From sheetal at gp-digital.org  Tue Apr  3 07:46:44 2018
From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 12:46:44 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [CSCG] Letter to the IGF Secretariat re: MAG 2018
 selection process
Message-ID: <CAK78muSDYEj4VG_uN28tsZ3Q6sSenMVuOwVioM4P_btq0vGrnw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Following the announcement of the MAG 2018 (see link below), the CSCG has
sent a letter to the IGF Secretariat.

The letter expresses concern about the transparency and accountability of
the selection process, and calls for improvements, in line with the CSTD
Working Group on Improvements to the IGF recommendations.

If there is a response from the Secretariat I will share it once it's
received. In the meantime, don't hesitate to get in touch should you have
any questions.

Announcement of the MAG:
https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/mag-2018-members
CSCG letter in response: http://internetgov-cs.org/2018-03-31

Best
Sheetal.
-- 


*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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180403/1e4a3473/attachment.htm>

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Mon Apr 16 11:07:37 2018
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:07:37 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Just-in-time reporting from the UNCTAD e-commerce week
Message-ID: <CACpVkK1yonfFu0Zwa0yP=sOm-SEPfTr589KCg1ugDNVBi4u8SQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear colleagues,

This week, the GIP Digital Watch Observatory and DiploFoundation are
providing just-in-time reporting from most sessions at the UNCTAD
e-commerce week 2018 and from the second meeting of the group of
intergovernmental experts on e-commerce.

The overarching theme of the e-commerce week is the development dimension
of digital platforms. They key role that these platforms play in
facilitating international trade is being discussed, as well as their
potentially disruptive influence on the economy and the job market.

We hope this exercise will be useful to democratise discussions taking
place in Geneva.

All the best wishes,
Marilia


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: DiploFoundation <ig at diplomacy.edu>
Date: Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 1:28 PM
Subject: Just-in-time reporting from the UNCTAD e-commerce week
To: MariliaM at diplomacy.edu


Just-in-time reporting from the UNCTAD e-commerce week
Is this email not displaying correctly?   View this email in your browser
<https://mailchi.mp/diplomacy/unctad?e=db990db001>
[image: Internet governance briefing]
<https://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=f73183fd5c&e=db990db001>

Dear Colleagues,

Today marks the start of the UNCTAD E-Commerce Week 2018, a week-long event
that brings together stakeholders to discuss development opportunities and
challenges associated with the evolving digital economy. DiploFoundation
and the Geneva Internet Platform will be actively engaged in the event.
  Read our just-in-time reports
The *GIP Digital Watch* observatory is providing just-in-time reporting
from most sessions at the UNCTAD E-commerce Week 2018 and from the second
meeting of the Intergovernmental Group of Experts on E-commerce and the
Digital Economy (18–20 April), with the aim of enabling the community to
keep track of discussions happening simultaneously.
  Click here for reports
<https://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=98f57a036d&e=db990db001>

Session reports are available by the end of each day. Read the reports at
dig.watch/unctad2018
<https://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=f140682b02&e=db990db001>
or follow us on @genevagip for links to reports.
  Participate in our sessions
On Monday, 16th April, we are hosting a session on Platform-based
E-commerce: What is at Stake for MSMEs?
<https://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=216cea374e&e=db990db001>,
between 11:30 and 13:00, in room XXVII
(Palais des Nations).

On Wednesday, 18th April, we will be hosting a session on Introduction to
the course on digital commerce and emerging technologies
<https://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=5bd1a5d409&e=db990db001>,
between 08:30 and 10:00, Room XXV (Palais des Nations). The session is
based on the curriculum of the online course on digital commerce, jointly
delivered by DiploFoundation, CUTS International Geneva, the International
Trade Centre (ITC), UNCTAD and the Geneva Internet Platform (GIP) in 2017
and 2018. The publication ‘*Digital commerce capacity development:
preparing trade professionals for the challenges of the digital economy*’
will be officially launched during this session.

Some digital commerce course participants shared their feedback about the
capacity building experience. Watch them online
<https://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=975955fb79&e=db990db001>.


In addition, members of our team will be speaking at other sessions
throughout the week:

   - On Wednesday, 18th April 2018
   11:30 - 13:00 | Public Private Dialogue to Drive E-commerce
   <https://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=138b296c44&e=db990db001>
   (room XXVI)
   - On Thursday, 19th April 2018
   11:30 - 13:00 |  Platforms as an Orchestrator of Digital
   Re-organization: Strategizing for Long-term Development Impact
   <https://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=50af9d3ba9&e=db990db001>
   (Room XXV)


The GIP is an initiative supported by the Swiss authorities and operated by
DiploFoundation.

The IG Team

<https://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=1f8ba538f0&e=db990db001>
Like
us on FaceBook
<https://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=3c78f6c2bb&e=db990db001>
<https://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=c4486d2859&e=db990db001>
Follow
us on Twitter
<https://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=45c62d640c&e=db990db001>
<https://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=06f7294d22&e=db990db001>
Our
website
<https://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=f4ac5730d9&e=db990db001>
<https://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=aa4b76fe9b&e=db990db001>
Our
network
<https://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=23006e59cc&e=db990db001>
*Copyright © 2018 DiploFoundation, All rights reserved.*
You are receiving this email because you attended DiploFoundation's
course(s).
------------------------------
[  unsubscribe from this list
<https://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=1a5bc34df4&e=db990db001&c=bae4248522>
|  update your subscription preferences
<https://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/profile?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=1a5bc34df4&e=db990db001>
|  forward to a friend
<http://us5.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=bae4248522&e=db990db001>
 ]






-- 

*Marília Maciel*
Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation

WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
*Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 *| *
*Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|** Twitter: *
*@MariliaM*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180416/6f8b4939/attachment.htm>

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Tue Apr 17 01:53:19 2018
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 22:53:19 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] New pro-Internet child protection NGO Prostasia
 Foundation
Message-ID: <87f563b6-c5ff-1f20-e566-54ae1687fdef@Malcolm.id.au>

Child protection organizations haven't always seen eye-to-eye with the
digital rights organizations in the Internet governance space,
particularly on issues such as censorship and surveillance. Today I
announced the formation of a new NGO, Prostasia Foundation, that seeks
to address child protection in a way that is more closely aligned with
those of other civil society groups in the Internet governance
community. This is something that I'm doing in my own time, independent
from my day job which continues at EFF, in collaboration with child
sexual abuse survivors, and experts from fields such as mental health,
criminal justice reform, and the sex industry.

Prostasia Foundation is based around the values of child protection,
upholding human and civil rights, and sex positivity. Its mission is to
ensure that the elimination of child sexual abuse is achieved
consistently with the highest values of the society that we would like
our children to grow up in. Therefore although Prostasia has no
tolerance for child sexual abuse (including CSA imagery), we may take a
different stance from other child protection groups on a range of issues
such as intermediary liability, censorship, and adult sex work. Instead,
we prioritize research into measures that can effectively prevent
offending behavior from taking place to begin with, while respecting the
rights of others.

I have a PDF information document that I can send you by way of
introduction on request, but you can also consult our website (which
currently redirects to a crowdfunding campaign) at https://prost.asia,
our Twitter feed at http://twitter.com/ProstasiaInc, and our Facebook
page at http://fb.com/ProstasiaInc. You can also read our press release
here: https://prost.asia/pr.pdf. If you have any questions about
Prostasia you can email me at jeremy at prost.asia.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O -



From saragtti at gmail.com  Fri Apr 20 11:35:17 2018
From: saragtti at gmail.com (Sara Fratti)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 09:35:17 -0600
Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?Global_Editathon_=E2=80=9CGirls_in_ICT?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=9D?=
Message-ID: <CAC7R7ThdH6O5-aviP9fs=qfVDOireWBbmLSKvUm-5jPjbqqDBw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

At the Women's Special Interest Group <https://twitter.com/SIGWomenISOC>of
the Internet Society and in coordination with Wikimedia Foundation, we are
organizing the *1st Global Editathon “Girls in ICT”* on April 28 on the
occasion of the Girls in ICT Day
<https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Digital-Inclusion/Women-and-Girls/Girls-in-ICT-Portal/Pages/Portal.aspx>
(which is on April 26).



We want to create content written by women and about women on the Girls in
ICT Day, mainly to make women in technology more visible and to inspired
girls to pursue STEM careers. On that day, we will edit the biographies of
women: founding, pioneers, entrepreneurs, developers, and leaders in
technology from each region.


Register and participate in a node or online in the Global Editathon Girls
in ICT
https://goo.gl/forms/4J6z9hFK5LplL6cf1

If you have any doubts, contact us: sigwomenisoc at gmail.com



Join us to make more women visible in Wikipedia!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180420/f9779dee/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Editathon Girls in ICT.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1102121 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180420/f9779dee/attachment.jpg>

From elsa.saade at gmail.com  Fri Apr 20 11:46:48 2018
From: elsa.saade at gmail.com (Elsa S)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 11:46:48 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?Global_Editathon_=E2=80=9CGirls_in_ICT?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=9D?=
In-Reply-To: <CAC7R7ThdH6O5-aviP9fs=qfVDOireWBbmLSKvUm-5jPjbqqDBw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC7R7ThdH6O5-aviP9fs=qfVDOireWBbmLSKvUm-5jPjbqqDBw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHFwYbeo7+mkwX2WRTvvSTou9g+P3bs=p1JwHYc2MZ+xq8nvzQ@mail.gmail.com>

Such a beautiful initiative! Wish there was something for the middle east
too! Good luck.

Best,

Elsa
--

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Sara Fratti <saragtti at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> At the Women's Special Interest Group <https://twitter.com/SIGWomenISOC>of
> the Internet Society and in coordination with Wikimedia Foundation, we are
> organizing the *1st Global Editathon “Girls in ICT”* on April 28 on the
> occasion of the Girls in ICT Day
> <https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Digital-Inclusion/Women-and-Girls/Girls-in-ICT-Portal/Pages/Portal.aspx>
> (which is on April 26).
>
>
>
> We want to create content written by women and about women on the Girls in
> ICT Day, mainly to make women in technology more visible and to inspired
> girls to pursue STEM careers. On that day, we will edit the biographies of
> women: founding, pioneers, entrepreneurs, developers, and leaders in
> technology from each region.
>
>
> Register and participate in a node or online in the Global Editathon Girls
> in ICT
> https://goo.gl/forms/4J6z9hFK5LplL6cf1
>
> If you have any doubts, contact us: sigwomenisoc at gmail.com
>
>
>
> Join us to make more women visible in Wikipedia!
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
--

Elsa Saade
Consultant
Gulf Centre for Human Rights
Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180420/6cffa290/attachment.htm>

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Fri Apr 20 15:34:21 2018
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:34:21 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF 2018 Program Shaping Proposal
In-Reply-To: <E9D7789C-BCCC-43E4-B9B1-31BBD65E2BB4@Internet-Matters.org>
References: <E9D7789C-BCCC-43E4-B9B1-31BBD65E2BB4@Internet-Matters.org>
Message-ID: <0fe8063a-2eb0-0c17-4518-b29f56bc9452@Malcolm.id.au>

Hello all,

I am sharing a DRAFT Call for Workshops that is under consideration by
the IGF MAG, that we are circulating for broader review because it
contains some differences from previous years, with the objective of
making the meeting more cohesive and focused.

This doesn't include major new session formats (I'm no longer pushing
for that this year; there simply isn't enough time), but does include
some procedural changes and a requirement that proposals indicate what
policy question they will be addressing. In my view, this is a positive
incremental step towards the improvement of the IGF, that should be
supported.

If you have feedback on the draft, please share it with me and I will
collect it and share with the MAG.

PS. Since I know I'll get questions about this, no, there still hasn't
been a decision made about the venue of the 2018 IGF meeting, though it
has been narrowed down to two possibilities.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[IGFmaglist] IGF 2018 Program Shaping Proposal
Date: 	Fri, 20 Apr 2018 15:23:11 -0400
From: 	Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at Internet-Matters.org>
To: 	MAG-public <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>



Dear MAG members,

following the clear requests for a more cohesive and focused IGF Annual meeting, the Ad-hoc group and the IGF secretariat have been working to advance our program shaping effort for IGF 2018.

Given the need to have the Call for Workshops launched in just over 1 week (April 30th, 2018) it was necessary that we draft a fuller process proposal for review by the entire MAG.   It is imperative that the Call for Workshops reflect the MAG’s intentions with respect to shaping the program as there should be no surprises to the community during the MAG’s Workshop evaluation process.

Please share with your communities in order for us to have a broad review.  In particular we need to work with the Intercessional activities and the NRIs to get their thoughts and ensure support for any ultimate changes.   

This proposal is slated for review and approval on the MAG Meeting scheduled for April 25th, 2018.

Best regards,

Lynn


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180420/7236992c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGF Program Shaping 2018.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 194585 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180420/7236992c/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180420/7236992c/attachment.sig>

From joly at punkcast.com  Wed Apr 25 05:19:33 2018
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 05:19:33 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] WEBCAST WED/THU: 2018 Justice for Freedom of Expression
 Conference + Ranking Digital Rights 2018 Corporate Accountability Index
 launch
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk39D5kzqc=YCrm75A9DbgDjY9PrvGM5ky7y04Frx92F1g@mail.gmail.com>

 It's possible, with the current rush to moderate social media platforms
and the Internet in general, that digital freedom of expression has never
been more under threat. Don't miss this  landmark event, which features top
thinkers from all corners. And tune in early for Rebecca MacKinnon!

