From nigidaad at gmail.com Thu Feb 1 05:09:07 2018 From: nigidaad at gmail.com (Nighat Dad) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 15:09:07 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Digital (In)security of Journalists in Pakistan Message-ID: Dear all, I hope you're well. Digital Rights Foundation has launched its new report titled "Digital (in)security of Journalists in Pakistan" which explores the levels of digital threats that journalists face, records their experiences of online insecurity, and concludes what protections they desire from the journalists community, their respective media organisations, and the government. The report points at the appalling condition of online harassment and the sense of discomfort that journalists face while being online because of their work. It finds that 78% of the respondents of the survey had experienced some form of online threat or harassment; 92% respondents think that online harassment is really common; 45.5% of them thought that online insecurity resulted in them self-censoring themselves; and 56% of them think that online insecurity is tied with their physical safety. In the light of stats collected from the working journalists, the DRF put forward some recommendations that the journalists can benefit from if they are implemented. The report can be accessed here: https://digitalrightsfou ndation.pk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Report-Digi-Insecurity-of-Journos.pdf The report is the effort of the team of Digital Rights Foundation which was only possible by the support of our good friends at Free Press Unlimited, the team of the DRF's Network of Female Journalists for Online Safety which helped us in connecting with the journalists, and of course all the Pakistani journalists who took part in our research. With this report, we aim to make the working conditions of the journalists in Pakistan better and their online activities secure because we believe that all that we do in the digital rights community wouldn't have been as impactful as it is had our journalist friends and colleagues wouldn't have dispensed their time and energy in reporting unbiased news and helped us in spreading the world beyond. Best, Nighat Dad Digital Rights Foundation -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gus at publicknowledge.org Fri Feb 2 12:07:57 2018 From: gus at publicknowledge.org (Gus Rossi) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 12:07:57 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] ICYMI Second Public Consultation on the draft ITU Strategic Plan for 2020-2023 Message-ID: It would be great to have many contributions: itu.int https://www.itu.int/en/council/CWG-SFP-2020-2023/Pages/second-public-consultation.aspx Second Public Consultation on the draft ITU Strategic Plan for 2020-2023 1-2 minutes ------------------------------ The Council Group for the elaboration of the Strategic Plan and Financial Plan for the Union for 2020–2023 (CWG-SFP ) has developed, during its first 3 meetings from May 2017 to January 2018, a draft ITU Strategic Plan 2020-2023, and decided to hold a public and open consultation on the draft text of this plan. Please provide your input, suggestions and feedback to the following elements of the preliminary draft of the ITU Strategic Plan for 2020-2023: 1. Proposed ITU strategic framework: i) Vision, ii) Mission, iii) Values, iv) Strategic Goals, v) Targets, and vi) Strategic Risk Management 2. Proposed ITU results framework: Objectives, Outcomes and Outputs / Enablers 3. Linkage with the WSIS Action Lines and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 4. Implementation and evaluation of the Strategic Plan Please submit your contributions to the consultation by usig the form *"Submit your views"* in the right side, or by email to the ITU Secretariat at strategy at itu.int . T*he closing date for contributions is* * March 16, 2018* *.* ---- # # # # • # # # # *Gus Rossi* Global Policy Director (202) 861-0020 (x123) | (202) 651 1337 (mobile) | @agustinrs *Public Knowledge* | @publicknowledge | www.publicknowledge.org 1818 N St. NW, Suite 410 | Washington, DC 20036 | CFC 12259 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bzs at theworld.com Fri Feb 2 13:35:48 2018 From: bzs at theworld.com (bzs at theworld.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 13:35:48 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] UN Working Group considering mechanisms for global governance of Internet fails In-Reply-To: <9FE7D492-E093-4687-B6D1-A0F4BC3470EA@hserus.net> References: <241dd309-66ea-49f3-054f-aaed94536dab@gmail.com> <76282711-caa3-7846-ee88-f4cf0985e714@gmail.com> <2E5535D4-07DA-417C-AC19-BBCA8E2399D4@hserus.net> <9FE7D492-E093-4687-B6D1-A0F4BC3470EA@hserus.net> Message-ID: <23156.44932.696381.339764@gargle.gargle.HOWL> For years I'd go to ICANN meetings and ask people building all these castles in the sky "so, what are you going to do when the adults show up?" I'd either get blank looks or "what do you mean by 'adults'?" And I'd say like people who actually have armies at their disposal, or heads (or their direct representatives) of multibillion dollar telecom companies rather than what I see here, mostly a ragtag bunch of well-meaning unpaid volunteers spending a lot of their time and energy fighting over some travel budget. If there's actually anything here worth fighting for, and no doubt some of you feel strongly that there is, it's probably long overdue to worry less about the issues, you mostly agree except perhaps on some fine points, and more about how or why you would possibly get a seat at the adults' table. Otherwise this is likely to degenerate into nothing more than yet another mutual admiration society of little consequence. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* From sheetal at gp-digital.org Mon Feb 5 06:10:26 2018 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 11:10:26 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expression of interest: ICDPPC 40th Conference Advisory Board In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, As an update, the deadline for this call to the ICDPPC's 40th Conference Advisory Board has been extended to COB Friday 09 February. You can also send the application directly to the EDPS, and I've revised the text in the call below to reflect that. Best Sheetal. ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------- *The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) will co-host the 40th edition of the International Conference of Data Protection Commissioners (ICDPPC) in Brussels from 22-26 October. They are seeking someone from a civil society organisation based in a non-WEOG region to sit on an advisory board for the upcoming ICDPPC. The description of the role requires that the person:* - *Be able to dedicate time to liaison and communication with the organizers of ICDPPC (EDPS, CNIL, Bulgarian DPA) * - *Knowledge about data protection and privacy (and/or currently working for a digital rights NGO that also covers these topics)* * - Ideally be available to attend the Conference in Brussels in October (22-26) - Be available to dedicate at least an hour per week to the role (and possibly more on an ad-hoc basis) from February-end of the Conference (October 26) * * Anyone interested in applying should send an email stating their interest and a short summary of their background, their organisation, their work on data protection and their knowledge of the tasks at hand to sheetal at gp-digital.org and fanny at accessnow.org by COB 09 February.* *All names will be forwarded to the EDPS for consideration. Alternatively, you can send the application directly to the EDPS via Mr Ernani Francesco Cerasaro: ernani.cerasaro at edps.europa.eu . If you are sending the application on Friday 09 February, it is advised you send it directly to the EDPS. * On 30 January 2018 at 18:24, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > [With apologies for cross-posting] - in case of interest please find below > information regarding an advisory board position which will assist the > organisers of the International Conference of Data Protection > Commissioners (ICDPPC) with preparations for the upcoming > edition of the Conference > this > year. > > I previously shared a joint civil society letter to the organisers of the > Conference and canvassed signatures on this list (prior to the 39th edition > of the Conference in Hong Kong). Thanks to everyone who added their > support. The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) issued a direct > response in December 2017 and it can be found by following the link > provided here: https://www.europa-nu.nl/id/vkkb6v79c1z3/nieuws/open_ > letter_to_the_global_civil_society?ctx=vhsih95vppua&tab=0 > > Best > Sheetal. > ------------------------------------------------------------ > --------------------------------------------------- > > *The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) will co-host the 40th > edition of the International Conference of Data Protection Commissioners > (ICDPPC) in Brussels from 22-26 October. They are seeking someone from a > civil society organisation based in a non-WEOG region > to sit on an advisory > board for the upcoming ICDPPC. The description of the role requires that > the person:* > > - *Be able to dedicate time to liaison and communication with the > organizers of ICDPPC (EDPS, CNIL, Bulgarian DPA) * > - *Knowledge about data protection and privacy (and/or currently > working for a digital rights NGO that also covers these topics)* > > * - Ideally be available to attend the Conference in Brussels in October > (22-26) - Be available to dedicate at least an hour per week to the role > (and possibly more on an ad-hoc basis) from February-end of the Conference > (October 26) * > > * Anyone interested in applying should send an email stating their > interest and a short summary of their background, their organisation, their > work on data protection and their knowledge of the tasks at hand to > sheetal at gp-digital.org and fanny at accessnow.org > by COB 02 February. All names will be forwarded to > the EDPS for consideration.