of the community depends largely on which direction community >> members want to take. >> I see Bestbits as created later than other communities. >> Perhaps w/ more CSOs well structured involved (everybody in the SC has an >> institutional link prominent). >> However, I think times have changed in the last 3 years. >> Decentralized movements like youth, gender and other groups grow more and >> more and I think Bestbits has some of these groups. >> In another direction, other communities have been structuring themselves >> quite formally for participation in CS events and that's good too. >> >> So other than avoiding cross posting unless necessary, I don't see much >> problem. >> All communities can coexist and certainly work together. A merger maybe >> would weaken them. >> >> It's not as if Civil Society is completely comfortable, totally lacking >> threats in the internet governance front so, the more the merrier. >> >> Seriousness, though, in taking tasks forward is always a challenge in a >> volunteer community. >> >> I'd like to suggest that we use the website coordinated w/ the list, >> update it w/ content and, more than that, give credit to those who move >> tasks forward. >> >> So a few concrete suggestions: >> >> 1 - There is an interest in electing leaders and SC? If so, should we >> take nominations and start the process? >> 2 - Proposals or tasks to be done by members who want to be more involved >> can be sent to the list and moved forward by consensus or "by Bestbits >> members". >> >> I guess it can start as simple as that for starters. >> If we can't get consensus then nothing changes. >> But I think we are halfway there already. >> >> Best, >> >> Renata >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- *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 | PGP ID: AAEDBF8AFE87EF53 | PGP Fingerprint: 9CD3 46A5 21A1 DFD9 FDD0 457D AAED BF8A FE87 EF53 | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmalcolm at eff.org Mon Jul 31 17:04:01 2017 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:04:01 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] On the future of Best Bits and the pre-IGF meeting In-Reply-To: References: <1b084042-c225-f75f-fb93-bb6a972ff9ca@eff.org> Message-ID: On 31/7/17 9:51 am, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > I agree with the sentiment expressed by Nadira that although this > discussion is very welcome, it is so far only been engaged with by a > handful of individuals. Would suggesting everyone respond by a > specific date (say end of August?) - and perhaps doing offlist > outreach to encourage participation -on the two options so far > proposed and other suggestions, and agreeing on a rough timeline after > the responses from that to chart a way forward be a next step? Based on the interest expressed so far (albeit by, as you say, a handful of people), I've been asked to start a Steering Committee nominating process. I'm happy to do that, but there will also be a "no appointment" option so that those who prefer the status quo can vote against nominating a committee, in which case things will, by default, continue as they are. It may take me up to a week to get this in place, but I will keep the list updated. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From gus at publicknowledge.org Mon Jul 31 17:29:01 2017 From: gus at publicknowledge.org (Gus Rossi) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:29:01 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?Jit=2ESi_LACIGF=2C_Participaci=C3=B3n_Remota?= =?UTF-8?Q?_Encuentro_Soc_Civil?= Message-ID: *EN ESPAÑOL [ENGLISH EXP BELOW]* --- Estimad at s, En la reunión de sociedad civil de mañana en en el LACIGF vamos a usar Jitsi para participación remota: *Cree esta sala: https://meet.jit.si/LACIGFSC . La reunión empieza 10am hora de Panamá.* Esperemos que funcione todo como corresponde. Les pido que si se conectan dejen sus micrófonos en silencio mientras no estén hablando. Si hay algún problema, voy a responder a este hilo de mail. Esperemos que todo funcione. Aunque ya saben, en casa de herrero... Puede haber problemas del wifi, de jit.si, de los micrófonos, de las computadoras... Se hará todo lo posible para que salga todo bien. --- *[ENGLISH EXP]* Dear all, Civil Society organizations participating in the LACIGF will have their meeting tomorrow. A jet.si was created to allow for remote participation. The meeting will take place in Spanish and Portuguese. ---- # # # # • # # # *Gus Rossi* Global Policy Director (202) 861-0020 (x123) | (202) 651 1337 <(202)%651-1337> (mobile) | @agustinrs *Public Knowledge* | @publicknowledge | www.publicknowledge.org 1818 N St. NW, Suite 410 | Washington, DC 20036 | CFC 12259 *The IP3 Awards are September 28th!