​​

[image: livestream][image: livestream]
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/rdr2018>On *Wednesday-Thursday
April 25-26 2018* the *Columbia GlobalFreedom of Expression* and Information
<https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/>presents the *2018 Justice
for Freedom of Expression Conference
<https://www.justiceforexpression.com/>*. which seeks to highlight the
changing environment for free speech and press freedom through a focus on
jurisprudence, laws and policies from around the world. This biennial event
is the only forum focusing on global jurisprudence related to freedom of
expression. As an added feature the conference will open with the launch of
the *Ranking Digital Rights 2018 Corporate Accountability Index
<https://rankingdigitalrights.org/>*, ranking 22 of the world’s most
powerful telecommunications, internet, and mobile companies on their
commitments and disclosed policies affecting users’ freedom of expression
and privacy. Both events will be webcast live on the *Internet Society
Livestream Channel <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/>*.








*What: 2018 Justice for Freedom of Expression Conference + Ranking Digital
Rights 2018 Corporate Accountability Index launch
<https://www.justiceforexpression.com/>Where: Italian Academy NYCWhen:
Wednesday-Thursday April 25-26 2018
(UTC-4)Agenda: https://www.justiceforexpression.com/
<https://www.justiceforexpression.com/>Webcasts:Ranking Digital Rights
– https://livestream.com/internetsociety/rdr2018
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/rdr2018> (9:30am-11am
Weds)Expression2018 Conference
– https://livestream.com/internetsociety/expression2018
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/expression2018>Twitter: #rankingrights
<http://bit.ly/rankingrights2018> | #expression2018
<http://bit.ly/expression2018>*

Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10163#respond>    See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10163#comments>


*​Permalink*

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/10163








-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180425/8bb9a137/attachment.htm>

From renata.avila at webfoundation.org  Fri Apr 27 04:48:32 2018
From: renata.avila at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 10:48:32 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?The_invisible_curation_of_content_=7C_Facebo?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?ok=E2=80=99s_News_Feed_and_our_information_diets?=
Message-ID: <CAOa=Yc3YG=zK+9xnh8kkVoQ7K_B-YEQ0Pprcb0VC=HeX2kxnwg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear everyone,

With the Web Foundation and my colleagues Juan Ortiz and Craig Fagan, we
recently published a very cool study looking into the way Facebook
distributes the news:



Here a sample of our findings:

You can read it here, available in English and Spanish

https://webfoundation.org/research/the-invisible-curation-of-content-facebooks-news-feed-and-our-information-diets/

And the source data is available for you to look into it and play with it.

All the best,


Renata Avila

*Senior Digital Rights Advisor*
renata.avila at webfoundation.org

*1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA* *| *
*www.webfoundation.org* <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* | Twitter:
@webfoundation*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180427/38eab6c1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen Shot 2018-04-27 at 10.46.27.png
Type: image/png
Size: 49337 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180427/38eab6c1/attachment.png>

From charles at gp-digital.org  Fri Apr 27 09:55:13 2018
From: charles at gp-digital.org (Charles Bradley)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 14:55:13 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Join the GPD Business and Human Rights Team
Message-ID: <CACm4Mc13y-BS=Tjcg9Rhc97mKHsy3fLp7Lo64qoSF9aFx5S96g@mail.gmail.com>

*Apologies for crossposting*

I'm excited to announce a new opportunity to join the Business and Human
Rights Team at Global Partners Digital. Feel free to share or contact me
directly if you have any questions.

***

Global Partners Digital <https://www.gp-digital.org> is seeking a highly
motivated and organised *Policy Officer* to join our Business and Human
Rights team and contribute to the work of one of our core projects, which
aims to increase the level of protection of and respect for human rights by
tech companies globally and in seven target countries: Argentina, Kenya,
Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria and the Philippines.

The role will involve policy research and the development of resources and
materials to support civil society organisations and tech companies’
understanding of human rights issues and to advocate and engage on relevant
policy areas. The Policy Officer will also support the development of GPD’s
work on business and human rights more broadly.

Applications close at 5.00 pm UTC, Wednesday 16 May. Read the full advert,
including details of how to apply, here.
<https://www.gp-digital.org/jobs/policy-officer-business-and-human-rights/>

***

*Charles Bradley*
Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Second Home, 68 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
T: +44 (0)203 818 3258 | M: +44 (0)7852 535222 | Skype:
charles.globalpartners
gp-digital.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180427/a8136216/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Apr 30 03:20:34 2018
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:50:34 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is well and
 truly under-way
In-Reply-To: <9cf10678-4bd3-c3b6-e32c-49bc3aa6fadc@itforchange.net>
References: <9cf10678-4bd3-c3b6-e32c-49bc3aa6fadc@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <eed23277-ddd0-09fd-8b65-3f780b114d3e@itforchange.net>

I hardly ever post to these lists now-a-days, because rarely are
substantive issues posted here in any case, but thought of forwarding
this because this refers to my - by now, favourite :) - issue of
pointing to the culpability of civil society actors in the IG space over
the last one decade or so in being partisan to narrow US led western
interests and having considerably forgotten to promote global public
interest, and the interests of the weakest sections, groups and
countries. And, as often happens in the mid to long term, such
partisanship is no longer serving even western interests that well.

My posting and engagement on this issue are aimed at proposing and
promoting an effort at a collective rethink and re-orientation among the
IG civil society about its politics and role, as we enter a digital
society where Internet or digital governance is one of the most
important political subjects.

parminder

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is well and truly
under-way
Date: 	Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:34:50 +0530
From: 	parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Reply-To: 	Internet governance related discussions
<forum at justnetcoalition.org>
To: 	Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org <forum at justnetcoalition.org>




As in the earlier times, cold war alignments were determined by, or
determined, where a country acquired its armaments from, in the digital
cold war there is going to be a similar schism in terms of whose digital
security equipment you finally trust and buy, as everything gets
underpinned by the 'digital'.... Coupled with the  "digital security"
based polarisation will be data flows polarisation -- EU is determining
adequacy tests about where its data can flow to, the new US CLOUD Act is
determining adequacy test about which countries can access data residing
in the US for regulatory and law enforcement purposes.....

We were headed towards such a polarisation when, over the last decade or
so, we rejected global institutions and agreements for Internet and
digital governance... What is significant is the role that civil society
groups played in such rejection, and thus must share the blame of the
oncoming digital polarisation which leaves all countries that are not
the US and China at the abject mercy of these digital super powers ...
parminder



internetgovernance.org
<https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/04/29/a-chinese-perspective-on-the-growing-high-tech-cold-war/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+internetgovernance%2FabwE+%28IGP+Blog%29>



  A Chinese Perspective on the Growing High-Tech Cold War

by Jinhe Liu
9-12 minutes
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Chinese online discussions, many people are using the expression “one
sword throat-slashing strike.” [一剑封喉] This forbidding term refers to the
United States’ seven-year export ban on China’s second-largest telecom
supplier, ZTE
<https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2018/04/secretary-ross-announces-activation-zte-denial-order-response-repeated>,
which threatens its very existence and has put the company “in a state
of shock.
<http://www.scmp.com/tech/article/2142557/zte-calls-us-government-ban-extremely-unfair-vows-fight-its-rights>”
In the Chinese language, the “one sword throat-slashing strike” means
that in battle a master swiftly strikes a death blow before the victim
has a chance to resist. Chinese use of this idiom with high frequency in
the context of the Sino-US trade war shows that there is both a feeling
of helplessness and a fighting atmosphere dispersing though the Chinese
society.

In January this year, the United States blocked Chinese tech company
Alibaba’s acquisition of American remittance company MoneyGram; also in
the name of national security it forced AT&T to end cooperation with
Huawei. At the same time, the Trump administration ordered high tariffs
on imported steel and aluminum and threatened several rounds of tariffs
on China. On March 22nd, Trump signed the presidential memorandum and
announced the Section 301 investigation of China, which was widely
regarded as the focus of the outbreak of trade disputes between China
and the United States. In April 16th, the United States launched its
“throat-slashing strike” on ZTE. While some analysts are still
discussing whether a Sino-US trade war will happen, on the other side of
the Pacific the war fire has already begun to burn, as a sense of
economic conflict develops between the two largest economies in the
world. The /New York Times Chinese version/characterized the Sino-US
dispute over technology and trade as a “New Cold War Era
<https://cn.nytimes.com/business/20180326/trump-china-tariffs-tech-cold-war/>.”

After the news of the US sanctions on ZTE came on April 16, all of China
is engaged in a big discussion of this event. A large number of articles
about it emerge in the mainstream media and social media platforms every
day. The strength of the reaction have probably exceeded the
expectations of American society, and even China’s own. On the whole,
Chinese society has discovered that its high-tech industry is weak and
unable to resist the US punch, especially because of its dependence on
US semiconductors. It has been pointed out that none of the 20 top
semiconductor companies in the world is in mainland China (see the table
below, which shows only the top 10). Civil society, academia, industry,
and even the government are contemplating the fragility of China’s
industrial development and trying to provide effective solutions. The
fact that ZTE violated American law has not been evaded in China. But
China fears  that just as a few days ago America launched a precise
strike against Syria, the United States is now launching an accurate and
fatal strike to Chinese national enterprises.


After ZTE’s violation of the embargo two years ago, it has paid  892
million US dollars for its mistakes and has reached a settlement
agreement with the US government. Because this strong penalty against
ZTE was closely followed by the fierce Sino-US tariff war, Chinese
people do not believe that America’s main concern is just ZTE’s
violation of the sanctions. According to the /Wall Street Journal/, the
US Trade Representative Office (USTR) is considering actions against the
business of Alibaba Cloud
<https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-is-examining-ways-to-retaliate-against-chinese-restrictions-on-u-s-tech-companies-1523910784?>in
the US. A US congressional report
<https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/Interos_Supply%20Chain%20Vulnerabilities%20from%20China%20in%20U.S.%20Federal%20ICT.pdf>also
accuses other Chinese companies, such as Huawei and Lenovo, of
facilitating commercial espionage. The latest news shows that the US
Justice Department has launched an investigation
<https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-under-criminal-investigation-over-iran-sanctions-1524663728>into
whether Huawei breaks the Iran embargo. This series of actions make the
Chinese worry that ZTE is just the first step in a bigger war.

Americans may not realize that these actions can be counterproductive.
They provoke nationalistic sentiment in Chinese society. In history,
whenever China has encountered damaging and perceived unfair treatment
from outside, there was always a strong nationalistic reaction. Signs of
this familiar pattern are appearing again. On April 6, China’s central
news agency used very tough words and phrases after the extra tariff on
China’s $100 billion exports to the US was announced, such as “the
Chinese will struggle resolutely! And do not blame us for not having
forewarned you!” [勿谓言之不预！] These words are generally used for the
announcement of a war in Chinese diplomatic rhetoric. The ZTE chairman
said that “we have the support of 1.3 billion (Chinese) people, and we
have the ability and determination to tide over this difficulty,” after
Hou Weigui, the founder of ZTE, retired and at 76 years old, rushed to
the United States to plead but without any fruit, which aroused huge
empathy by a picture
<https://m.21jingji.com/article/20180419/herald/2778441bb91bbbe0189f188b09405445.html>spread
widely in WeChat, the biggest social media in China . Then ZTE further
issued a statement
<http://www.zte.com.cn/global/about/press-center/news/201804CZY/20180420-1>that
the sanction was “unacceptable.” Subsequently, a spokesman for China’s
Ministry of Commerce also made a strong statement, saying that China is
“ready to take necessary measures to safeguard the legitimate rights and
interests of Chinese enterprises.” Chinese netizens even began to
discuss whether the country should take corresponding measures on Apple,
widely quoting an article in Forbes
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2018/04/18/study-what-if-china-bans-apple-to-retaliate-for-u-s-sanctions-against-huawei-zte/#49d1bf0b1e5d>which
suggests that if China retaliates against Apple, it will cause massive
layoffs and crash in its stock price.

The US moves have also encouraged high-level political leaders in China
to push for abandoning American products and developing their own
high-tech industries. Chinese President Xi Jinping stressed on April
21stthat “core technology is the pillar of the country” at the national
network security and information conference. And the Premier Li Keqiang
also spoke at the Executive meeting of the State Council to promote a
national innovation system aiming at science and technology development.
In fact, Chinese are concerned not only about the economic losses of the
US sanctions, but also about inadequate self-protection, and, what is
more, about the future of international trade.