* > > > -- > *Sheetal Kumar* > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258 0337| M: +44 (0)7739569514 <+44%207739%20569514> | > > PGP ID: AAEDBF8AFE87EF53 | PGP Fingerprint: 9CD3 46A5 21A1 DFD9 FDD0 > 457D AAED BF8A FE87 EF53 | > > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258 0337| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: AAEDBF8AFE87EF53 | PGP Fingerprint: 9CD3 46A5 21A1 DFD9 FDD0 457D AAED BF8A FE87 EF53 | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Mon Feb 5 11:07:50 2018 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 16:07:50 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] OHCHR expert workshop on the right to privacy in the digital age (19-20 February) Message-ID: Dear all, [With apologies for cross-posting] In case of interest, following HRC Resolution 34/7, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is organising a workshop with the purpose of identifying and clarifying principles, standards and best practices regarding the promotion and protection of the right to privacy in the digital age from 19-20 February. Further information including the concept note and the programme of work which has just been published is available via the link below: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/DigitalAge/Pages/DigitalAgePrivacyWorkhop.aspx The registration is open to all but participants will need to cover their own costs to attend should their registration be successful. The event will be webcast . 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: From mehwish at article19.org Mon Feb 5 12:44:43 2018 From: mehwish at article19.org (Mehwish Ansari) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 12:44:43 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Call for Applications: Internet of Rights Fellowship 2018 Message-ID: <28e2f901-ee7e-9de6-cf60-6439503631ed@article19.org> Hi everyone, Please find attached ARTICLE 19's call for applications to the Internet of Rights Fellowship for the 2018 cycle. The program includes three tracks on access, algorithmic decision-making, and the DNS; as such, fellows will have the opportunity to work with us in the ITU-D, the IEEE and the Partnership on AI, and ICANN. The deadline for applications is Friday, February 23. Any questions should be directed to fellowship at article19.org. Thanks! Mehwish -- Mehwish Ansari Digital Programme ARTICLE 19 www.article19.org PGP Fingerprint C502 CF43 EEE3 4C8D 0976 C5F3 CE71 E459 F6CF A79F -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Call_InternetOfRights_A19-2018.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 64639 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From amritachoudhury8 at gmail.com Tue Feb 6 01:17:36 2018 From: amritachoudhury8 at gmail.com (Amrita) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 11:47:36 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Internet Governance Developments in January 2018 Message-ID: <084101d39f12$31948100$94bd8300$@com> Hi For those who are interested, you can read about Internet Governance Events & Policy Developments in January, 2018, from the Indian Perspective, curated by CCAOI using this link . Regards, Amrita Choudhury Director CCAOI -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daveb at dslprime.com Fri Feb 9 14:13:41 2018 From: daveb at dslprime.com (Dave Burstein) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 14:13:41 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] UN Working Group considering mechanisms for global governance of Internet fails In-Reply-To: References: <241dd309-66ea-49f3-054f-aaed94536dab@gmail.com> <76282711-caa3-7846-ee88-f4cf0985e714@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > Dave: > > If you think Parminder fears government involvement you are deeply > confused and deeply out of touch with the real politics of Internet > governance. > > > ​Milton - I'd go offlist since I write so much but you sent this to the lists. I was writing carelessly when I said anything about Parminder's point of view, which I actually don't know in any depth. I was being polite and responding to his email. The thing of substance I was saying​ had two parts. "I'm sure folks like Vint Cerf support "multistakeholder" and "consensus" for honorable fear of governments." is meant exactly as it reads, and corresponds to what I said in an ISOC discussion of similar (where I also included Kathy Brown.) Vint had objected to my saying ISOC & ICANN excluding ~ half the Internet was an issue that needed to be fixed. But I don't believe Vint, etc. are taking that position to defend massive international surveillance. I do not attribute to Vint & others what I do believe is true of the U.S. government position for "multistakeholder" etc. I Larry Strickling at WCIT said to me, as I included in the note, "Dave, do you want Russia and China running the Internet." I do, actually, alongside other nations. China is now 1/3rd of the Internet. A system that excludes them is unstable. (See the board of ICANN or ISOC.) As I predicted, what's happening is the excluded are building their alternate institutions: BRICs agreements, World Internet Conference, Belt & Road extending to Europe and Africa, Russia's alternate root. http://netpolicynews.com/index.php/component/content/article/89-r/941- russia-orders-alternate-internet-system Which was in context here, because the debate over "enhance cooperation" is a reflection of the disagreement about government roles. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From raquino at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 19:05:49 2018 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 21:05:49 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] IGF2018 1st Open Consultations and MAG Meeting at WSIS Message-ID: Hi all Following important information on IGF2018 Open Consultation is when the IGF2018 community can present their views on the event preparation, among other items. "the 1st Open Consultations and MAG meeting is scheduled for 20-22 March, it will be with the WSIS Forum."" Also from Secretariat "This year we plan to have on 19 March in the afternoon a half day MAG orientation session for new MAG members. (The full 2018 MAG will be announced in due course)." Best, Renata From gus at publicknowledge.org Tue Feb 13 11:19:54 2018 From: gus at publicknowledge.org (Gus Rossi) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 11:19:54 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Reasons to be worried about NAFTA negotiations Message-ID: Hi everyone! I wrote this short piece for TechDirt highlighting two reasons why we should be concerned about the NAFTA negotiations. The entertainment industry is arguing that Safe Harbors enable child pornography and that exceptions and limitations to copyright are unnecessary in trade agreements that mention IP. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180209/13230239199/hollywood-has-some-wild-ideas-copyright-nafta.shtml ---- # # # # • # # # # *Gus Rossi* Global Policy Director (202) 861-0020 (x123) | (202) 651 1337 (mobile) | @agustinrs *Public Knowledge* | @publicknowledge | www.publicknowledge.org 1818 N St. NW, Suite 410 | Washington, DC 20036 | CFC 12259 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cherifhamid66 at gmail.com Wed Feb 14 07:04:13 2018 From: cherifhamid66 at gmail.com (CHERIF HAMID) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 13:04:13 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] information Message-ID: Dear Renate thank you for this information, i want to notificated my greatfully at you and also my wish to partcipe in meeting. thaks Renate -- AL CHERIF HAMID MAHAMT ENSEIGNENT- CHERCHEUR / INSTA DOCTORANT PhD en BIOLOGIES DES ORGANISMES ANIMAUX Tel : 66 27 43 62 / 99 94 68 67 INSTITUT NATIONAL SUPÉRIEUR DES SCIENCES TECHNOLOGIE D' ABÉCHÉ BP : 130 ABÉCHÉ (TCHAD) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rysiek at hackerspace.pl Thu Feb 1 05:15:54 2018 From: rysiek at hackerspace.pl (rysiek) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 11:15:54 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Digital (In)security of Journalists in Pakistan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2563577.fIZ4c0UdVk@lapuntu> Dear Nighat, thank you for this, as it's very much relevant to my current work -- I work at OCCRP[1] as the information security person and face similar challenges. I'll dig-into te report. Perhaps it makes sense to exchange experiences? [1] https://www.occrp.org/ Dnia Thursday, February 1, 2018 11:09:07 AM CET Nighat Dad pisze: > Dear all, > > I hope you're well. > > Digital Rights Foundation has launched its new report titled "Digital > (in)security of Journalists in Pakistan" which explores the levels of > digital threats that journalists face, records their experiences of online > insecurity, and concludes what protections they desire from the journalists > community, their respective media organisations, and the government. > > The report points at the appalling condition of online harassment and the > sense of discomfort that journalists face while being online because of > their work. It finds that 78% of the respondents of the survey had > experienced some form of online threat or harassment; 92% respondents think > that online harassment is really common; 45.5% of them thought that online > insecurity resulted in them self-censoring themselves; and 56% of them > think that online insecurity is tied with their physical safety. > > In the light of stats collected from the working journalists, the DRF put > forward some recommendations that the journalists can benefit from if they > are implemented. The report can be accessed here: https://digitalrightsfou > ndation.pk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Report-Digi-Insecurity-of-Journos.pdf > > The report is the effort of the team of Digital Rights Foundation which was > only possible by the support of our good friends at Free Press Unlimited, > the team of the DRF's Network of Female Journalists for Online Safety which > helped us in connecting with the journalists, and of course all the > Pakistani journalists who took part in our research. > > With this report, we aim to make the working conditions of the journalists > in Pakistan better and their online activities secure because we believe > that all that we do in the digital rights community wouldn't have been as > impactful as it is had our journalist friends and colleagues wouldn't have > dispensed their time and energy in reporting unbiased news and helped us in > spreading the world beyond. > > Best, > Nighat Dad > Digital Rights Foundation -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 931 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From yannis at registry.asia Wed Feb 14 22:34:35 2018 From: yannis at registry.asia (Yannis Li) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 11:34:35 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] APrIGF Vanuatu 2018 - Open Call for Workshop Proposals [Deadline: 18 Mar] References: <0B86652F-0B0B-4EEB-BC95-66460784BFBB@aprigf.asia> Message-ID: <2FE22688-65EF-4311-AA47-C369C8CF3D9A@registry.asia> Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum APrIGF Vanuatu 2018 13 Aug - 16 Aug 2018 Vanuatu National Convention Centre, Port Vila Open Call for Workshop Proposals/Tutorials for Capacity Building Day 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. 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 . Online Submission Form: http://aprigf.asia/news/2018/how-to-submit-a-workshop.html Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline: 18 Mar 2017 (Sun), 24:00 UTC **Kindly read through the online submission guide before you submit a proposal! If you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact the secretariat at 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 by sending in subscription request to the secretariat. We also welcome any Internet-related organisation to become a sponsor. Please contact sec at aprigf.asia for more information. Best Regards, Secretariat of APrIGF http://www.aprigf.asia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From raquino at gmail.com Sun Feb 18 17:15:31 2018 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 19:15:31 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] CFP: Tribute to Michael Gurstein and Editorial on the future of Community Informatics Message-ID: Hi Journal receives proposals until March http://www.ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej Includes a great editorial Editorial: Michael Gurstein and the future of Community Informatics PDF Eduardo Villanueva-Mansilla Best, Renata From bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Mon Feb 19 03:49:20 2018 From: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net (Arsene TUNGALI (Yahoo)" (via bestbits Mailing List) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:49:20 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [bestbits] CFP: Tribute to Michael Gurstein and Editorial on the future of Community Informatics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <615198111.1594114.1519030160015@mail.yahoo.com> I didn't know Michael passed away in October last year. My sincere condolences to those who knew him personally and those of us who only knew him virtually. He was a member of the IGC for many years. Good idea for a tribute to him ------------------------------------------------------Arsène Tungali,IGC Co-Coordinator, Co-founder & Executive Director, Rudi InternationalFacebook - Twitter - LinkedInInternet Governance - Blogger - ISOC Ambassador - ICANN Fellow - Child Online Protection Evangelist. Democratic Republic of Congo Le lundi 19 février 2018 à 00:16:22 UTC+2, Renata Aquino Ribeiro a écrit : Hi Journal receives proposals until March http://www.ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej Includes a great editorial Editorial: Michael Gurstein and the future of Community Informatics PDF Eduardo Villanueva-Mansilla Best, Renata ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmalcolm at eff.org Mon Feb 19 12:44:28 2018 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:44:28 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] CFP: Tribute to Michael Gurstein and Editorial on the future of Community Informatics In-Reply-To: <615198111.1594114.1519030160015@mail.yahoo.com> References: <615198111.1594114.1519030160015@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Michael and I had our differences, exacerbated by the fact that we are both so passionate about our advocacy, but when I first met Michael this was indeed the trait that I admired most about him. He took the initiative to arrange to meet up with me to talk about our work, in the much earlier days of the IGC and we butted heads off and on from there. I wasn't sure that the Community Informatics field would survive his passing, but it's a testament to his work that it is still going strong. He will be remembered and missed. On 19/2/18 12:49 am, "Arsene TUNGALI (Yahoo)" (via bestbits Mailing List) wrote: > I didn't know Michael passed away in October last year. My sincere > condolences to those who knew him personally and those of us who only > knew him virtually. He was a member of the IGC for many years. Good > idea for a tribute to him > > *------------------------------------------------------* > _*/Arsène Tungali,/*_ > IGC Co-Coordinator, > Co-founder & Executive Director, Rudi International > > Facebook - Twitter > -LinkedIn > > Internet Governance - Blogger - ISOC Ambassador - ICANN Fellow - Child > Online Protection Evangelist. > Democratic Republic of Congo > > > Le lundi 19 février 2018 à 00:16:22 UTC+2, Renata Aquino Ribeiro > a écrit : > > > Hi > > Journal receives proposals until March > > http://www.ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej > > Includes a great editorial > > Editorial: Michael Gurstein and the future of Community Informatics > PDF > Eduardo Villanueva-Mansilla > > Best, > > Renata > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Mon Feb 19 21:34:03 2018 From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 23:34:03 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] GCSC In-Reply-To: <5A8AC0840200008800038B79@gwia0.itz.uni-halle.de> References: <5A8AC0840200008800038B79@gwia0.itz.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <59d51d84-455b-c759-dddc-d22e9f0b7d12@riseup.net> Dear Wolfgang, many thanks for the distribution of this link. And, of course, i have something to say. The first 2 sentence defined the real dilemma: "20 years ago, Internet governance was a technical issue with some political implications. Today, Internet governance is a key political issue with some technical components." I remember for the text: Internet Fragmentation: An Overview Vint Cerf, William Drake and you, Wolfgang Kleinwaechter http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_FII_Internet_Fragmentation_An_Overview_2016.pdf "From a technical standpoint, the original shared vision guiding the Internet’s development was that every device on the Internet should be able to exchange data packets with any other device that was willing to receive them." But short after, you write: "The rebalancing of power within the Internet governance ecosystem pushes for innovative approaches to global Internet related public policy making and for enhanced cooperation among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders as well as for a closer collaboration among code makers and law makers, both nationally and globally. I think, this strategy is wrong. We have to accept the real interests. The people on our planet like that, what you and your friends wrote in "Internet Fragmentation". The private companies and sectors and the state institutions and sectors don't like this. You speak about "rebalancing of power within the Internet governance ecosystem". It is the result of understanding of