* RSVP at publicknowledge.org/IP32017. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james at cyberinvasion.net Fri Jul 7 08:38:50 2017 From: james at cyberinvasion.net (James Gannon) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 12:38:50 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [Internet Policy] RootsAction: Like it or not (and we don't), they could destroy the world In-Reply-To: <018001d2f718$3f39bcf0$bdad36d0$@gmail.com> References: <130b8d9b-a1bc-fa50-2826-1d5f1e02c780@riseup.net> <018001d2f718$3f39bcf0$bdad36d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hit send too early, for the record while I do disagree with some of Willis opinions I feel that at least his messages are usually on point and would never class them as spam but merely threads I wont participate in which is of course fine. -James From: Brandt Dainow [mailto:brandt.dainow at gmail.com] Sent: 07 July 2017 12:58 To: James Gannon Cc: 'Best Bits' ; 'ISOC Internet Policy' ; 'IUF list' ; 'IGF gov' ; 'APC list' ; 'srajukanumuri' ; 'willi uebelherr' Subject: RE: [Internet Policy] RootsAction: Like it or not (and we don't), they could destroy the world Hi James, With the greatest respect, I don’t think this is spamming. Willi may not be the best writer of English, but it’s not his first language and we shouldn’t dismiss someone’s ideas just because they can’t express themselves as we would like, especially in an international forum. His ideas may be very left-wing by European standards, but they’re fairly mainstream within many communities in Latin America. He thus represents a genuine political view, and one which actually dominates the governments of some Latin American countries since the rise of Morales, which sees western, especially US, businesses as imperialist enterprises and regards capitalism, even Chinese capitalism, as nothing but an evil force aimed at reducing most people to a state of slavery. This may sound extreme, but when you look at the living conditions of many poor people in Latin America, their domination by corrupt politicians and local leaders, often descendants of conquistador families who have dominated their communities for centuries, you see that the reality of their lives is not much more than serfdom. The same is true in India and other countries. There is a tendency of ISOC policy to become dominated by western political opinion from the centrist to neoliberal range, with insufficient weight given to Marxist and other views, which genuinely represent the opinions of hundreds of millions of people, especially in poorer parts of the world. I am not advocating Marxism over capitalism, but I think Willi does us a service by continually representing this view. To be an educated westerner is to be a member of the global elite. The average westerner is unaware of how much of their comfortable existence is dependant on a western-dominated global trade system based on exploitation of the poor in other parts of the world by extracting resources corruptly and not paying their full value, thus passing the financial benefit to the western consumer in unjustly cheap consumer pricing. You may not like Willi’s opinions, you may even find them silly, and sometimes the wording means understanding requires some effort, but that doesn’t make it spam. I may not always agree with Willi, and I often think him too extreme, but I think he provides a valuable contribution to this forum, and they are typically relevant to ISOC policy. Regards, Brandt Dainow brandt.dainow at gmail.com https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brandt_Dainow http://www.imediaconnection.com/profiles/brandt.dainow Regards, Brandt Dainow brandt.dainow at gmail.com https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brandt_Dainow http://www.imediaconnection.com/profiles/brandt.dainow From: InternetPolicy [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: 07 July 2017 10:27 To: srajukanumuri; willi uebelherr Cc: Best Bits; ISOC Internet Policy; IUF list; IGF gov; APC list Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] RootsAction: Like it or not (and we don't), they could destroy the world Please stop spamming this list. You have been asked multiple times over the last few months. -James From: InternetPolicy [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of srajukanumuri Sent: 07 July 2017 09:24 To: willi uebelherr > Cc: ISOC Internet Policy >; IUF list >; IGF gov >; Best Bits >; APC list > Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] RootsAction: Like it or not (and we don't), they could destroy the world Dear one and all . Last seven years globally it really disturbing with wars for resources , oil and gas , crony capitalists looting banks ( global banking bankruptcy ) , Knowledge theft's ( china etc ) , Drugs and lastly all governments trying to control their own citizens and social media getting used to reach other countries falls ( great march in Egypt) and making ICT as cyber war to kill economies with fake news with controlled media ,Internet, news 's companies which lead to all developing countries under poverty and also most all middle class poor suffering. USA / RUSSIA fragmented geo political issues made china occupy Tibet and other Indian lands and also making pakistan and other rouge countries as their partners to reach its foot print all over the world the same way BRITISH and other colonial rulers / countries occupied other countries. Recent brit ext is classic example and using terrorism to impact voters and also becoming common hidden cold war model's in the form of new Burka - cyber war's and hate politics . Divide and rule. From last 70 years India is facing terrorism and other forms of proxy war's. now other parts of world are getting impacted. There is no good and bad. China last 6 months threatening India , stopped Hindu's famous mansarovar / muount kilash pilgrimage and also threatening to occupy other Indian lands and also liberate skkim etc all china wars with India is to loot TIBET and other parts where it can control water and also make Buddhism / Hinduism vanish as communists. Now world order in place. TAIWAN , HONGKONG , VIETNAM. JAPAN etc countries are getting bully-ed with PAK , Silk route projects etc. Most of China GDP came with other countries opting for cheap goods and others thinking that they can save billions of dollars they used this to over come others to expand even to Africa to kill animals ( elephants , Rhino's ) , Iron ore and other precious metals the same looting happened from India to build Olympics stadiums with looted IRON ore and red sandal wood smugglers and lastly drugs. this story is every where with script in different forms and different news head lines Destabilized world ( south America , Africa ). history is one way repeating making G - 20 countries fighting each other for their own survival or to become top 7 countries rule rest of world in various types of Governance. (POLITICAL DATA VIRUS RANSOM GOVERNMENTS NETWORKS ). Now once again weapons of mass cyber destruction is getting to play role.Transmitting controlling people ( TCP) as Incompatible politics ( IP ) are coming into effect to create new world order for destruction of Eco system & ECHO between citizens of world who are humans living with animals and trees water etc around them. Pollute every thing. The day TIBET , HONG KONG and other occupied lands are liberated to original owners from country levels to village levels than only world will change thinking as one family from country to village levels. world is flat distracting every body / killing every body with out self growth self knowledge self sufficient self values etc E - commerce , M - commerce is over now it is " RSV -commerce " Ransom Surveillance Virus ware Commerce. Good day to you all kanumuri s raju " We Connect human contacts " " We make net to think and act " " Survival is h-commerce -human commerce or human knowledge commerce based on Bartering of knowledge Globally with out money as instrument " -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- kkkrkstrust - Social and community empowerment and support services Create Green world: Share your Knowledge to make India Green - Eco System and self sustainability of world through communities and Internet technologies collaboration knowledge collaboration commerce sustainable smart villages to connect next 3.4 billion people. On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 4:59 AM, willi uebelherr > wrote: For your information. -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: Like it or not (and we don't), they could destroy the world Datum: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 13:37:00 -0400 (EDT) Von: RootsAction Team > Antwort an: info at rootsaction.org An: wube at gmx.net UPDATE: More than 10,000 people signed this urgent petition over the weekend. Please join them by signing and sharing! ______________ What happens during the announced meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in a few days, at the G-20 summit in Germany, could determine the fate of the Earth. The" Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" continues to warn the world that *the hands of the risk-estimate "Doomsday Clock" have moved even closer to catastrophic midnight*. The dangers of global nuclear holocaust are increasing -- and a major factor is the rise of tensions between the United States and Russia. So, profoundly, this is not about Trump or Putin. *This is about whether relations between the two nuclear-weapons superpowers will continue to spin out, worsening the risks of military confrontation.