In a more profound context, these actions of China and the United States
are not only solutions to the trade deficit, but an abandonment of
globalization. Since the end of the US-Soviet Cold War, the world
entered a golden age of “neoliberal” globalization. International trade
promoted the growth of the world economy. According to the statistics of
the World Bank
<https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/wts2017_e/WTO_Chapter_03_e.pdf>,
whereas the average growth rate of world trade in goods was 1.5 times
that of the world’s GDP since the end of World War II, and in the 1990s
trade grew more than twice as fast as GDP. Trade exchanges between China
and the United States have brought great benefits to both sides. The
low-cost manufacturing industry in China provides a continuous supply
for the high consumption society of the United States. The huge demand
and advanced industrial technology of the United States have brought a
strong pull to the Chinese economy. While the order of economic
globalization was established by the United States, it is now the United
States who destroys it. Today’s trading system is so closely intertwined
that it is not all beneficial for the US to undermine the order it
built. The share prices of ZTE’s U.S. suppliers fell on the news of the
ZTE ban. Research by Brookings
<https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/04/09/how-chinas-tariffs-could-affect-u-s-workers-and-industries/>also
points out that China’s proposed tariffs would affect about 2.1 million
jobs spread across 2,783 US counties.

The damage wrought to the Sino-US economy and the global economy by a
trade war will be huge, but it is even more worrying that the global
free trade order is being disrupted. On the Boao Asia Forum on April
10th, Xi Jinping announced further opening up
<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/business/xi-jinping-china-trade-boao.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=D31A11675F599E1C6551FFB29003BCA7&gwt=pay>of
the Chinese market and strengthening the protection of intellectual
property to integrate China deeper into the world trade system. But the
Trump administration seems to ignore this deliberately. As mentioned
above, Chinese society is worried mainly about the prospect of its
national development in the context of the times. Therefore, if more
trade wars happen, it is not only likely to lead to China’s aggressive
self-protection measures but also is likely to have a far-reaching
impact on how Chinese understand international rules. Solving the
impartiality of trade rules is a process that requires stakeholders to
sit down and negotiate. A direct blockade might well backfire.

If we look at the Sino-US trade dispute from the perspective of Internet
governance, it can be found that the Internet seems to be splitting up.
A one-world Internet should be interconnected across the borders of
states, but now territorial governments are trying to strengthen their
control by aligning the Internet with national jurisdictions. China has
selectively rejected the products of some American Internet giants, and
now, the United States has also begun to block China’s products. The
United States is becoming Chinese
<https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/01/05/cfius-blocks-deal-u-s-becoming-chinese/>.
The state has labeled Internet equipment one by one and excludes it from
its own territory in the name of national security or the protection of
its own industries. Some commentaries assert that the actions by the
United States against Huawei and ZTE are trying to keep the US the
leading position in the 5G technology. But the establishment of walls to
exclude competition deviates from liberalism. The United States is a
strong advocate of the freedom of the Internet. It developed the
multi-stakeholder model, advocated bottom-up technical autonomy and open
industrial competition; it has resisted giving governments too much
control of the Internet. But now, on the contrary, the government of the
world’s most powerful Internet country is holding high the banner of
national security to expel market actors who place it at a competitive
disadvantage.

When the advocates of rules break the rules, global confidence is badly
damaged. But it is still hopeful that United States Secretary of the
Treasury Mnuchin is on his way to China to negotiate. So the rule of
free trade and Internet openness has not been completely abandoned yet.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180430/d365a1b8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Forum mailing list
Forum at justnetcoalition.org
http://mail.justnetcoalition.org/listinfo/forum

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Apr 30 03:35:16 2018
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:05:16 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fwd: [JNC - Forum] US-China digital
 cold war is well and truly under-way
In-Reply-To: <eed23277-ddd0-09fd-8b65-3f780b114d3e@itforchange.net>
References: <9cf10678-4bd3-c3b6-e32c-49bc3aa6fadc@itforchange.net>
 <eed23277-ddd0-09fd-8b65-3f780b114d3e@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <344720b7-99f6-31ac-a27c-317796fc9a00@itforchange.net>

And it is not old history at all....

Just now I see this call by OECD for a global dialogue on AI 
https://www.oecd-forum.org/users/42484-douglas-frantz/posts/21562-artificial-intelligence-why-a-global-dialogue-is-critical

But reading on one realises that with a global dialogue, OECD means not
a UN based one, where are countries are equal, but an OECD led
dialogue...  (which IG civil society has customarily cheered and
participated in, while condemning any possible UN process)

One squirms to hear so many calls now-a-days for global dialogues, rules
and agreements, just as an example, Wired carries one such all today
"Data protection standards need to be global
<https://www.wired.com/story/data-protection-standards-need-to-be-global>"
... There are others on AI, and so on...

But wait a minute, was it not just this January of 2018, that the UN WG
on Enhanced Cooperation (on International Internet-related polices)
closed without a report because not only the western countries and the
big business but also the Internet community and much of IG civil
society could not agree there really were Internet/ digital governance
issues that needed global addressing (other than perhaps as they were
already being addressed by the OECD, World Economic Forum and the such)....

And the only comment one heard was from Milton at the IGP cheering the
failure of the WG on enhanced cooperation! Not another word on the
subject by anyone...

Is there any global civil society in any other area which is so bereft
of ideas, imagination, forward-looking proposals, much less of
accountability and progressive notions like working for the weakest,
social justice, economic rights, and so on.... Could we yet reassemble
and take up our responsibilities...

parminder


On Monday 30 April 2018 12:50 PM, parminder wrote:
>
> I hardly ever post to these lists now-a-days, because rarely are
> substantive issues posted here in any case, but thought of forwarding
> this because this refers to my - by now, favourite :) - issue of
> pointing to the culpability of civil society actors in the IG space
> over the last one decade or so in being partisan to narrow US led
> western interests and having considerably forgotten to promote global
> public interest, and the interests of the weakest sections, groups and
> countries. And, as often happens in the mid to long term, such
> partisanship is no longer serving even western interests that well.
>
> My posting and engagement on this issue are aimed at proposing and
> promoting an effort at a collective rethink and re-orientation among
> the IG civil society about its politics and role, as we enter a
> digital society where Internet or digital governance is one of the
> most important political subjects.
>
> parminder
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	[JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is well and truly
> under-way
> Date: 	Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:34:50 +0530
> From: 	parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Reply-To: 	Internet governance related discussions
> <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
> To: 	Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
>
>
>
>
> As in the earlier times, cold war alignments were determined by, or
> determined, where a country acquired its armaments from, in the
> digital cold war there is going to be a similar schism in terms of
> whose digital security equipment you finally trust and buy, as
> everything gets underpinned by the 'digital'.... Coupled with the 
> "digital security" based polarisation will be data flows polarisation
> -- EU is determining adequacy tests about where its data can flow to,
> the new US CLOUD Act is determining adequacy test about which
> countries can access data residing in the US for regulatory and law
> enforcement purposes.....
>
> We were headed towards such a polarisation when, over the last decade
> or so, we rejected global institutions and agreements for Internet and
> digital governance... What is significant is the role that civil
> society groups played in such rejection, and thus must share the blame
> of the oncoming digital polarisation which leaves all countries that
> are not the US and China at the abject mercy of these digital super
> powers ... parminder
>
>
>
> internetgovernance.org
> <https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/04/29/a-chinese-perspective-on-the-growing-high-tech-cold-war/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+internetgovernance%2FabwE+%28IGP+Blog%29>
>
>
>
>   A Chinese Perspective on the Growing High-Tech Cold War
>
> by Jinhe Liu
> 9-12 minutes
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In Chinese online discussions, many people are using the expression
> “one sword throat-slashing strike.” [一剑封喉] This forbidding term refers
> to the United States’ seven-year export ban on China’s second-largest
> telecom supplier, ZTE
> <https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2018/04/secretary-ross-announces-activation-zte-denial-order-response-repeated>,
> which threatens its very existence and has put the company “in a state
> of shock.
> <http://www.scmp.com/tech/article/2142557/zte-calls-us-government-ban-extremely-unfair-vows-fight-its-rights>”
> In the Chinese language, the “one sword throat-slashing strike” means
> that in battle a master swiftly strikes a death blow before the victim
> has a chance to resist. Chinese use of this idiom with high frequency
> in the context of the Sino-US trade war shows that there is both a
> feeling of helplessness and a fighting atmosphere dispersing though
> the Chinese society.
>
> In January this year, the United States blocked Chinese tech company
> Alibaba’s acquisition of American remittance company MoneyGram; also
> in the name of national security it forced AT&T to end cooperation
> with Huawei. At the same time, the Trump administration ordered high
> tariffs on imported steel and aluminum and threatened several rounds
> of tariffs on China. On March 22nd, Trump signed the presidential
> memorandum and announced the Section 301 investigation of China, which
> was widely regarded as the focus of the outbreak of trade disputes
> between China and the United States. In April 16th, the United States
> launched its “throat-slashing strike” on ZTE. While some analysts are
> still discussing whether a Sino-US trade war will happen, on the other
> side of the Pacific the war fire has already begun to burn, as a sense
> of economic conflict develops between the two largest economies in the
> world. The /New York Times Chinese version/characterized the Sino-US
> dispute over technology and trade as a “New Cold War Era
> <https://cn.nytimes.com/business/20180326/trump-china-tariffs-tech-cold-war/>.”
>
> After the news of the US sanctions on ZTE came on April 16, all of
> China is engaged in a big discussion of this event. A large number of
> articles about it emerge in the mainstream media and social media
> platforms every day. The strength of the reaction have probably
> exceeded the expectations of American society, and even China’s own.
> On the whole, Chinese society has discovered that its high-tech
> industry is weak and unable to resist the US punch, especially because
> of its dependence on US semiconductors. It has been pointed out that
> none of the 20 top semiconductor companies in the world is in mainland
> China (see the table below, which shows only the top 10). Civil
> society, academia, industry, and even the government are contemplating
> the fragility of China’s industrial development and trying to provide
> effective solutions. The fact that ZTE violated American law has not
> been evaded in China. But China fears  that just as a few days ago
> America launched a precise strike against Syria, the United States is
> now launching an accurate and fatal strike to Chinese national
> enterprises.
>
>
> After ZTE’s violation of the embargo two years ago, it has paid  892
> million US dollars for its mistakes and has reached a settlement
> agreement with the US government. Because this strong penalty against
> ZTE was closely followed by the fierce Sino-US tariff war, Chinese
> people do not believe that America’s main concern is just ZTE’s
> violation of the sanctions. According to the /Wall Street Journal/,
> the US Trade Representative Office (USTR) is considering actions
> against the business of Alibaba Cloud
> <https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-is-examining-ways-to-retaliate-against-chinese-restrictions-on-u-s-tech-companies-1523910784?>in
> the US. A US congressional report
> <https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/Interos_Supply%20Chain%20Vulnerabilities%20from%20China%20in%20U.S.%20Federal%20ICT.pdf>also
> accuses other Chinese companies, such as Huawei and Lenovo, of
> facilitating commercial espionage. The latest news shows that the US
> Justice Department has launched an investigation
> <https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-under-criminal-investigation-over-iran-sanctions-1524663728>into
> whether Huawei breaks the Iran embargo. This series of actions make
> the Chinese worry that ZTE is just the first step in a bigger war.
>
> Americans may not realize that these actions can be counterproductive.
> They provoke nationalistic sentiment in Chinese society. In history,
> whenever China has encountered damaging and perceived unfair treatment
> from outside, there was always a strong nationalistic reaction. Signs
> of this familiar pattern are appearing again. On April 6, China’s
> central news agency used very tough words and phrases after the extra
> tariff on China’s $100 billion exports to the US was announced, such
> as “the Chinese will struggle resolutely! And do not blame us for not
> having forewarned you!” [勿谓言之不预！] These words are generally used
> for the announcement of a war in Chinese diplomatic rhetoric. The ZTE
> chairman said that “we have the support of 1.3 billion (Chinese)
> people, and we have the ability and determination to tide over this
> difficulty,” after Hou Weigui, the founder of ZTE, retired and at 76
> years old, rushed to the United States to plead but without any fruit,
> which aroused huge empathy by a picture
> <https://m.21jingji.com/article/20180419/herald/2778441bb91bbbe0189f188b09405445.html>spread
> widely in WeChat, the biggest social media in China . Then ZTE further
> issued a statement
> <http://www.zte.com.cn/global/about/press-center/news/201804CZY/20180420-1>that
> the sanction was “unacceptable.” Subsequently, a spokesman for China’s
> Ministry of Commerce also made a strong statement, saying that China
> is “ready to take necessary measures to safeguard the legitimate
> rights and interests of Chinese enterprises.” Chinese netizens even
> began to discuss whether the country should take corresponding
> measures on Apple, widely quoting an article in Forbes
> <https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2018/04/18/study-what-if-china-bans-apple-to-retaliate-for-u-s-sanctions-against-huawei-zte/#49d1bf0b1e5d>which
> suggests that if China retaliates against Apple, it will cause massive
> layoffs and crash in its stock price.
>
> The US moves have also encouraged high-level political leaders in
> China to push for abandoning American products and developing their
> own high-tech industries. Chinese President Xi Jinping stressed on
> April 21stthat “core technology is the pillar of the country” at the
> national network security and information conference. And the Premier
> Li Keqiang also spoke at the Executive meeting of the State Council to
> promote a national innovation system aiming at science and technology
> development. In fact, Chinese are concerned not only about the
> economic losses of the US sanctions, but also about inadequate
> self-protection, and, what is more, about the future of international
> trade.
>
> In a more profound context, these actions of China and the United
> States are not only solutions to the trade deficit, but an abandonment
> of globalization. Since the end of the US-Soviet Cold War, the world
> entered a golden age of “neoliberal” globalization. International
> trade promoted the growth of the world economy. According to the
> statistics of the World Bank
> <https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/wts2017_e/WTO_Chapter_03_e.pdf>,
> whereas the average growth rate of world trade in goods was 1.5 times
> that of the world’s GDP since the end of World War II, and in the
> 1990s trade grew more than twice as fast as GDP. Trade exchanges
> between China and the United States have brought great benefits to
> both sides. The low-cost manufacturing industry in China provides a
> continuous supply for the high consumption society of the United
> States. The huge demand and advanced industrial technology of the
> United States have brought a strong pull to the Chinese economy. While
> the order of economic globalization was established by the United
> States, it is now the United States who destroys it. Today’s trading
> system is so closely intertwined that it is not all beneficial for the
> US to undermine the order it built. The share prices of ZTE’s U.S.
> suppliers fell on the news of the ZTE ban. Research by Brookings
> <https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/04/09/how-chinas-tariffs-could-affect-u-s-workers-and-industries/>also
> points out that China’s proposed tariffs would affect about 2.1
> million jobs spread across 2,783 US counties.
>
> The damage wrought to the Sino-US economy and the global economy by a
> trade war will be huge, but it is even more worrying that the global
> free trade order is being disrupted. On the Boao Asia Forum on April
> 10th, Xi Jinping announced further opening up
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/business/xi-jinping-china-trade-boao.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=D31A11675F599E1C6551FFB29003BCA7&gwt=pay>of
> the Chinese market and strengthening the protection of intellectual
> property to integrate China deeper into the world trade system. But
> the Trump administration seems to ignore this deliberately. As
> mentioned above, Chinese society is worried mainly about the prospect
> of its national development in the context of the times. Therefore, if
> more trade wars happen, it is not only likely to lead to China’s
> aggressive self-protection measures but also is likely to have a
> far-reaching impact on how Chinese understand international rules.
> Solving the impartiality of trade rules is a process that requires
> stakeholders to sit down and negotiate. A direct blockade might well
> backfire.
>
> If we look at the Sino-US trade dispute from the perspective of
> Internet governance, it can be found that the Internet seems to be
> splitting up. A one-world Internet should be interconnected across the
> borders of states, but now territorial governments are trying to
> strengthen their control by aligning the Internet with national
> jurisdictions. China has selectively rejected the products of some
> American Internet giants, and now, the United States has also begun to
> block China’s products. The United States is becoming Chinese
> <https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/01/05/cfius-blocks-deal-u-s-becoming-chinese/>.
> The state has labeled Internet equipment one by one and excludes it
> from its own territory in the name of national security or the
> protection of its own industries. Some commentaries assert that the
> actions by the United States against Huawei and ZTE are trying to keep
> the US the leading position in the 5G technology. But the
> establishment of walls to exclude competition deviates from
> liberalism. The United States is a strong advocate of the freedom of
> the Internet. It developed the multi-stakeholder model, advocated
> bottom-up technical autonomy and open industrial competition; it has
> resisted giving governments too much control of the Internet. But now,
> on the contrary, the government of the world’s most powerful Internet
> country is holding high the banner of national security to expel
> market actors who place it at a competitive disadvantage.
>
> When the advocates of rules break the rules, global confidence is
> badly damaged. But it is still hopeful that United States Secretary of
> the Treasury Mnuchin is on his way to China to negotiate. So the rule
> of free trade and Internet openness has not been completely abandoned yet.
>
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180430/6e60aed3/attachment.htm>