this groups, how important is the telecommunication in form of a Internet. Therefore, they start to dominate more and more this field. And think about ISOC, Internet Society. It is a pure "directory board" driven organisation. And it is clear, they go in this direction, from where the money come. IGF (Internet Governance Forum) have more member participation, but not really. "The Internet governance working definition, which was adopted by the UN World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Tunis 2005, has singled out “governments, private sector and civil society“ as the main stakeholders. Today, the technical academic community is seen as a fourth key stakeholder." I don't agree. This "technical academic community" don't exist in our real world. That are part in all 3 groups. And you have to change the priority: privat, governments and civil society. The governments work in order of the private groups and this group define the acitvity space for governments. Only the civil society can act independent. And we know, that the civil society only have the interest for implementing your basic principles in your text for the WEF. "The WSIS definition differentiates between the “development“ and the “use“ of the Internet." This is a very problematic concept and you agree with in point 2. The deloper are users and some users are developers. The core question is, for what we work. The private groups for profit, the state groups for monitoring and control, the civil society for open and free telecommunication. This basic interests define the activities. The difference is the ability to act. After this, many for me unimportant things follow. The next point is: Technical issues. But we know, there we have 2 principal different proposals. Overloaded with many unnecessary organisations or a strong organisation of telecommunication. The first is based on virtual addresses and private actors. The second is based on selforganisation from the civil society based on her interest for a free and open telecommunication with a simple and rational technical construction. "Option 4: A new independent process One could also imagine that state and non-state actors agree to establish a new independent process towards a CSCC, aimed at the elaboration of a comprehensive “Final Act on Security and Cooperation in Cyberspace“. Only the civil society can create a useful process for global cooperation. Some time ago I suggested a "World Internet Forum". The thematic parts for that are the transport layer and the application layer. The transport layer realise that, what you wrote in your text for the WEF. The application layer realise the interoperability of the data. Usually, we don't have so many questions for that. with many thanks and greetings, willi Asuncion, Paraguay -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: GCSC Datum: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 12:18:12 +0100 Von: Wolfgang Kleinwaechter An: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Kopie (CC): forum at justnetcoalition.org, governance at lists.riseup.net Hi, here is my latest piece I wrote for the Global Commission on Stability in Cyberspace https://cyberstability.org/research/thought-piece-towards-a-holistic-approach-for-internet-related-public-policy-making/ Any critical comments are welcome. Wolfgang From sheetal at gp-digital.org Tue Feb 20 06:12:29 2018 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 12:12:29 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] New podcast series on the big questions facing the digital environment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, The latest episode of In Beta, "*why do four billion people not have access to the internet**?*" is out. Please find more information about it below: *Two years on from the landmark TRAI ruling against zero rating in India, GPD's Charles Bradley talks to Sonia Jorge, Executive Director of A4AI and head of digital inclusion programmes at the Web Foundation, about the ongoing challenge of achieving universal access to the internet.* You can listen to it here: https://www.gp-digital.org/ multimedia/in-beta-episode-9-why-do-four-billion-people- not-have-access-to-the-internet-ep-9/ Best Sheetal. On 18 January 2018 at 13:49, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > The latest episode of In Beta, "*Should the tech giants of Silicon Valley > be broken up?*" is out. Please find more information about it below: > > > > > *In 1982, the Bell telecommunications monopoly in the US was broken up > after a landmark antitrust suit, ushering in a wave of innovation and > competition.Today, companies like Alphabet and Facebook are capturing an > unprecedented – and increasing – share of the world’s attention. Should we > be thinking about breaking them up, too? In episode 8 of GPD's flagship > podcast series, In beta, GPD's Executive Director Charles Bradley poses > this question to Gene Kimmelman of Public Knowledge.* > > You can listen to it here: https://www.gp-digital.org/ > multimedia/in-beta-episode-8-should-the-tech-giants-of- > silicon-valley-be-broken-up/ > > Best > Sheetal. > > On 8 November 2017 at 15:50, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Just a heads up that the latest In beta – with GPD's Lead Strategist >> Matthew Shears & Gaus of FIRST and Panasonic, who recently joined us for >> our cybersecurity policy lab – is now out: https://www.gp-digital.or >> g/multimedia/in-beta-episode-7-can-stakeholders-find-common- >> ground-on-cybersecurity/ >> >> Happy listening and please share with anyone who might be interested. >> >> Best >> Sheetal. >> >> On 29 September 2017 at 11:49, Sheetal Kumar >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> After a brief August hiatus, In beta is back. In the new episode, we >>> talk to Emma Llanso of CDT about the evolving role of intermediaries in >>> regulating online content. >>> >>> Listen here:https://www.gp-digital.org/multimedia/in-beta-episode-6 >>> -who-gets-to-decide-when-content-is-removed/ >>> >>> >>> >>> As ever we welcome your feedback! >>> >>> >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal. >>> >>> >>> On 4 July 2017 at 19:04, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Just to let you know that episode five of our In beta podcast is now >>>> live >>>> . >>>> In this episode, we examine questions of civil society sustainability in >>>> the global South with three voices from civil society and the donor >>>> community: Julie Broome, director of the Ariadne donor network; Andrew >>>> Puddephatt, executive chair of GPD’s advisory board; and Khilen Nathwani of >>>> the Kays Foundation. >>>> >>>> Listen to it here: http://www.gp-digital.or >>>> g/multimedia/in-beta-episode-5-is-civil-society-in-the-globa >>>> l-south-sustainable/ >>>> >>>> And explore the In beta series here: https://soundcloud.com/in_beta >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Sheetal. >>>> >>>> On 11 May 2017 at 17:00, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> Just in case it's of interest, episode 4 of our new podcast series >>>>> *In beta* is now live: https://soundcloud.com/i >>>>> n_beta/are-we-missing-the-bigger-picture-behind-network-disr >>>>> uptions-ep4 >>>>> >>>>> This episode, recorded at the Internet Freedom Forum in Lagos, >>>>> Nigeria, looks at the bigger picture behind network disruptions (or >>>>> internet shutdowns as they're more commonly known), with contributions from >>>>> Deji Olukotun from Access Now, Julie Owono from Internet San Frontiers and >>>>> Arthur Gwagwa from Strathmore University and the Open Technology Fund. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the positive feedback on the series so far. As ever please >>>>> feel free to share with anyone who might be interested; and let me know if >>>>> you have any questions about the series, or would like to be involved. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you! >>>>> >>>>> Best - >>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> >>>>> On 5 April 2017 at 14:28, Sheetal Kumar >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> In case of interest, episode 3 of this series *In beta* is now live: >>>>>> http://www.gp-digital.org/multimedia/in-beta-episode-3 >>>>>> -can-a-business-be-a-human-rights-defender/ >>>>>> >>>>>> *In the latest episode, GPD’s Executive Director interviews Michael >>>>>> Samway, former Vice-President and Deputy General Counsel for Yahoo! and >>>>>> current adjunct professor at Georgetown University, posing the question: >>>>>> can a business be a human rights defender?* >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the positive feedback on the series so far. As ever please >>>>>> feel free to share with anyone who might be interested! >>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 16 March 2017 at 13:12, Sheetal Kumar >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In case of interest, just a heads up that episode 2 of this series *In >>>>>>> beta* is now live: https://soundcloud.com/i >>>>>>> n_beta/in-beta-episode-2-how-should-human-rights-defenders-a >>>>>>> pproach-cybercrime >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In it, we ask, "how should human rights defenders approach >>>>>>> cybercrime"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As ever please feel free to share with anyone who might be >>>>>>> interested! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 22 February 2017 at 21:38, Mishi Choudhary < >>>>>>> mishi at softwarefreedom.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks Sheetal. Great effort! Podcast is one of my favorite content >>>>>>>> consumption tool. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 02/22/2017 12:36 PM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>>>>>> > Dear all, >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > /[with apologies for cross-posting]/ >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > I am writing to share a just launched a new podcast series >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> series-in-beta/> >>>>>>>> > – called *In beta* – which will examine some of the biggest >>>>>>>> questions >>>>>>>> > facing the digital policy environment. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Our aim in creating the series is to create an informal space for >>>>>>>> > critical discussion and debate on a range of issues, cutting >>>>>>>> across >>>>>>>> > traditional policy silos. More details on the series concept and >>>>>>>> design >>>>>>>> > are available >>>>>>>> > here: http://www.gp-digital.org/news >>>>>>>> /introducing-our-new-podcast-series-in-beta/ >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> series-in-beta/> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > The series will be hosted by GPD's executive director, Charles >>>>>>>> Bradley. >>>>>>>> > In the first episode of the series – available now, here >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> olicymaking-stuck-in-the-19th-century/> >>>>>>>> > – he interviews GovLab co-founder Stefaan Verhulst, asking the >>>>>>>> question: >>>>>>>> > *'Is policymaking stuck in the 19th century?'* >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > We'd love to know what you think about the episode and the series >>>>>>>> > concept more generally. We're planning to record many more >>>>>>>> podcasts over >>>>>>>> > the coming months, and are open to ideas – so if you'd like to >>>>>>>> suggest a >>>>>>>> > guest, a topic or a question to discuss, drop an email to >>>>>>>> > charles at gp-digital.org . >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Please don't hesitate to let us know if you have any questions. >>>>>>>> We'd >>>>>>>> > also be hugely grateful if you could share this on your networks >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> > channels – and if you have any other ideas for how we could get >>>>>>>> the word >>>>>>>> > out, please let us know. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > For reference, the links for sharing are: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > * *Blog post introducing the series and >>>>>>>> > episode*: http://www.gp-digital.org/news >>>>>>>> /introducing-our-new-podcast-series-in-beta/ >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -series-in-beta/> >>>>>>>> > * *The episode >>>>>>>> > itself*: http://www.gp-digital.org/mult >>>>>>>> imedia/in-beta-episode-1-is-policymaking-stuck-in-the-19th-century/ >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> policymaking-stuck-in-the-19th-century/> >>>>>>>> > * *GPD's Soundcloud >>>>>>>> > page*: https://soundcloud.com/globalpartnersdigital >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > *Suggested tweets: * >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > A new podcast series, In beta, examines the big questions facing >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> > digital environment. Find out >>>>>>>> > more: http://www.gp-digital.org/news >>>>>>>> /introducing-our-new-podcast-series-in-beta/ >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> series-in-beta/> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Is policymaking stuck in the 19th century? A new podcast with >>>>>>>> > @CBradleyTweets and @sverhulst explores the >>>>>>>> > question: http://www.gp-digital.org/mult >>>>>>>> imedia/in-beta-episode-1-is-policymaking-stuck-in-the-19th-century/ >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> olicymaking-stuck-in-the-19th-century/> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Best! >>>>>>>> > Sheetal. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>>> > * >>>>>>>> > * >>>>>>>> > * >>>>>>>> > * >>>>>>>> > *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>>>> > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>> > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>> > T: +44 (0)203 818 3258 0337| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Warm Regards >>>>>>>> Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >>>>>>>> Legal Director >>>>>>>> Software Freedom Law Center >>>>>>>> 1995 Broadway Floor 17| New York, NY-10023 >>>>>>>> Direct: +1-212-461-1912| Main: +1-212-461-1901| Fax: >>>>>>>> +1-212-580-0898 >>>>>>>> www.softwarefreedom.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> President and Legal Director >>>>>>>> SFLC.IN >>>>>>>> K-9, Second Floor, Jangpura Extn.| New Delhi-110014 >>>>>>>> Main: +91-11-43587126 | Fax: +91-11-24323530 >>>>>>>> www.sflc.in >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The information contained in this email message is intended only >>>>>>>> for use >>>>>>>> of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this >>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>> is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that >>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>> dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is >>>>>>>> strictly >>>>>>>> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please >>>>>>>> immediately notify us by email, help at softwarefreedom.org, and >>>>>>>> destroy >>>>>>>> the original message. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258 0337| M: +44 (0)7739569514 >>>>>>> <+44%207739%20569514> | >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258 0337| M: +44 (0)7739569514 >>>>>> <+44%207739%20569514> | >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258 0337| M: +44 (0)7739569514 >>>>> <+44%207739%20569514> | >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258 0337| M: +44 (0)7739569514 >>>> <+44%207739%20569514> | >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258 0337| M: +44 (0)7739569514 <+44%207739%20569514> | >>> >>> PGP ID: AAEDBF8AFE87EF53 | PGP Fingerprint: 9CD3 46A5 21A1 DFD9 FDD0 >>> 457D AAED BF8A FE87 EF53 | >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258 0337| M: +44 (0)7739569514 <+44%207739%20569514> | >> >> PGP ID: AAEDBF8AFE87EF53 | PGP Fingerprint: 9CD3 46A5 21A1 DFD9 FDD0 >> 457D AAED BF8A FE87 EF53 | >> >> > > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258 0337| M: +44 (0)7739569514 <+44%207739%20569514> | > > PGP ID: AAEDBF8AFE87EF53 | PGP Fingerprint: 9CD3 46A5 21A1 DFD9 FDD0 > 457D AAED BF8A FE87 EF53 | > > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258 0337| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: AAEDBF8AFE87EF53 | PGP Fingerprint: 9CD3 46A5 21A1 DFD9 FDD0 457D AAED BF8A FE87 EF53 | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saragtti at gmail.com Tue Feb 20 15:55:44 2018 From: saragtti at gmail.com (Sara Fratti) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 14:55:44 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] Tweetchat for the International Women's Day Message-ID: Hello, As part of the activities that the SIG Women are going to do for International Women's Day on March 8, we invite you to participate in a Tweetchat about gender gap, challenges and initiatives of women in tech, for an hour we are going to share different perspectives. If you are interested in participate, you can send my your twitter handle and follow the hashtags: #WomensInternet y #WomensDay. Soon we will share more details. Regards, *Sara Fratti* LAC Lead -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saragtti at gmail.com Tue Feb 20 18:15:40 2018 From: saragtti at gmail.com (Sara Fratti) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 17:15:40 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] Tweetchat for the International Women's Day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: PS. For those who want to know more about the SIG Women is an Internet Society ’s Special Interest Group, we have as main interest to work on women empowerment in technology issues. It seeks to be a neutral space for projects, initiatives, and stakeholders that advocate for greater inclusion of women in technology and contribute to gender equality in the field. You can *join* the SIG Women following the next steps: 1. Go to https://portal.isoc.org/ 2. If you don’t have an account, you need to sign up. 3. Go to the option: “*My chapters*”. 4. Click on “*Join a Chapter*”. 