* This is about whether the young people we love -- and so many others around the world -- will have a future. And whether subsequent generations will even exist. *If you want to express support for seeking détente instead of boosting U.S.-Russian tensions, please click here to sign a petition with a vital message for Trump and Putin.* [ https://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action4/common/public/?action_KEY=12985 ] " "To: President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump" We vehemently urge you to take a constructive approach to your planned meeting at the G-20 summit. Whatever our differences, we must reduce rather than increase the risks of nuclear war. The future of humanity is at stake." To read about the "Doomsday Clock," please click on a Background link at the bottom of this email. After signing the petition, *please use the tools on the next webpage to share it with your friends*. -- The RootsAction.org Team Share this action on Facebook [ https://www.facebook.com/RootsAction/photos/a.190111267690401.43547.170004579701070/1594050773963103/?type=3&theater ] Share this action on Twitter [ http://bit.ly/2sxpXcv ] P.S. RootsAction is an independent online force endorsed by Jim Hightower, Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, Daniel Ellsberg, Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Klein, Bill Fletcher Jr., Laura Flanders, former U.S. Senator James Abourezk, Frances Fox Piven, Lila Garrett, Phil Donahue, Sonali Kolhatkar, and many others. Background: "AFP:" Trump to Meet Putin at G-20, Seek "More Constructive" Ties [ https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-meet-putin-g20-seek-more-constructive-ties-183200130.html ] "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:" Doomsday Clock [ http://thebulletin.org/timeline ] Norman Solomon, "The Nation: "Fifty Years Later, Rekindle the "Spirit of Glassboro" [ https://www.thenation.com/article/fifty-years-later-rekindle-the-spirit-of-glassboro/ ] Robert David English, "Foreign Affairs: "Russia, Trump, and a New Détente [ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/2017-03-10/russia-trump-and-new-d-tente ] http://www.rootsaction.org _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wisdom.dk at gmail.com Mon Jul 31 11:09:03 2017 From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:09:03 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [fellowships-alumni] Fwd: [governance] Topics on the 2017 IG barometer -- how are they faring? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)* E-government and Open Government Data Platforms Specialist ICANN Fellow / Member, UN IGF MAG Member, ISOC Member, Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) Member, Diplo Foundation Member, OGP Open Data WG Member, GODAN Memember, ITAG Member Email: wisdom.dk at gmail.com Skype: wisdom_dk facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk Website: www.data.gov.gh www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ginger Paque Date: Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 2:20 PM Subject: [governance] Topics on the 2017 IG barometer -- how are they faring? To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Cc: Jovan Kurbalija , Steph Mobile < stephaniep at diplomacy.edu> We're already preparing for the IGF2017... I found this to be a good way to get the big picture for my topic planning, and you might find it interesting as well: Jovan Kurbalija (Diplo) has just published the mid-year review of digital policy trends, revisiting the predictions made in the beginning of the year, and predicting what we can expect until the end of the year. https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/ten-major-trends-internet-governance-2017-mid -year-review This might be a good place to reflect on how the trends affect our own country/region, or on the relevance of trends in IG policy that we should keep on our radar as we plan? Cheers, Ginger Virginia Paque DiploFoundation *Upcoming courses: * Master in Contemporary Diplomacy; Education Diplomacy; Consular and Diaspora Diplomacy; Cybersecurity; Development Diplomacy; Economic Diplomacy; Language and Diplomacy http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses * * Virus-free. www.avast.com <#m_-8807874806802305508_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> To unsubscribe from this list, click here: http://lists.igcaucus.org/ sympa/auto_signoff/governance/wisdom.dk%40gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Fellowships-alumni mailing list Fellowships-alumni at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/fellowships-alumni