From maryant.fernandez-perez at edri.org  Tue Apr  3 09:50:35 2018
From: maryant.fernandez-perez at edri.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Maryant_Fern=c3=a1ndez?=)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 15:50:35 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Letter to Council of Europe: Re New Protocol Cybercrime
 Convention (final)
In-Reply-To: <410a6cef-0ffe-463a-f4d5-818af478f940@eff.org>
References: <00B6458F-32E2-46A1-A310-140FD523C3D8@eff.org>
 <410a6cef-0ffe-463a-f4d5-818af478f940@eff.org>
Message-ID: <7608450d-33a5-6ddd-c277-d923766314f2@edri.org>

Hi all,

94 public interest organisations sent a letter to the Council of Europe
Secretary General asking for transparent and inclusive cybercrime
negotiations.
Please find below a link to a joint blogpost & the letter, both
available in English, French and Spanish:
https://edri.org/global-letter-cybercrime-negotiations-transparency/
https://twitter.com/edri/status/981140343633694720

Thanks to all of you who signed or support this joint effort.

Best regards,
Maryant

-- 
Maryant Fernández Pérez
Senior Policy Advisor
European Digital Rights
Rue Belliard 12 
B- 1040 Brussels
http://edri.org

Tel: +32 2 274 25 70
PGP: D59A 1D3F 50CC 231B DCFE 3F2C 92FA 6F29 3D74 0B42

Subscribe to the EDRi-gram, our fortnightly roundup of digital rights
news! http://edri.org/newsletters/

Em 3/16/2018 10:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm escreveu:
> The Council of Europe Secretary General is developing a Second
> Additional Protocol to the Cybercrime Convention, and I've been
> requested to circulate this letter to other civil society
> organizations who may be interested in endorsing a letter asking for
> meaningful civil society participation in this process. It is no
> longer open to new edits, sorry, and the deadline for signatures is 23
> March.
>
> You can find more information below and you can contact my colleague
> Katitza if you have questions.
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> *From:* Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>>
>> *Date:* March 16, 2018 at 12:26:01 PM GMT-3
>> *To:* 13 Principles <principles at eff.org <mailto:principles at eff.org>>
>> *Cc:* Maryant Fernandez Perez <maryant.fernandez-perez at edri.org
>> <mailto:maryant.fernandez-perez at edri.org>>, Katitza Rodriguez
>> <katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>>
>> *Subject:* *ACTION: Sign-on Letter to Council of Europe: Re New
>> Protocol Cybercrime Convention*
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> European Digital Rights (EDRi) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> (EFF) have drafted a sign-on letter to the Council of Europe
>> Secretary General asking for meaningful civil society participation
>> in the development of the Cybercrime Convention’s Second Additional
>> Protocol. The protocol is currently being discussed at the Cybercrime
>> Convention Committee (T-CY), a committee that represents the State
>> Parties to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime and other observer
>> states.
>>
>> *Read the letter and sign on here: *
>> *https://fnf17.pad.foebud.org/2018coecxb-transparency*
>> *Deadline for sign-on is Friday March 23, end of the day PST.*
>>
>> For those who are not familiar with this process, the Council’s
>> Cybercrime Convention Committee (T-CY) has initiated a global process
>> to draft a second additional protocol to the Convention—a new text
>> which deals with cross-border access to data, including ways to
>> improve MLATs according to their Terms of Reference[1]. The work on
>> the Second Protocol to the Cybercrime Convention is ongoing, without
>> sufficient transparency nor meaningful civil society participation.
>>
>> Join us on the letter and read more about the second additional
>> protocol to the cybercrime convention:
>>
>> https://edri.org/crossborder-access-to-data-has-to-respect-human-rights-principles/
>> https://www.eff.org/es/deeplinks/2017/09/cybercrime-conventions-new-protocol-needs-uphold-human-rights
>> https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-rule-of-law/-/new-legal-tool-on-electronic-evidence-council-of-europe-welcomes-civil-society-opinion
>>
>>
>> Thanks and best,
>>
>> Maryant and Katitza
>>
>> [1]
>> https://rm.coe.int/terms-of-reference-for-the-preparation-of-a-draft-2nd-additional-proto/168072362b
>>
>>
>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180403/6b2a6192/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Apr 30 04:14:00 2018
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:44:00 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fwd: [JNC - Forum] US-China digital
 cold war is well and truly under-way
In-Reply-To: <EF7850A96FCEC6A5.71C1AFB8-6023-4747-9AD9-284BC6A3F73E@mail.outlook.com>
References: <9cf10678-4bd3-c3b6-e32c-49bc3aa6fadc@itforchange.net>
 <eed23277-ddd0-09fd-8b65-3f780b114d3e@itforchange.net>
 <344720b7-99f6-31ac-a27c-317796fc9a00@itforchange.net>
 <EF7850A96FCEC6A5.71C1AFB8-6023-4747-9AD9-284BC6A3F73E@mail.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <9ef5c149-5871-330b-57fe-82ea798489df@itforchange.net>


On Monday 30 April 2018 01:16 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> So what do you propose, introducing a narrow and slanted Chinese POV
> (which does rather smack of propaganda) as some sort of balance?

Suresh, I have not ever responded to your emails for many many years now
bec our exchanges have tended not to go very well... But in the interest
of seeking a new beginning for these IG civil society spaces, I'd make
an exception.

No, I do not propose introducing any "narrow and slanted Chinese POV" to
try and balance.... BTW, the referred article which you say smacks of
propaganda comes from Milton Mueller led IGP's (Internet Governance
Project) website, and there have been similar articles on that website,
and  I understand it is within overall IGP's policy direction.... I do
not think anyone can plausibly characterise IGP's policy orientation as
being of promoting Chinese propaganda!

On the other hand, as my note below characterising China as one of the
global digital power seeking to dominate the world shows, I am equally
critical of China's digital imperial tendencies.. For instance I wrote
this oped on China's global e-commerce ambitions
<http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/a-borderless-economy-that-will-be-controlled/article8581476.ece>.
And a few  hours back forwarded to another elist this article as a major
horror in the making
<http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2143899/forget-facebook-leak-china-mining-data-directly-workers-brains?utm_source=Mailer&utm_medium=ET_batch&utm_campaign=etcio_news_2018-04-30>
..

What I propose is developing and implementing a genuinely global public
interest oriented strategy, with a marked partiality towards the weaker
and disadvantaged groups (as civil society should always take) -- and in
this regard to recognise and discard the habitual pro US-led western
powers and big business aligned stands that global civil society in IG
has become accustomed to take...