5. Search and select “*SIG Women*” 6. Soon we are going to contact you. Follow us on social media: Facebook /SIGWomenISOC Twitter @SIGWomenISOC Let us know if you have any trouble or questions through our mail: sigwomenisoc at gmail.com Regards, 2018-02-20 14:55 GMT-06:00 Sara Fratti : > Hello, > > As part of the activities that the SIG Women > are going to do for International > Women's Day on March 8, we invite you to participate in a Tweetchat about > gender gap, challenges and initiatives of women in tech, for an hour we are > going to share different perspectives. > > If you are interested in participate, you can send my your twitter handle > and follow the hashtags: #WomensInternet y #WomensDay. > > Soon we will share more details. > > Regards, > > > *Sara Fratti* > > LAC Lead > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From renata.avila at webfoundation.org Thu Feb 22 11:54:33 2018 From: renata.avila at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:54:33 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] New Research Projects by The Web Foundation! Message-ID: <4212C3DB-590D-4B06-857E-84FB58B4F6F2@webfoundation.org> Hi everyone! I wanted to share with all of you our new research projects at the Web Foundation: from algorithms used by governments to political advertising and data protection and beyond! 1. Let us know if you are interested in learning more about them - collaborating (I am leading the one on political marketing but happy to connect you with my colleagues. 2. Please share if you are working on similar areas, let’s share methodologies to increase quality and impact! Here the link: https://webfoundation.org/2018/02/understanding-the-technologies-shaping-us-so-we-can-shape-them/ Here a summary: Here are the four questions we want to answer: How are governments using algorithms in public policy and decision making? The spread of connected devices, the rise of ‘big data’, and expanding processing power have ushered artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithms into the mainstream. Today governments — armed with volumes of public data — are using AI systems to automate decision processes and deliver services. Done well, these tools can improve public services and government responsiveness, but they can also lead to poor decision-making and discrimination. This research will map the initiatives being pursued by governments in half a dozen countries. We’ll look at a number of factors including the companies partnering with governments; the underlying variables and statistical models being used for decision making, and whether or not the inputs of these systems are publicly available and the outcomes are explainable. In short, are these tools being used in a way that will improve public services and benefit citizens? Our goal is not only to advance our understanding of AI in the public sector, but to examine how transparent governments are being with these projects, and encourage them to open these tools up for scrutiny so that the public can be sure they are benefiting from these technologies. Partners: Local Development Research Institute (LDRI), Africa Latin American Open Data Initiative (ILDA), Latin America How is your personal data being used in political advertising? The rules that governed elections in the 20th century are not fit for purpose in the 21st. Our electoral regulations are not equipped to monitor the sophisticated industry that has risen to package and sell voter data, and conduct highly targeted online ad campaigns. While we were once able to observe the messages that campaigns promoted, and who saw them, today we’re in the dark. There will be up to 16 national elections in Latin America this year. Many of the region’s countries have outdated data protection laws and relaxed implementation, creating a ripe environment for the kind of unaccountable targeting of political ads that have undermined the integrity of elections elsewhere. We will scope the state of targeted political advertising in a country in the region with an upcoming general election, looking at the companies providing these services, their working methods, and the underlying data they’re using to build campaigns. We hope this research will help electoral authorities and civil rights organisations better understand the challenges of data protection and electoral integrity, and will help us move towards reformed electoral standards that are fit for 21st Century democracies. Partners: Transparency Toolkit A number of local technology journalists and transparency activists How do teenage social media users understand privacy trade-offs? Technology should be empowering and yet we have little say over the terms of engagement with the companies that build our online services. As a result, most people have just a basic understanding of how their data is used — we tick, click and hope for the best. The lack of power over personal data is particularly troubling in developing countries where people accessing the internet for the first time typically do so through mobile devices, often forfeiting their personal data to social media apps and other closed platforms. This project will look at how teenagers in Indonesia, the Philippines and Kenya use social media, how they understand the privacy implications of using these services, and what steps they take, if any, to protect themselves and their privacy online. Research shows that teens use social media at higher levels than other age groups and are exposed to a number of risks online, and so it’s important that we understand their relationship with privacy. Ultimately we want people to be in control of their personal data and ensure it’s being used in ways that benefit them. The findings of this project will help us to design interventions to help people take control of their digital lives and move us closer to our vision of a technologically empowered citizenry. Partners: Center for Innovation Policy and Governance, Indonesia Step Up Consulting, Philippines Leo Mutuko, Kenya How is open data working for women in Africa? We strongly believe that open data is about more than just innovation — it’s also about giving people tools to improve their communities and hold leaders to account. And while all people should benefit from open data, our Open Data Barometer has uncovered a ‘sexist data crisis’. As well as a lack of gender-disaggregated data, women are less likely to be consulted on the design of data policies, are underrepresented among the ranks of data scientists and are often uncounted in official statistics. To ensure open data works for all, we need to work towards data equity. This study will map stakeholders and open data policies in Cote d’Ivoire, Nigeria, Cameroon, Uganda, and South Africa in order to understand how gender data is treated in these countries. We’ll look at which access to information and gender equality principles are included in legislation, whether countries have open data policies — and if those policies specifically address gender. We will also examine how data is captured and the extent to which it is gender disaggregated, and observe how women use budget, contracting, and spending datasets. With this research, we aim to open up a conversation on the current state of gender and government data and to provide case studies and recommendations for how it can be improved. Partners: Open Data Durban, South Africa Women of Uganda Network, Uganda Afroleadership, Cameroon BudgIT, Nigeria OVillage, Côte d’Ivoire -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nigidaad at gmail.com Mon Feb 26 01:40:48 2018 From: nigidaad at gmail.com (Nighat Dad) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:40:48 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Mobile network shutdown declared illegal in Pakistan Message-ID: Just received the message below from Advocate Umer Gillani who filed ​a​ petition ​ against mobile network shutdowns​ in Islamabad High Court. "A bit of good news. Just an hour ago, the Islamabad High Court has allowed the petitions filed by 4 public interest petitioners against mobile network shutdowns. The shutdowns have been declared as illegal being contrary to the provisions of Section 54 of the PTA Act which states that the government can exercise this drastic power only when a Proclamation of Emergency has been issued - which has happened only a couple of times in our history. In all other circumstance, the shutdowns are illegal. The ruling, being against PTA and Federal Government, would be applicable all over Pakistan. While we expect an appeal, this is nonetheless a great victory for digital rights in the context of present day Pakistan. The order was announced by Justice Ather Minallah today. We have applied for a copy of the detailed judgment which should be . Once we have the detailed judgment, it would be helpful to sit and discuss this" Best, Nighat Dad Digital Rights Foundation -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Feb 1 10:08:40 2018 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 20:38:40 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] WGEC fails to give any recommendation In-Reply-To: <241dd309-66ea-49f3-054f-aaed94536dab@gmail.com> References: <241dd309-66ea-49f3-054f-aaed94536dab@gmail.com> Message-ID: <49468b0d-7405-8f4b-7dbe-4ce958538932@itforchange.net> The UN General Assembly mandated Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (on international Internet related public policies) which was tasked to develop institutional means for appropriate governance of the global Internet folded up yesterday after 4 years of work ( 2 years each of two versions) without making any recommendation. I wrote the following email to the group that lays out how I see the group's work, especially its failure to come up with any recommendation... parminder -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: thanks, goodbye, and a few reflections on WGEC Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 19:22:35 +0530 From: parminder To: CSTD-WGEC at unctad.org , stdev Dear All As the two years of WGEC end (4 for me, continuing from the last WGEC), one departs with a lot of learning, growth and good memoires. Thank you all for being a part of it. I wish to say farewell to all, till we meet again! On the work side: after a night’s sleep over it, this is what I feel about the WGEC’s work. There were promising exciting moments in the last hours. If these could have come earlier it might just have been possible for us to have made some progress. But then, unfortunately, they did not. In the end, my summative assessment is as follows. It would have been nice to have had a report, but it is more truthful that there isnt one. That is the true reflection of the state of affairs. And while we have responsibilities to ourselves and to the group of nice-ness and collegiality, there is a much higher responsibility of telling the undiluted truth to the global public. And the truth is that on the matter of how public governance of the global Internet and the digital phenomenon should be undertaken in the UN, we today are even more apart then we were even at the WSIS. A good proof of it comes from examining what was the central piece of the excitement of the last hours yesterday (an excitement, I admit, I shared in the room at that time.). At Tunis, the global community could agree that (1) the current mechanisms of global public governance of the Internet were inadequate ( Tunis Agenda, para 60), and (2) urgent further work is needed that “could envisage creation of a suitable framework or mechanisms…” ( para 61). Seventeen years after WSIS, when theInternet/ digital has transformed the world beyond what anyone could haveimaginedin Tunis, and there are unthinkably monumental governance needs and challenges, a weak formulation that we can continue to consider “the possibility of new [institutional approaches]” was offered as the “big” (and the only) carrot. That too only in the last few hours. And then is was quickly withdrawn, seeminglyin exchange of putting, in a portion of the report that mentioned“the keyissues discussed” (and of course non agreed ), a para or two each of the two key divergent positions on the need fornew institutional development. This would just have been a factual statement of what actually got presented and discussed, but not agreed.While I myself shared in the excited possibility of us getting some agreement somehow, it is evident that this was much less that what the Tunis Agenda already mentions. Although it is admittedlybetter that what has evergot into the texts since then, which was why some of us wereready to take it, until the offer got withdrawn. This is where the negotiations collapsed, as time was in any case not on our side. A “no report” therefore conveys the fact of the matter more truthfully to our constituents that a report that, apologies the for dismissive tone, but, honestly, largely said things to the effect that “people in the world should be more honest and friendly”. Would such a reporthave representedprogress? Not in my view. It would more likely have been a smoke screen of seemingprogress on the subject, for some unnecessary months or years, which would have onlyretardedurgent consideration of this most important global public policy imperative, whichis required right now. We are already late in fact. So rather than rue that we could not agree to some weak and largely meaningless report regardinghow global public governance of the Internet (and the digital phenomenon) should be done, let us be satisfied that we put inour best efforts to converge, and then honestly we let the world know that there does notyet exist the political will to develop appropriate global mechanismsof public governance of the Internet. Even in tragedy, honestly serves better that superfluous make-believes thatcould elevate one’sspirits temporarily. Thepublic interest is served best by stating the actual fact, and we did that by the act of “no report”. I much thank Amb Benedicto for his exceptionally patient, inclusive and capable handling of a very difficult discussion. Special kudos for the secretariat for providing high quality professional helpthat never slipped, which letour work go on sosmoothly. And a warm thanks and goodbye to all members. Best regards parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Mon Feb 26 02:10:42 2018 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (shahzad ahmad) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 12:10:42 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] SUCCESS! Fwd: Mobile Network Shutdowns declared Illegal References: Message-ID: <232A2BDA-62FB-45F5-9725-682BDD67B926@bytesforall.pk> Dear Colleagues, This is the most wonderful news in days and a great victory for the digital rights movement. Yet again, it proves that how Research can bring wonderful policy changes that we all are striving for. Umer cced is a young brilliant lawyer based in Islamabad and he took this initiative at his own based on the following published research. https://www.bytesforall.pk/publication/network-shutdowns-pakistan We are extremely thankful for all the great work by Umer and his team for taking this up in the court. Thanks are also due to Dr. Lucy Purdon and Dr. Ben Wagner for their amazing timely work and helping us conduct this research in Pakistan. Also copying Salil Bhai at IHRB, who was great help and support as always. We look forward to your advice on how to take this forward. Best wishes and regards Shahzad -- Shahzad Ahmad Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 Begin forwarded message: From: Umer Gilani Subject: Mobile Network Shutdowns declared Illegal Date: February 26, 2018 at 10:37:29 AM GMT+5 To: shahzad ahmad Cc: Haroon Baloch , tehmina Dear Shahzad sahib Just an hour ago, the Islamabad High Court has allowed the petitions filed by public interest petitioner against mobile network shutdowns. The shutdowns have been declared as illegal being contrary to the provisions of Section 54 of the PTA Act which states that the government can exercise this drastic power only when a Proclamation of Emergency has been issued - which has happened only a couple of times in our history. In all other circumstance, the shutdowns are illegal. The ruling, being against PTA and Federal Government, would be applicable all over Pakistan. While we expect an appeal, this is nonetheless a great victory for digital rights in the context of present day Pakistan. We have applied for a copy of the detailed judgment. Once we have the detailed judgment, it would be helpful to arrange a round-table of the sort we discussed when we last met. Regards, Umer Gilani, LLM (Washington), BA-LLB (LUMS) Partner The Law and Policy Chambers Office No. F-24, Afzal Center, Opp. Islamabad High Court, G-10/1 Virus-free. www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From joly at punkcast.com Mon Feb 26 05:54:29 2018 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 05:54:29 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] WEBCAST MON pm + WED am: Global Internet and Jurisdiction Conference in Ottawa, Canada Message-ID: This GIJT conference is just one step in a multiyear *transnational multistakeholder process .* Vint wrote a very concise advance framing of the issues for the Financial Times last week - *Rebuild internet governance before it is too late *(I bet some sub, not Vint, made up that headline!). Just yesterday the Washington Post announced that the Microsoft Ireland digital privacy case *will go to the supreme court* (let us note the case originated in the Southern District of New York!). And then, the *GDPR* looms. The webcast is just Monday afternoon and Wednesday morning. [image: YouTube] This week, *Monday-Wednesday February 26-28 2018*, the *Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network * and the *Government of Canada * host the 2nd *Global Internet and Jurisdiction Conference * in Ottawa, Canada. Representatives from a wide range of stakeholder groups will address one of the great global governance challenges of today: how to manage the coexistence of national laws on the internet and, at the same time, work toward the development of policy standards and operational solutions to fight abuses, protect human rights, and enable the global digital economy. Speakers: *Kathy Brown*, President & CEO, Internet Society, *Vint Cerf*, Co-Founder, Internet Society, *Nii Quaynor*, Internet Hall of Fame, *Rebecca MacKinnon*, Director of Ranking Digital Rights, New America Foundation, *Anriette Esterhuysen*, Director of Policy and Strategy, Association for Progressive Communications; *Joseph Cannataci*, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy, plus senior representatives of many countries and corporations. Plenary sessions will be webcast live via *YouTube *. Ottawa is on EST, same as NYC (UTC-5). *What: Global Internet and Jurisdiction Conference Where: Ottawa, CanadaWhen: Monday-Wednesday February 26-28 2018Program: https://conference.internetjurisdiction.net/program/ Webcast: https://www.youtube.com/user/InternetJurisdiction/live (Mon pm + Wed am) (No captions)Twitter: #OttawaGIJC http://bit.ly/ottawaGIJC * Comment See all comments *​Permalink* ​http://isoc-ny.org/p2/9944​ ​​ -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Mon Feb 26 06:13:07 2018 