parminder
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 1:05 PM +0530, "parminder"
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>     And it is not old history at all....
>
>     Just now I see this call by OECD for a global dialogue on AI 
>     https://www.oecd-forum.org/users/42484-douglas-frantz/posts/21562-artificial-intelligence-why-a-global-dialogue-is-critical
>
>     But reading on one realises that with a global dialogue, OECD
>     means not a UN based one, where are countries are equal, but an
>     OECD led dialogue...  (which IG civil society has customarily
>     cheered and participated in, while condemning any possible UN process)
>
>     One squirms to hear so many calls now-a-days for global dialogues,
>     rules and agreements, just as an example, Wired carries one such
>     all today "Data protection standards need to be global
>     <https://www.wired.com/story/data-protection-standards-need-to-be-global>"
>     ... There are others on AI, and so on...
>
>     But wait a minute, was it not just this January of 2018, that the
>     UN WG on Enhanced Cooperation (on International Internet-related
>     polices) closed without a report because not only the western
>     countries and the big business but also the Internet community and
>     much of IG civil society could not agree there really were
>     Internet/ digital governance issues that needed global addressing
>     (other than perhaps as they were already being addressed by the
>     OECD, World Economic Forum and the such)....
>
>     And the only comment one heard was from Milton at the IGP cheering
>     the failure of the WG on enhanced cooperation! Not another word on
>     the subject by anyone...
>
>     Is there any global civil society in any other area which is so
>     bereft of ideas, imagination, forward-looking proposals, much less
>     of accountability and progressive notions like working for the
>     weakest, social justice, economic rights, and so on.... Could we
>     yet reassemble and take up our responsibilities...
>
>     parminder
>
>
>     On Monday 30 April 2018 12:50 PM, parminder wrote:
>>
>>     I hardly ever post to these lists now-a-days, because rarely are
>>     substantive issues posted here in any case, but thought of
>>     forwarding this because this refers to my - by now, favourite :)
>>     - issue of pointing to the culpability of civil society actors in
>>     the IG space over the last one decade or so in being partisan to
>>     narrow US led western interests and having considerably forgotten
>>     to promote global public interest, and the interests of the
>>     weakest sections, groups and countries. And, as often happens in
>>     the mid to long term, such partisanship is no longer serving even
>>     western interests that well.
>>
>>     My posting and engagement on this issue are aimed at proposing
>>     and promoting an effort at a collective rethink and
>>     re-orientation among the IG civil society about its politics and
>>     role, as we enter a digital society where Internet or digital
>>     governance is one of the most important political subjects.
>>
>>     parminder
>>
>>     -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>     Subject: 	[JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is well and
>>     truly under-way
>>     Date: 	Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:34:50 +0530
>>     From: 	parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>     Reply-To: 	Internet governance related discussions
>>     <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
>>     To: 	Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     As in the earlier times, cold war alignments were determined by,
>>     or determined, where a country acquired its armaments from, in
>>     the digital cold war there is going to be a similar schism in
>>     terms of whose digital security equipment you finally trust and
>>     buy, as everything gets underpinned by the 'digital'.... Coupled
>>     with the  "digital security" based polarisation will be data
>>     flows polarisation -- EU is determining adequacy tests about
>>     where its data can flow to, the new US CLOUD Act is determining
>>     adequacy test about which countries can access data residing in
>>     the US for regulatory and law enforcement purposes.....
>>
>>     We were headed towards such a polarisation when, over the last
>>     decade or so, we rejected global institutions and agreements for
>>     Internet and digital governance... What is significant is the
>>     role that civil society groups played in such rejection, and thus
>>     must share the blame of the oncoming digital polarisation which
>>     leaves all countries that are not the US and China at the abject
>>     mercy of these digital super powers ... parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>     internetgovernance.org
>>     <https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/04/29/a-chinese-perspective-on-the-growing-high-tech-cold-war/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+internetgovernance%2FabwE+%28IGP+Blog%29>
>>
>>
>>
>>       A Chinese Perspective on the Growing High-Tech Cold War
>>
>>     by Jinhe Liu
>>     9-12 minutes
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     In Chinese online discussions, many people are using the
>>     expression “one sword throat-slashing strike.” [一剑封喉] This
>>     forbidding term refers to the United States’ seven-year export
>>     ban on China’s second-largest telecom supplier, ZTE
>>     <https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2018/04/secretary-ross-announces-activation-zte-denial-order-response-repeated>,
>>     which threatens its very existence and has put the company “in a
>>     state of shock.
>>     <http://www.scmp.com/tech/article/2142557/zte-calls-us-government-ban-extremely-unfair-vows-fight-its-rights>”
>>     In the Chinese language, the “one sword throat-slashing strike”
>>     means that in battle a master swiftly strikes a death blow before
>>     the victim has a chance to resist. Chinese use of this idiom with
>>     high frequency in the context of the Sino-US trade war shows that
>>     there is both a feeling of helplessness and a fighting atmosphere
>>     dispersing though the Chinese society.
>>
>>     In January this year, the United States blocked Chinese tech
>>     company Alibaba’s acquisition of American remittance company
>>     MoneyGram; also in the name of national security it forced AT&T
>>     to end cooperation with Huawei. At the same time, the Trump
>>     administration ordered high tariffs on imported steel and
>>     aluminum and threatened several rounds of tariffs on China. On
>>     March 22nd, Trump signed the presidential memorandum and
>>     announced the Section 301 investigation of China, which was
>>     widely regarded as the focus of the outbreak of trade disputes
>>     between China and the United States. In April 16th, the United
>>     States launched its “throat-slashing strike” on ZTE. While some
>>     analysts are still discussing whether a Sino-US trade war will
>>     happen, on the other side of the Pacific the war fire has already
>>     begun to burn, as a sense of economic conflict develops between
>>     the two largest economies in the world. The /New York Times
>>     Chinese version/characterized the Sino-US dispute over technology
>>     and trade as a “New Cold War Era
>>     <https://cn.nytimes.com/business/20180326/trump-china-tariffs-tech-cold-war/>.”
>>
>>     After the news of the US sanctions on ZTE came on April 16, all
>>     of China is engaged in a big discussion of this event. A large
>>     number of articles about it emerge in the mainstream media and
>>     social media platforms every day. The strength of the reaction
>>     have probably exceeded the expectations of American society, and
>>     even China’s own. On the whole, Chinese society has discovered
>>     that its high-tech industry is weak and unable to resist the US
>>     punch, especially because of its dependence on US semiconductors.
>>     It has been pointed out that none of the 20 top semiconductor
>>     companies in the world is in mainland China (see the table below,
>>     which shows only the top 10). Civil society, academia, industry,
>>     and even the government are contemplating the fragility of
>>     China’s industrial development and trying to provide effective
>>     solutions. The fact that ZTE violated American law has not been
>>     evaded in China. But China fears  that just as a few days ago
>>     America launched a precise strike against Syria, the United
>>     States is now launching an accurate and fatal strike to Chinese
>>     national enterprises.
>>
>>
>>     After ZTE’s violation of the embargo two years ago, it has paid
>>      892 million US dollars for its mistakes and has reached a
>>     settlement agreement with the US government. Because this strong
>>     penalty against ZTE was closely followed by the fierce Sino-US
>>     tariff war, Chinese people do not believe that America’s main
>>     concern is just ZTE’s violation of the sanctions. According to
>>     the /Wall Street Journal/, the US Trade Representative Office
>>     (USTR) is considering actions against the business of Alibaba
>>     Cloud
>>     <https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-is-examining-ways-to-retaliate-against-chinese-restrictions-on-u-s-tech-companies-1523910784?>in
>>     the US. A US congressional report
>>     <https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/Interos_Supply%20Chain%20Vulnerabilities%20from%20China%20in%20U.S.%20Federal%20ICT.pdf>also
>>     accuses other Chinese companies, such as Huawei and Lenovo, of
>>     facilitating commercial espionage. The latest news shows that the
>>     US Justice Department has launched an investigation
>>     <https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-under-criminal-investigation-over-iran-sanctions-1524663728>into
>>     whether Huawei breaks the Iran embargo. This series of actions
>>     make the Chinese worry that ZTE is just the first step in a
>>     bigger war.
>>
>>     Americans may not realize that these actions can be
>>     counterproductive. They provoke nationalistic sentiment in
>>     Chinese society. In history, whenever China has encountered
>>     damaging and perceived unfair treatment from outside, there was
>>     always a strong nationalistic reaction. Signs of this familiar
>>     pattern are appearing again. On April 6, China’s central news
>>     agency used very tough words and phrases after the extra tariff
>>     on China’s $100 billion exports to the US was announced, such as
>>     “the Chinese will struggle resolutely! And do not blame us for
>>     not having forewarned you!” [勿谓言之不预！] These words are
>>     generally used for the announcement of a war in Chinese
>>     diplomatic rhetoric. The ZTE chairman said that “we have the
>>     support of 1.3 billion (Chinese) people, and we have the ability
>>     and determination to tide over this difficulty,” after Hou
>>     Weigui, the founder of ZTE, retired and at 76 years old, rushed
>>     to the United States to plead but without any fruit, which
>>     aroused huge empathy by a picture
>>     <https://m.21jingji.com/article/20180419/herald/2778441bb91bbbe0189f188b09405445.html>spread
>>     widely in WeChat, the biggest social media in China . Then ZTE
>>     further issued a statement
>>     <http://www.zte.com.cn/global/about/press-center/news/201804CZY/20180420-1>that
>>     the sanction was “unacceptable.” Subsequently, a spokesman for
>>     China’s Ministry of Commerce also made a strong statement, saying
>>     that China is “ready to take necessary measures to safeguard the
>>     legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises.” Chinese
>>     netizens even began to discuss whether the country should take
>>     corresponding measures on Apple, widely quoting an article in
>>     Forbes
>>     <https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2018/04/18/study-what-if-china-bans-apple-to-retaliate-for-u-s-sanctions-against-huawei-zte/#49d1bf0b1e5d>which
>>     suggests that if China retaliates against Apple, it will cause
>>     massive layoffs and crash in its stock price.
>>
>>     The US moves have also encouraged high-level political leaders in
>>     China to push for abandoning American products and developing
>>     their own high-tech industries. Chinese President Xi Jinping
>>     stressed on April 21stthat “core technology is the pillar of the
>>     country” at the national network security and information
>>     conference. And the Premier Li Keqiang also spoke at the
>>     Executive meeting of the State Council to promote a national
>>     innovation system aiming at science and technology development.
>>     In fact, Chinese are concerned not only about the economic losses
>>     of the US sanctions, but also about inadequate self-protection,
>>     and, what is more, about the future of international trade.
>>
>>     In a more profound context, these actions of China and the United
>>     States are not only solutions to the trade deficit, but an
>>     abandonment of globalization. Since the end of the US-Soviet Cold
>>     War, the world entered a golden age of “neoliberal”
>>     globalization. International trade promoted the growth of the
>>     world economy. According to the statistics of the World Bank
>>     <https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/wts2017_e/WTO_Chapter_03_e.pdf>,
>>     whereas the average growth rate of world trade in goods was 1.5
>>     times that of the world’s GDP since the end of World War II, and
>>     in the 1990s trade grew more than twice as fast as GDP. Trade
>>     exchanges between China and the United States have brought great
>>     benefits to both sides. The low-cost manufacturing industry in
>>     China provides a continuous supply for the high consumption
>>     society of the United States. The huge demand and advanced
>>     industrial technology of the United States have brought a strong
>>     pull to the Chinese economy. While the order of economic
>>     globalization was established by the United States, it is now the
>>     United States who destroys it. Today’s trading system is so
>>     closely intertwined that it is not all beneficial for the US to
>>     undermine the order it built. The share prices of ZTE’s U.S.
>>     suppliers fell on the news of the ZTE ban. Research by Brookings
>>     <https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/04/09/how-chinas-tariffs-could-affect-u-s-workers-and-industries/>also
>>     points out that China’s proposed tariffs would affect about 2.1
>>     million jobs spread across 2,783 US counties.
>>
>>     The damage wrought to the Sino-US economy and the global economy
>>     by a trade war will be huge, but it is even more worrying that
>>     the global free trade order is being disrupted. On the Boao Asia
>>     Forum on April 10th, Xi Jinping announced further opening up
>>     <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/business/xi-jinping-china-trade-boao.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=D31A11675F599E1C6551FFB29003BCA7&gwt=pay>of
>>     the Chinese market and strengthening the protection of
>>     intellectual property to integrate China deeper into the world
>>     trade system. But the Trump administration seems to ignore this
>>     deliberately. As mentioned above, Chinese society is worried
>>     mainly about the prospect of its national development in the
>>     context of the times. Therefore, if more trade wars happen, it is
>>     not only likely to lead to China’s aggressive self-protection
>>     measures but also is likely to have a far-reaching impact on how
>>     Chinese understand international rules. Solving the impartiality
>>     of trade rules is a process that requires stakeholders to sit
>>     down and negotiate. A direct blockade might well backfire.
>>
>>     If we look at the Sino-US trade dispute from the perspective of
>>     Internet governance, it can be found that the Internet seems to
>>     be splitting up. A one-world Internet should be interconnected
>>     across the borders of states, but now territorial governments are
>>     trying to strengthen their control by aligning the Internet with
>>     national jurisdictions. China has selectively rejected the
>>     products of some American Internet giants, and now, the United
>>     States has also begun to block China’s products. The United
>>     States is becoming Chinese
>>     <https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/01/05/cfius-blocks-deal-u-s-becoming-chinese/>.
>>     The state has labeled Internet equipment one by one and excludes
>>     it from its own territory in the name of national security or the
>>     protection of its own industries. Some commentaries assert that
>>     the actions by the United States against Huawei and ZTE are
>>     trying to keep the US the leading position in the 5G technology.
>>     But the establishment of walls to exclude competition deviates
>>     from liberalism. The United States is a strong advocate of the
>>     freedom of the Internet. It developed the multi-stakeholder
>>     model, advocated bottom-up technical autonomy and open industrial
>>     competition; it has resisted giving governments too much control
>>     of the Internet. But now, on the contrary, the government of the
>>     world’s most powerful Internet country is holding high the banner
>>     of national security to expel market actors who place it at a
>>     competitive disadvantage.
>>
>>     When the advocates of rules break the rules, global confidence is
>>     badly damaged. But it is still hopeful that United States
>>     Secretary of the Treasury Mnuchin is on his way to China to
>>     negotiate. So the rule of free trade and Internet openness has
>>     not been completely abandoned yet.
>>
>>
>>
>>     ---
>>     To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>     List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180430/f8f353ef/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Apr 30 05:08:23 2018
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:38:23 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fwd: [JNC - Forum] US-China digital
 cold war is well and truly under-way
In-Reply-To: <C57108BF-E462-4082-8196-59467D2B9201@hserus.net>
References: <9cf10678-4bd3-c3b6-e32c-49bc3aa6fadc@itforchange.net>
 <eed23277-ddd0-09fd-8b65-3f780b114d3e@itforchange.net>
 <344720b7-99f6-31ac-a27c-317796fc9a00@itforchange.net>
 <EF7850A96FCEC6A5.71C1AFB8-6023-4747-9AD9-284BC6A3F73E@mail.outlook.com>
 <9ef5c149-5871-330b-57fe-82ea798489df@itforchange.net>
 <C57108BF-E462-4082-8196-59467D2B9201@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <f473227f-b89a-6c64-ab57-d3e36f023e72@itforchange.net>

But we cannot despair into paralysis and inaction... Civil society is
the place where the highest and the best ideas, advocacies and social
struggles are shaped . And more than a decade of history invests in this
particular space/ assemblage a certain burden of responsibility and
gravity of being, that cannot be easily developed anew... We, further,
stand at a crucial historical juncture of formation of new social,
economic, political and cultural structures that will provide the
dominant pattern for many many decades. This makes the responsibility
even heavier, and criminal to abdicate.

People here must think of a way out if this hole that we find ourselves
in ...

parminder


On Monday 30 April 2018 02:23 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> Good for you for being critical.  However I am yet to find a single
> civil society led article on either side of this debate that achieves
> a genuine balance and actually tries to build bridges rather than push
> a single point of view.
>
>  
>
> Given this, a meeting of minds does not appear possible due to vested
> interests across the board – and so multistakeholder engagements
> beyond a certain scale look doomed to collapse under these influences,
> or be so neutral as to go nowhere in particular at all.
>
>  
>
> An interesting problem to solve, because goodwill appears sadly
> lacking among many players in this space.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From: *parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> *Date: *Monday, 30 April 2018 at 1:44 PM
> *To: *"suresh at hserus.net" <suresh at hserus.net>,
> <governance at lists.riseup.net>, BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject: *Re: [governance] Fwd: [JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold
> war is well and truly under-way
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On Monday 30 April 2018 01:16 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
>     So what do you propose, introducing a narrow and slanted Chinese
>     POV (which does rather smack of propaganda) as some sort of balance?
>
>
> Suresh, I have not ever responded to your emails for many many years
> now bec our exchanges have tended not to go very well... But in the
> interest of seeking a new beginning for these IG civil society spaces,
> I'd make an exception.
>
> No, I do not propose introducing any "narrow and slanted Chinese POV"
> to try and balance.... BTW, the referred article which you say smacks
> of propaganda comes from Milton Mueller led IGP's (Internet Governance
> Project) website, and there have been similar articles on that
> website, and  I understand it is within overall IGP's policy
> direction.... I do not think anyone can plausibly characterise IGP's
> policy orientation as being of promoting Chinese propaganda!
>
> On the other hand, as my note below characterising China as one of the
> global digital power seeking to dominate the world shows, I am equally
> critical of China's digital imperial tendencies.. For instance I wrote
> this oped on China's global e-commerce ambitions
> <http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/a-borderless-economy-that-will-be-controlled/article8581476.ece>.
> And a few  hours back forwarded to another elist this article as a
> major horror in the making
> <http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2143899/forget-facebook-leak-china-mining-data-directly-workers-brains?utm_source=Mailer&utm_medium=ET_batch&utm_campaign=etcio_news_2018-04-30>
> ..
>
> What I propose is developing and implementing a genuinely global
> public interest oriented strategy, with a marked partiality towards
> the weaker and disadvantaged groups (as civil society should always
> take) -- and in this regard to recognise and discard the habitual pro
> US-led western powers and big business aligned stands that global
> civil society in IG has become accustomed to take...
>
> parminder
>
>      
>
>      
>
>
>
>     On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 1:05 PM +0530, "parminder"
>     <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>         And it is not old history at all....
>
>         Just now I see this call by OECD for a global dialogue on AI 
>         https://www.oecd-forum.org/users/42484-douglas-frantz/posts/21562-artificial-intelligence-why-a-global-dialogue-is-critical
>
>         But reading on one realises that with a global dialogue, OECD
>         means not a UN based one, where are countries are equal, but
>         an OECD led dialogue...  (which IG civil society has
>         customarily cheered and participated in, while condemning any
>         possible UN process)
>
>         One squirms to hear so many calls now-a-days for global
>         dialogues, rules and agreements, just as an example, Wired
>         carries one such all today "Data protection standards need to
>         be global
>         <https://www.wired.com/story/data-protection-standards-need-to-be-global>"
>         ... There are others on AI, and so on...
>
>         But wait a minute, was it not just this January of 2018, that
>         the UN WG on Enhanced Cooperation (on International
>         Internet-related polices) closed without a report because not
>         only the western countries and the big business but also the
>         Internet community and much of IG civil society could not
>         agree there really were Internet/ digital governance issues
>         that needed global addressing (other than perhaps as they were
>         already being addressed by the OECD, World Economic Forum and
>         the such)....
>
>         And the only comment one heard was from Milton at the IGP
>         cheering the failure of the WG on enhanced cooperation! Not
>         another word on the subject by anyone...
>
>         Is there any global civil society in any other area which is
>         so bereft of ideas, imagination, forward-looking proposals,
>         much less of accountability and progressive notions like
>         working for the weakest, social justice, economic rights, and
>         so on.... Could we yet reassemble and take up our
>         responsibilities...
>
>         parminder
>
>          
>
>         On Monday 30 April 2018 12:50 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>             I hardly ever post to these lists now-a-days, because
>             rarely are substantive issues posted here in any case, but
>             thought of forwarding this because this refers to my - by
>             now, favourite :) - issue of pointing to the culpability
>             of civil society actors in the IG space over the last one
>             decade or so in being partisan to narrow US led western
>             interests and having considerably forgotten to promote
>             global public interest, and the interests of the weakest
>             sections, groups and countries. And, as often happens in
>             the mid to long term, such partisanship is no longer
>             serving even western interests that well.
>
>             My posting and engagement on this issue are aimed at
>             proposing and promoting an effort at a collective rethink
>             and re-orientation among the IG civil society about its
>             politics and role, as we enter a digital society where
>             Internet or digital governance is one of the most
>             important political subjects.
>
>             parminder
>
>             -------- Forwarded Message --------
>
>             *Subject: *
>
>             	
>
>             [JNC - Forum] US-China digital cold war is well and truly
>             under-way
>
>             *Date: *
>
>             	
>
>             Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:34:50 +0530
>
>             *From: *
>
>             	
>
>             parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>             <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>
>             *Reply-To: *
>
>             	
>
>             Internet governance related discussions
>             <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
>             <mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>
>
>             *To: *
>
>             	
>
>             Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
>             <mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org>
>
>              
>
>              
>
>             As in the earlier times, cold war alignments were
>             determined by, or determined, where a country acquired its
>             armaments from, in the digital cold war there is going to
>             be a similar schism in terms of whose digital security
>             equipment you finally trust and buy, as everything gets
>             underpinned by the 'digital'.... Coupled with the 
>             "digital security" based polarisation will be data flows
>             polarisation -- EU is determining adequacy tests about
>             where its data can flow to, the new US CLOUD Act is
>             determining adequacy test about which countries can access
>             data residing in the US for regulatory and law enforcement
>             purposes.....
>
>             We were headed towards such a polarisation when, over the
>             last decade or so, we rejected global institutions and
>             agreements for Internet and digital governance... What is
>             significant is the role that civil society groups played
>             in such rejection, and thus must share the blame of the
>             oncoming digital polarisation which leaves all countries
>             that are not the US and China at the abject mercy of these
>             digital super powers ... parminder
>
>              
>
>              
>
>             internetgovernance.org
>             <https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/04/29/a-chinese-perspective-on-the-growing-high-tech-cold-war/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+internetgovernance%2FabwE+%28IGP+Blog%29>
>
>
>
>               A Chinese Perspective on the Growing High-Tech Cold War
>
>             by Jinhe Liu
>
>             9-12 minutes
>
>             ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>             In Chinese online discussions, many people are using the
>             expression “one sword throat-slashing strike.” [一剑封喉] This
>             forbidding term refers to the United States’ seven-year
>             export ban on China’s second-largest telecom supplier, ZTE
>             <https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2018/04/secretary-ross-announces-activation-zte-denial-order-response-repeated>,
>             which threatens its very existence and has put the company
>             “in a state of shock.
>             <http://www.scmp.com/tech/article/2142557/zte-calls-us-government-ban-extremely-unfair-vows-fight-its-rights>”
>             In the Chinese language, the “one sword throat-slashing
>             strike” means that in battle a master swiftly strikes a
>             death blow before the victim has a chance to resist.
>             Chinese use of this idiom with high frequency in the
>             context of the Sino-US trade war shows that there is both
>             a feeling of helplessness and a fighting atmosphere
>             dispersing though the Chinese society.
>
>             In January this year, the United States blocked Chinese
>             tech company Alibaba’s acquisition of American remittance
>             company MoneyGram; also in the name of national security
>             it forced AT&T to end cooperation with Huawei. At the same
>             time, the Trump administration ordered high tariffs on
>             imported steel and aluminum and threatened several rounds
>             of tariffs on China. On March 22nd, Trump signed the
>             presidential memorandum and announced the Section 301
>             investigation of China, which was widely regarded as the
>             focus of the outbreak of trade disputes between China and
>             the United States. In April 16th, the United States
>             launched its “throat-slashing strike” on ZTE. While some
>             analysts are still discussing whether a Sino-US trade war
>             will happen, on the other side of the Pacific the war fire
>             has already begun to burn, as a sense of economic conflict
>             develops between the two largest economies in the world.
>             The /New York Times Chinese version/ characterized the
>             Sino-US dispute over technology and trade as a “New Cold
>             War Era
>             <https://cn.nytimes.com/business/20180326/trump-china-tariffs-tech-cold-war/>.”
>
>             After the news of the US sanctions on ZTE came on April
>             16, all of China is engaged in a big discussion of this
>             event. A large number of articles about it emerge in the
>             mainstream media and social media platforms every day. The
>             strength of the reaction have probably exceeded the
>             expectations of American society, and even China’s own. On
>             the whole, Chinese society has discovered that its
>             high-tech industry is weak and unable to resist the US
>             punch, especially because of its dependence on US
>             semiconductors. It has been pointed out that none of the
>             20 top semiconductor companies in the world is in mainland
>             China (see the table below, which shows only the top 10).
>             Civil society, academia, industry, and even the government
>             are contemplating the fragility of China’s industrial
>             development and trying to provide effective solutions. The
>             fact that ZTE violated American law has not been evaded in
>             China. But China fears  that just as a few days ago
>             America launched a precise strike against Syria, the
>             United States is now launching an accurate and fatal
>             strike to Chinese national enterprises.
>
>              
>
>             After ZTE’s violation of the embargo two years ago, it has
>             paid  892 million US dollars for its mistakes and has
>             reached a settlement agreement with the US government.
>             Because this strong penalty against ZTE was closely
>             followed by the fierce Sino-US tariff war, Chinese people
>             do not believe that America’s main concern is just ZTE’s
>             violation of the sanctions. According to the /Wall Street
>             Journal/, the US Trade Representative Office (USTR) is
>             considering actions against the business of Alibaba Cloud
>             <https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-is-examining-ways-to-retaliate-against-chinese-restrictions-on-u-s-tech-companies-1523910784?>
>             in the US. A US congressional report
>             <https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/Interos_Supply%20Chain%20Vulnerabilities%20from%20China%20in%20U.S.%20Federal%20ICT.pdf>also
>             accuses other Chinese companies, such as Huawei and
>             Lenovo, of facilitating commercial espionage. The latest
>             news shows that the US Justice Department has launched an
>             investigation
>             <https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-under-criminal-investigation-over-iran-sanctions-1524663728>
>             into whether Huawei breaks the Iran embargo. This series
>             of actions make the Chinese worry that ZTE is just the
>             first step in a bigger war.
>
>             Americans may not realize that these actions can be
>             counterproductive. They provoke nationalistic sentiment in
>             Chinese society. In history, whenever China has
>             encountered damaging and perceived unfair treatment from
>             outside, there was always a strong nationalistic reaction.
>             Signs of this familiar pattern are appearing again. On
>             April 6, China’s central news agency used very tough words
>             and phrases after the extra tariff on China’s $100 billion
>             exports to the US was announced, such as “the Chinese will
>             struggle resolutely! And do not blame us for not having
>             forewarned you!” [勿谓言之不预！] These words are generally
>             used for the announcement of a war in Chinese diplomatic
>             rhetoric. The ZTE chairman said that “we have the support
>             of 1.3 billion (Chinese) people, and we have the ability
>             and determination to tide over this difficulty,” after Hou
>             Weigui, the founder of ZTE, retired and at 76 years old,
>             rushed to the United States to plead but without any
>             fruit, which aroused huge empathy by a picture
>             <https://m.21jingji.com/article/20180419/herald/2778441bb91bbbe0189f188b09405445.html>spread
>             widely in WeChat, the biggest social media in China . Then
>             ZTE further issued a statement
>             <http://www.zte.com.cn/global/about/press-center/news/201804CZY/20180420-1>that
>             the sanction was “unacceptable.” Subsequently, a spokesman
>             for China’s Ministry of Commerce also made a strong
>             statement, saying that China is “ready to take necessary
>             measures to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests
>             of Chinese enterprises.” Chinese netizens even began to
>             discuss whether the country should take corresponding
>             measures on Apple, widely quoting an article in Forbes
>             <https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2018/04/18/study-what-if-china-bans-apple-to-retaliate-for-u-s-sanctions-against-huawei-zte/#49d1bf0b1e5d>
>             which suggests that if China retaliates against Apple, it
>             will cause massive layoffs and crash in its stock price.
>
>             The US moves have also encouraged high-level political
>             leaders in China to push for abandoning American products
>             and developing their own high-tech industries. Chinese
>             President Xi Jinping stressed on April 21st that “core
>             technology is the pillar of the country” at the national
>             network security and information conference. And the
>             Premier Li Keqiang also spoke at the Executive meeting of
>             the State Council to promote a national innovation system
>             aiming at science and technology development. In fact,
>             Chinese are concerned not only about the economic losses
>             of the US sanctions, but also about inadequate
>             self-protection, and, what is more, about the future of
>             international trade.
>
>             In a more profound context, these actions of China and the
>             United States are not only solutions to the trade deficit,
>             but an abandonment of globalization. Since the end of the
>             US-Soviet Cold War, the world entered a golden age of
>             “neoliberal” globalization. International trade promoted
>             the growth of the world economy. According to the
>             statistics of the World Bank
>             <https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/wts2017_e/WTO_Chapter_03_e.pdf>,
>             whereas the average growth rate of world trade in goods
>             was 1.5 times that of the world’s GDP since the end of
>             World War II, and in the 1990s trade grew more than twice
>             as fast as GDP. Trade exchanges between China and the
>             United States have brought great benefits to both sides.
>             The low-cost manufacturing industry in China provides a
>             continuous supply for the high consumption society of the
>             United States. The huge demand and advanced industrial
>             technology of the United States have brought a strong pull
>             to the Chinese economy. While the order of economic
>             globalization was established by the United States, it is
>             now the United States who destroys it. Today’s trading
>             system is so closely intertwined that it is not all
>             beneficial for the US to undermine the order it built. The
>             share prices of ZTE’s U.S. suppliers fell on the news of
>             the ZTE ban. Research by Brookings
>             <https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/04/09/how-chinas-tariffs-could-affect-u-s-workers-and-industries/>also
>             points out that China’s proposed tariffs would affect
>             about 2.1 million jobs spread across 2,783 US counties.
>
>             The damage wrought to the Sino-US economy and the global
>             economy by a trade war will be huge, but it is even more
>             worrying that the global free trade order is being
>             disrupted. On the Boao Asia Forum on April 10th, Xi
>             Jinping announced further opening up
>             <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/business/xi-jinping-china-trade-boao.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=D31A11675F599E1C6551FFB29003BCA7&gwt=pay>of
>             the Chinese market and strengthening the protection of
>             intellectual property to integrate China deeper into the
>             world trade system. But the Trump administration seems to
>             ignore this deliberately. As mentioned above, Chinese
>             society is worried mainly about the prospect of its
>             national development in the context of the times.
>             Therefore, if more trade wars happen, it is not only
>             likely to lead to China’s aggressive self-protection
>             measures but also is likely to have a far-reaching impact
>             on how Chinese understand international rules. Solving the
>             impartiality of trade rules is a process that requires
>             stakeholders to sit down and negotiate. A direct blockade
>             might well backfire.
>
>             If we look at the Sino-US trade dispute from the
>             perspective of Internet governance, it can be found that
>             the Internet seems to be splitting up. A one-world
>             Internet should be interconnected across the borders of
>             states, but now territorial governments are trying to
>             strengthen their control by aligning the Internet with
>             national jurisdictions. China has selectively rejected the
>             products of some American Internet giants, and now, the
>             United States has also begun to block China’s products.
>             The United States is becoming Chinese
>             <https://www.internetgovernance.org/2018/01/05/cfius-blocks-deal-u-s-becoming-chinese/>.
>             The state has labeled Internet equipment one by one and
>             excludes it from its own territory in the name of national
>             security or the protection of its own industries. Some
>             commentaries assert that the actions by the United States
>             against Huawei and ZTE are trying to keep the US the
>             leading position in the 5G technology. But the
>             establishment of walls to exclude competition deviates
>             from liberalism. The United States is a strong advocate of
>             the freedom of the Internet. It developed the
>             multi-stakeholder model, advocated bottom-up technical
>             autonomy and open industrial competition; it has resisted
>             giving governments too much control of the Internet. But
>             now, on the contrary, the government of the world’s most
>             powerful Internet country is holding high the banner of
>             national security to expel market actors who place it at a
>             competitive disadvantage.
>
>             When the advocates of rules break the rules, global
>             confidence is badly damaged. But it is still hopeful that
>             United States Secretary of the Treasury Mnuchin is on his
>             way to China to negotiate. So the rule of free trade and
>             Internet openness has not been completely abandoned yet.
>
>
>
>
>             ---
>
>             To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>             <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>
>             List help: <https://riseup.net/lists> <https://riseup.net/lists>
>
>          
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180430/3b4ff39b/attachment.htm>

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Mon Apr 30 13:33:15 2018
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:33:15 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] IGF workshop proposals open
Message-ID: <f6a9b8bb-d8cb-70e8-a4ff-03ebb579ab8e@Malcolm.id.au>

Dear All, 

The Secretariat has published the Call for workshop proposals on the IGF
website:

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2018-call-for-workshop-proposals

Deadline for submission is *27 May 2018*

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O -

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180430/31de48bd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180430/31de48bd/attachment.sig>

From peter at accessnow.org  Mon Apr 30 13:52:40 2018
From: peter at accessnow.org (Peter Micek)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:52:40 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] IGF workshop proposals open
In-Reply-To: <f6a9b8bb-d8cb-70e8-a4ff-03ebb579ab8e@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <f6a9b8bb-d8cb-70e8-a4ff-03ebb579ab8e@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <CAKaWWRFsVpzmhzcu3UPgpem9HkURCsmVAUi2Q3H-SA_Ymy92Pg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks, Jeremy. Just for clarification, we are having an IGF this year?
Will it be in Bangkok around December 10-14?

Cheers,
Peter

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 13:33 Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at malcolm.id.au> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> The Secretariat has published the Call for workshop proposals on the IGF
> website:
>
>
> https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2018-call-for-workshop-proposals
>
> Deadline for submission is *27 May 2018*
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
> echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O -
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180430/03c41b82/attachment.htm>

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Mon Apr 30 13:55:57 2018
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:55:57 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] IGF workshop proposals open
In-Reply-To: <CAKaWWRFsVpzmhzcu3UPgpem9HkURCsmVAUi2Q3H-SA_Ymy92Pg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f6a9b8bb-d8cb-70e8-a4ff-03ebb579ab8e@Malcolm.id.au>
 <CAKaWWRFsVpzmhzcu3UPgpem9HkURCsmVAUi2Q3H-SA_Ymy92Pg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0bb0a73c-cc91-e6fd-9ce0-4029b553df39@Malcolm.id.au>

On 30/4/18 10:52 am, Peter Micek wrote:
> Thanks, Jeremy. Just for clarification, we are having an IGF this
> year? Will it be in Bangkok around December 10-14?

There will be one, and yes one option is holding it in Asia in December,
but it might also be in a European country in November. This is still
being worked out, so please don't making any bookings for now! Nobody
considers it a satisfactory state of affairs. As soon as I know anything
more, I will pass it on.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O -


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180430/5d99aa86/attachment.sig>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Mon Apr 30 23:05:13 2018
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 03:05:13 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IGF workshop proposals open
In-Reply-To: <0bb0a73c-cc91-e6fd-9ce0-4029b553df39@malcolm.id.au>
References: <f6a9b8bb-d8cb-70e8-a4ff-03ebb579ab8e@malcolm.id.au>
 <CAKaWWRFsVpzmhzcu3UPgpem9HkURCsmVAUi2Q3H-SA_Ymy92Pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <0bb0a73c-cc91-e6fd-9ce0-4029b553df39@malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <em7589c755-0417-4dc4-a24c-af9459cc5f45@laptop-93l8qkek>

It would be handy to know the dates and venue for the IGF meeting before 
workshop proposals close. Is that going to happen?


Ian Peter

------ Original Message ------
From: "Jeremy Malcolm" <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
To: "Peter Micek" <peter at accessnow.org>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt" 
<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; "governance" 
<governance at lists.riseup.net>
Sent: 1/05/2018 3:55:57 AM
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] IGF workshop proposals open

>On 30/4/18 10:52 am, Peter Micek wrote:
>>Thanks, Jeremy. Just for clarification, we are having an IGF this
>>year? Will it be in Bangkok around December 10-14?
>
>There will be one, and yes one option is holding it in Asia in 
>December,
>but it might also be in a European country in November. This is still
>being worked out, so please don't making any bookings for now! Nobody
>considers it a satisfactory state of affairs. As soon as I know 
>anything
>more, I will pass it on.
>
>--
>Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O -
>
>


From gus at publicknowledge.org  Tue Apr  3 11:04:02 2018
From: gus at publicknowledge.org (Gus Rossi)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 11:04:02 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Background paper on OTTs
Message-ID: <CAF6izqScdnbW2iL-S6s=vQBjJbGL67aaV7+e1Rg2Ag7X-qJeEw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone!

We wrote a short background paper on OTT governance, that I thought of
sharing with you all, given the rising prominence of that debate in
national and international forums (such as Plenipot).

https://www.publicknowledge.org/documents/the-evolution-of-the-over-the-top-regulatory-debate/

We hope you find it useful!
----

# # #
# • #
# # #
*Gus Rossi*
Global Policy Director
(202) 861-0020 (x123) | (202) 651 1337 (mobile) | @agustinrs
<https://twitter.com/@agustinrs>
*Public Knowledge* | @publicknowledge <https://twitter.com/publicknowledge>
 | www.publicknowledge.org
1818 N St. NW, Suite 410 | Washington, DC 20036 | CFC 12259
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180403/df28284b/attachment.htm>

From katitza at eff.org  Tue Apr  3 11:26:59 2018
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 08:26:59 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] ACTION: Sign-on Letter to Council of Europe: Re New
 Protocol Cybercrime Convention
In-Reply-To: <410a6cef-0ffe-463a-f4d5-818af478f940@eff.org>
References: <00B6458F-32E2-46A1-A310-140FD523C3D8@eff.org>
 <410a6cef-0ffe-463a-f4d5-818af478f940@eff.org>
Message-ID: <24550F93-8B23-4C5C-8FA8-7CF6E06D162E@eff.org>

Brief update following up on Jeremy’s email:

The letter to the Council of Europe has been sent and published here:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/nearly-100-public-interest-organizations-urge-council-europe-ensure-high
https://twitter.com/EFF/status/981175325676642304

If you have signed the letter, we would be grateful if you can publish a blogpost in your own site. A draft blogpost is attached here.
Feel free to customize it as you wish.

I have also uploaded a graphic you can use in your own site here if you wish to do so:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a89DpWEd-ZX1hV7OqoQZoGEvQO0b3p5B/view?usp=sharing

All the bet,

Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation

katitza at eff.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 20180329_blogpost_lettercoecybercrimenegos-transparency_EN.odt
Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text
Size: 28173 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180403/3e9fc1e9/attachment.odt>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 20180329_blogpost_lettercoecybercrimenegos-transparency_ES.odt
Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text
Size: 27378 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180403/3e9fc1e9/attachment-0001.odt>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 20180329_blogpost_lettercoecybercrimenegos-transparency_FR.odt
Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text
Size: 25577 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180403/3e9fc1e9/attachment-0002.odt>
-------------- next part --------------



> On Mar 16, 2018, at 2:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> 
> The Council of Europe Secretary General is developing a Second Additional Protocol to the Cybercrime Convention, and I've been requested to circulate this letter to other civil society organizations who may be interested in endorsing a letter asking for meaningful civil society participation in this process. It is no longer open to new edits, sorry, and the deadline for signatures is 23 March.
> 
> You can find more information below and you can contact my colleague Katitza if you have questions.
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> From: Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org>
>> Date: March 16, 2018 at 12:26:01 PM GMT-3
>> To: 13 Principles <principles at eff.org>
>> Cc: Maryant Fernandez Perez <maryant.fernandez-perez at edri.org>, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org>
>> Subject: ACTION: Sign-on Letter to Council of Europe: Re New Protocol Cybercrime Convention
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> European Digital Rights (EDRi) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have drafted a sign-on letter to the Council of Europe Secretary General asking for meaningful civil society participation in the development of the Cybercrime Convention’s Second Additional Protocol. The protocol is currently being discussed at the Cybercrime Convention Committee (T-CY), a committee that represents the State Parties to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime and other observer states.
>> 
>> Read the letter and sign on here:
>> https://fnf17.pad.foebud.org/2018coecxb-transparency
>> Deadline for sign-on is Friday March 23, end of the day PST.
>> 
>> For those who are not familiar with this process, the Council’s Cybercrime Convention Committee (T-CY) has initiated a global process to draft a second additional protocol to the Convention—a new text which deals with cross-border access to data, including ways to improve MLATs according to their Terms of Reference[1]. The work on the Second Protocol to the Cybercrime Convention is ongoing, without sufficient transparency nor meaningful civil society participation.
>> 
>> Join us on the letter and read more about the second additional protocol to the cybercrime convention:
>> 
>> https://edri.org/crossborder-access-to-data-has-to-respect-human-rights-principles/
>> https://www.eff.org/es/deeplinks/2017/09/cybercrime-conventions-new-protocol-needs-uphold-human-rights
>> https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-rule-of-law/-/new-legal-tool-on-electronic-evidence-council-of-europe-welcomes-civil-society-opinion
>> 
>> Thanks and best,
>> 
>> Maryant and Katitza
>> 
>> [1] https://rm.coe.int/terms-of-reference-for-the-preparation-of-a-draft-2nd-additional-proto/168072362b
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180403/3e9fc1e9/attachment.sig>

From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net  Tue Apr  3 18:23:25 2018
From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 18:23:25 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [gaia] Network self-determination: When building the
 Internet becomes a right
In-Reply-To: <4B6296ABAE1FC944984F6C9FE996FE19015425500B@DC6010.fgv.br>
References: <4B6296ABAE1FC944984F6C9FE996FE19015425500B@DC6010.fgv.br>
Message-ID: <3fc66c2d-9b8c-ae62-173f-7e94b4458159@riseup.net>


Liebe freunde

Luca Belli of Brazil distributes his naivety.

"Network self-determination"?
Can we find a network anywhere on our planet, that determine itself? 
Only we the people can do that. A network is a description of 
inter-connected devices in the structure of a net. We use this devices, 
define her processing and the interrelation of the different part in 
this connections of connections.

"When building the Internet becomes a right"?
Never. Who will be able to do that? Who have the capacity to do that? 
All this people in the private/state telecommunication area don't 
understand, what is telecommunication. They act only to organise 
moneyflows. No more.

Only we itself can create our telecommunication in form of an InterNet. 
And we don't need any permission. The only, what we need is to 
understand, what is a InterNet: A transportsystem of digital data in 
paketform.

But be clear, InterNet means "Inter-connection of local Net-works". And 
not in any bus or star structure. In a Net-structure. This means, that 
every node in this net is connected to his neighbors.


-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: [gaia] Network self-determination: When building the Internet 
becomes a right
Datum: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 22:38:07 +0000
Von: Luca Belli <luca.belli at fgv.br>
An: gaia at irtf.org <gaia at irtf.org>

Dear GAIA members,
I thought this might be of interest
Kind regards
Luca

Network self-determination: When building the Internet becomes a right
There is no doubt that network self-determination reinforces the 
distributed nature of the Internet and there is no reason why 
individuals should not have the possibility to build the Internet 
themselves, improving their standards of living while bridging digital 
divides.
By: Luca Belli<http://www.ietfjournal.org/contributing_authors/luca-belli/>
Date: March 28, 2018
[line break image]

Anyone reading this article would agree that the Internet and 
communication technologies play an increasingly essential role in every 
connected individual’s life. Access to well-functioning network 
infrastructure on affordable and non-discriminatory terms facilitates 
significantly the full enjoyment of one’s fundamental rights. Internet 
users can easily access knowledge and education, conduct businesses by 
trading goods and services online, and utilize digital public services, 
from paying taxes to applying to schools and receiving remote medical 
consultations.

As connected individuals, we can safely state that the Internet has 
become an integral part of our lives and our environment, affecting 
substantially how we form our opinions, how we socialize and learn and, 
ultimately, what opportunities we are able to grasp over the course of 
our lives. But what about the unconnected?
The current digital (r)evolution can also deepen divides in our 
societies, due to the uneven distribution of digital dividends between 
those for which connectivity is available and easily affordable and 
those who are either unconnected or face considerable challenges to 
connect.[1]<http://www.ietfjournal.org/network-self-determination-when-building-the-internet-becomes-a-right/#_ftn1>

This article briefly explores how groups of unconnected and scarcely 
connected individuals can regain control over their digital futures, 
building their own community networks and enjoying what I define as 
“network 
self-determination.”[2]<http://www.ietfjournal.org/network-self-determination-when-building-the-internet-becomes-a-right/#_ftn2> 
I argue that network self-determination leads to several positive 
externalities for the affected communities while preserving the Internet 
as a distributed, interoperable and generative network of networks.

In this perspective, concrete examples of communities enjoying network 
self-determination seem to prove that “the design and development of the 
Internet infrastructure have a growing impact on 
society”[3]<http://www.ietfjournal.org/network-self-determination-when-building-the-internet-becomes-a-right/#_ftn3> 
and foster a digital environment that enables human rights.

Continues here 
http://www.ietfjournal.org/network-self-determination-when-building-the-internet-becomes-a-right/


Feel free to share https://twitter.com/1lucabelli/status/979020870231449601



[FGV Direito Rio]

Luca Belli, PhD
Senior Researcher
Head of Internet Governance @ FGV<http://internet-governance.fgv.br/>
luca.belli at fgv.br
+55 21 3799 5763
@1lucabelli<https://twitter.com/1lucabelli>

[http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Ondas.png]





From yannis at registry.asia  Wed Apr  4 00:52:35 2018
From: yannis at registry.asia (Yannis Li)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 12:52:35 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] (Reminder) APrIGF Vanuatu 2018 - Submit Workshop
 Proposals by TOMORROW!
References: <F5B5E486-2EB3-4F29-A710-870CD99EE88A@aprigf.asia>
Message-ID: <B123E5BD-20E1-4775-A8FF-0171D8500ACD@registry.asia>

Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum
APrIGF Vanuatu 2018
13 Aug - 16 Aug 2018
Vanuatu National Convention Centre, Port Vila
 http://2018.aprigf.asia <http://2018.aprigf.asia/>

Open Call for Workshop Proposals, Potential Speakers & Fellowship Applications
 
Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) is one of the key regional initiatives on Internet governance which provides an open platform for multi-stakeholders to discuss and identify issues and priorities, and ultimately advances the development of Internet governance in the Asia Pacific region as well as bring forward and contribute to the wider global Internet community. The 2018 meeting will be held in Port Vila hosted by the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer (OGCIO) and Telecommunication and Radiocommunications Regulator (TRR) of Vanuatu.

Open Call for Workshop
Our Multi-Stakeholder Steering Group(MSG) now would like to call upon the community to contribute to the program development  process and suggest any tutorials or workshop proposals for 2018 with the overarching theme “Empowering the Communities in Asia Pacific to build an Affordable, Inclusive, Open and Secure Internet”. More information about the sub-themes can be found at http://aprigf.asia/news/2018/aprigf-2018-themes-finalized.html <http://aprigf.asia/news/2018/aprigf-2018-themes-finalized.html>.

Online Submission Form: http://aprigf.asia/news/2018/how-to-submit-a-workshop.html <http://aprigf.asia/news/2018/how-to-submit-a-workshop.html>
Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline: 6 April 2018 (Fri), 24:00 UTC (Extended)
**Kindly read through the online submission guide before you submit a proposal!

Sign up as a Potential Speaker
If you are planning to participate in APrIGF whether in-person or remotely and are open to sharing your expertise as a speaker, we encourage you to sign up as a potential speaker. Person who is providing information to this Potential Speaker Form will be listed publicly as a directory where you may be invited by workshop organizers to be speaker/penalist on workshop relating to his/her field of expertise and experiences.

Sign up Instructions and List: http://igf.asia/wiki_aprigf <http://igf.asia/wiki_aprigf> 

If you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact the secretariat at sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>.
 
If you are interested to follow any news and updates about APrIGF and discuss relevant issues, you may subscribe to the mailing list discuss at aprigf.asia <mailto:discuss at aprigf.asia> by sending in subscription request to the secretariat.
 
We also welcome any organisation to become a sponsor. Please contact sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia> for more information.
 
Best Regards,
Secretariat of APrIGF
http://www.aprigf.asia <http://www.aprigf.asia/>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180404/8ad19c36/attachment.htm>

From haroon at bytesforall.pk  Wed Apr  4 01:03:01 2018
From: haroon at bytesforall.pk (Haroon Baloch)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 10:03:01 +0500
Subject: [bestbits] Roundtable on "Business, human rights and consumer
 protections - Network disconnections, the way forward"
Message-ID: <e10d1408-3b8f-7ef0-0d37-62282815429f@bytesforall.pk>

Dear All,

Bytes for All Pakistan in collaboration with National Commission for
Human Rights (NCHR) is organizing first roundtable on the
above-mentioned subject. Bytes for All pioneered its work on network
shutdowns in Pakistan with its global partners IHRB, CIHR and Telenor
Group and launched its research "Security v. Access: The Impact of
Mobile Network Shutdowns" in 2015. The report served the bases for
public interest petitions in 2016. In February 2018, the Islamabad High
Court announced its verdict on the case, declaring network
disconnections as illegal. The judgement is challenged by PTA in the
court, however, it is a precedence for the region and other parts of the
world. Keeping the momentum on and further opening up the debate in
Pakistan, we believe these roundtables will provide forum for all
stakeholders to break their silence on the important issue.

Following is the concept note of the roundtable where MoITT, PTA,
telecos, civil society, media and lawyer community is participating.

Best,


Haroon Baloch,
Program Manager, Bytes for All, Pakistan
Email: haroon at bytesforall.pk

*Business, Human Rights & Consumer Protections - Network Disconnections*

*The Way Forward*

* *

*CONCEPT NOTE*

 

Mobile networks facilitate peoples’ economic activities and exercise of
their fundamental rights including freedom of expression, association,
access to information and emergency services for life and safety.

 

Currently, the network shutdowns are imposed on every special occasion
including the celebrations of national days and religious occasions.
While shutdowns happen in all parts of the country, in far flung areas
of the country, such as Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA),
Gilgit-Baltistan and Balochistan, these disconnections are quite
frequent and seldom reported in the media. It is an important aspect of
the shutdowns that they exacerbate the isolation of marginalized communities

 

We understand that it is the high time to carry forward the debate on
this important issue of peoples’ interest within circles of relevant
stakeholders and come up with a possible mutually beneficial strategy to
effectively safeguard citizens’ rights and civil liberties.

 

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) declared the mobile network shutdowns and
suspension of internet services in Pakistan as /illegal /vide its
decision on/FAO No. 42 of 2016 /and numerous connected writ petitions on
February 25, 2018. The decision is being challenged by the Pakistan
Telecommunication Authority (PTA) and the Ministry of Information
Technology & Telecommunications (MoITT).

 

This decision by IHC is a major breakthrough in the global struggle
against arbitrary network shutdown by the governments depriving the
citizens from the telecommunication services.

 

In this particular case, the honorable judge, Justice Athar Minallah in
his detailed judgement interpreted Pakistan Telecommunication
(re-organization) Act, 1996’s Section 54(3) as the only provision
available in the law for the state to suspend networks and it is only
possible when the President of Pakistan would proclaim emergency.

 

A division bench at the Islamabad High Court has granted interim stay
order to the authorities to suspend the networks for the time being,
especially, in the context of celebrations of Pakistan Day on March 23,
2018.

 

In this connection, National Commission for Human Rights (NCHR) in
collaboration with Bytes For All, Pakistan taking lead to organize a
roundtable with multi-stakeholder participation on network shutdowns,
including telecom businesses, lawyers, media, and civil society. This
will provide an opportunity to take stock of the current situation and
chalk out a way forward.

 

Proposed Date:            April 05, 2018

Time:                           1500-1700 hours

Venue:                         Conference Rooms of National Commission
for Human Rights

                                    Evacuee Trust, Islamabad

 

*Proposed Program:*

* *

1500-1510

	

Welcome by the Chair

	

Chairman/Member, National Commission for Human Rights

1510-1525

	

Round of Introductions

	

Chair

1525-1545

	

Overview of IHC judgement

	

Advocate Umer Ejaz Gilani

1545-1630

	

Interactive Dialogue

	

Moderated by the Chair

1630-1645

	

Concluding remarks

	

By the chair

* *

 

-- 
*Haroon Baloch* | Program Manager
Bytes for All, Pakistan | www.bytesforall.pk

Email: haroon at bytesforall.pk | Cell: 0092-321-5196707
Twitter: @advertbalcha | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hbaloch83

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180404/017cdb32/attachment.htm>

From amritachoudhury8 at gmail.com  Fri Apr  6 03:59:01 2018
From: amritachoudhury8 at gmail.com (Amrita)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 13:29:01 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Read about IG Events & Policy developments from the
 Indian perspective @CCAOI March, 2018 Newsletter
Message-ID: <017f01d3cd7d$28a6c320$79f44960$@com>

Hi,

 

For those who may be interested, read about Internet Governance Events &
Policy developments from the Indian perspective @ CCAOI March'2018
Newsletter, using this link:
<http://www.ccaoi.in/UI/links/fwnewsletter/CCAOI%20Newsletter%20March%202018
.pdf>
http://www.ccaoi.in/UI/links/fwnewsletter/CCAOI%20Newsletter%20March%202018.
pdf

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Amrita Choudhury

CCAOI

India

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180406/d53e1013/attachment.htm>

From maryant.fernandez-perez at edri.org  Mon Apr 16 08:45:16 2018
From: maryant.fernandez-perez at edri.org (Maryant Fernandez Perez)
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 14:45:16 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] EDRi is looking for an Executive Director
Message-ID: <f60e209a-aa8d-a8fe-abc0-4ed562273f2d@edri.org>

Dear all,

European Digital Rights (EDRi) is hiring! We are looking for an
Executive Director:
https://edri.org/looking-new-executive-director/

Please, consider applying or sharing it with people who could take EDRi
to the next level.
N.B.: This position does *not*require specific knowledge about digital
rights.

The deadline to apply is 3 June 2018.

Many thanks and best regards,
Maryant

-- 
Maryant Fernandez Perez 
Senior Policy Advisor
European Digital Rights
https://edri.org
@edri | @maryantfp
+32 2 274 25 70
12 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels
PGP: D59A 1D3F 50CC 231B DCFE 3F2C 92FA 6F29 3D74 0B42

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20180416/adf759b8/attachment.htm>