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (shahzad ahmad) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 16:13:07 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] SUCCESS! Fwd: Mobile Network Shutdowns declared Illegal In-Reply-To: References: <232A2BDA-62FB-45F5-9725-682BDD67B926@bytesforall.pk> Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Here is a public statement and detailed judgment of the case: https://www.bytesforall.pk/post/verdict-islamabad-high-court-declares-network-disconnections-illegal For your kind information. Best wishes and regards Shahzad -- Shahzad Ahmad Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 On Feb 26, 2018, at 3:30 PM, Lucy Purdon wrote: Wow, this is fantastic news!! Umer, we are all extremely grateful for your work. I look forward to reading the judgement and discussing next steps! All the best on this great day! Lucy Lucy Purdon Policy Officer Privacy International +44(0)2034224321 Skype: lucypurdon > On 26 Feb 2018, at 07:10, shahzad ahmad > wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > This is the most wonderful news in days and a great victory for the digital rights movement. > > Yet again, it proves that how Research can bring wonderful policy changes that we all are striving for. > > Umer cced is a young brilliant lawyer based in Islamabad and he took this initiative at his own based on the following published research. > > https://www.bytesforall.pk/publication/network-shutdowns-pakistan > > We are extremely thankful for all the great work by Umer and his team for taking this up in the court. > > Thanks are also due to Dr. Lucy Purdon and Dr. Ben Wagner for their amazing timely work and helping us conduct this research in Pakistan. Also copying Salil Bhai at IHRB, who was great help and support as always. > > We look forward to your advice on how to take this forward. > > Best wishes and regards > > Shahzad > > > > > -- > Shahzad Ahmad > Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan > Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup > Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Umer Gilani > Subject: Mobile Network Shutdowns declared Illegal > Date: February 26, 2018 at 10:37:29 AM GMT+5 > To: shahzad ahmad > > Cc: Haroon Baloch >, tehmina > > > Dear Shahzad sahib > > Just an hour ago, the Islamabad High Court has allowed the petitions filed by public interest petitioner against mobile network shutdowns. The shutdowns have been declared as illegal being contrary to the provisions of Section 54 of the PTA Act which states that the government can exercise this drastic power only when a Proclamation of Emergency has been issued - which has happened only a couple of times in our history. In all other circumstance, the shutdowns are illegal. > > The ruling, being against PTA and Federal Government, would be applicable all over Pakistan. > > While we expect an appeal, this is nonetheless a great victory for digital rights in the context of present day Pakistan. > > We have applied for a copy of the detailed judgment. Once we have the detailed judgment, it would be helpful to arrange a round-table of the sort we discussed when we last met. > > Regards, > Umer Gilani, LLM (Washington), BA-LLB (LUMS) > > Partner > The Law and Policy Chambers > Office No. F-24, Afzal Center, > Opp. Islamabad High Court, G-10/1 > > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JudgementNetworkShurtdown.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 267817 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Mon Feb 26 08:19:45 2018 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (shahzad ahmad) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 18:19:45 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] SUCCESS! Fwd: Mobile Network Shutdowns declared Illegal In-Reply-To: References: <232A2BDA-62FB-45F5-9725-682BDD67B926@bytesforall.pk> Message-ID: <0EDE64D3-9545-41EA-97BF-28BD3F9F6F9E@bytesforall.pk> Dear Umer, Thanks for the kind words but you stand as the REAL HERO of global Digital Rights Movement today. If there is any recognition to be given, it should be to people like you for their untiring work. You pulled this amazing victory single handedly for all of us to celebrate. We owe it all to you and your team. Huge respect! In solidarity, we are on standby for absolutely any assistance for your future work. The two lead researchers are also copied on this thread and I am sure they would also love to guide us all further. This amazing victory, again make us firmly believe that good research can do wonders on the ground :) Thanks again and more power to you :) Best wishes and regards Shahzad on behalf of Bytes For All and its members On Feb 26, 2018, at 6:07 PM, Umer Gilani wrote: Dear Shahzad sahib, Thank you so much for sharing this update with friends in the digital rights community. The decision this morning is a small victory for digital rights but it looks bigger when viewed in the general context of a shrinking space for rights discourse in this country - as in many others. This little victory would not have been possible without the the courage of four public-spirited citizen-petitioners who dared to challenge the state at a time when nobody else had the courage and the thorough research conducted by BytesforAll and made freely available to the public. I must acknowledge that without this support, it would not have been possible for me to file this case and and bring it this far. Hope to stay in touch. Regards, Umer Gilani Advocate High Courts ++92 301 5011568 On 26 Feb 2018 16:13, "shahzad ahmad" > wrote: Dear Colleagues, Here is a public statement and detailed judgment of the case: https://www.bytesforall.pk/post/verdict-islamabad-high-court-declares-network-disconnections-illegal For your kind information. Best wishes and regards Shahzad -- Shahzad Ahmad Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 On Feb 26, 2018, at 3:30 PM, Lucy Purdon > wrote: Wow, this is fantastic news!! Umer, we are all extremely grateful for your work. I look forward to reading the judgement and discussing next steps! All the best on this great day! Lucy Lucy Purdon Policy Officer Privacy International +44(0)2034224321 Skype: lucypurdon > On 26 Feb 2018, at 07:10, shahzad ahmad > wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > This is the most wonderful news in days and a great victory for the digital rights movement. > > Yet again, it proves that how Research can bring wonderful policy changes that we all are striving for. > > Umer cced is a young brilliant lawyer based in Islamabad and he took this initiative at his own based on the following published research. > > https://www.bytesforall.pk/publication/network-shutdowns-pakistan > > We are extremely thankful for all the great work by Umer and his team for taking this up in the court. > > Thanks are also due to Dr. Lucy Purdon and Dr. Ben Wagner for their amazing timely work and helping us conduct this research in Pakistan. Also copying Salil Bhai at IHRB, who was great help and support as always. > > We look forward to your advice on how to take this forward. > > Best wishes and regards > > Shahzad > > > > > -- > Shahzad Ahmad > Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan > Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup > Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Umer Gilani > Subject: Mobile Network Shutdowns declared Illegal > Date: February 26, 2018 at 10:37:29 AM GMT+5 > To: shahzad ahmad > > Cc: Haroon Baloch >, tehmina > > > Dear Shahzad sahib > > Just an hour ago, the Islamabad High Court has allowed the petitions filed by public interest petitioner against mobile network shutdowns. The shutdowns have been declared as illegal being contrary to the provisions of Section 54 of the PTA Act which states that the government can exercise this drastic power only when a Proclamation of Emergency has been issued - which has happened only a couple of times in our history. In all other circumstance, the shutdowns are illegal. > > The ruling, being against PTA and Federal Government, would be applicable all over Pakistan. > > While we expect an appeal, this is nonetheless a great victory for digital rights in the context of present day Pakistan. > > We have applied for a copy of the detailed judgment. Once we have the detailed judgment, it would be helpful to arrange a round-table of the sort we discussed when we last met. > > Regards, > Umer Gilani, LLM (Washington), BA-LLB (LUMS) > > Partner > The Law and Policy Chambers > Office No. F-24, Afzal Center, > Opp. Islamabad High Court, G-10/1 > > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com <> -- Shahzad Ahmad Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From raquino at gmail.com Mon Feb 26 09:25:33 2018 From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino Ribeiro) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 11:25:33 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Mobile network shutdown declared illegal in Pakistan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Great news! Congratulations to all Pakistan! On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:40 AM, Nighat Dad wrote: > Just received the message below from Advocate Umer Gillani who filed > ​a​ > petition > ​ against mobile network shutdowns​ > in Islamabad High Court. > > "A bit of good news. Just an hour ago, the Islamabad High Court has > allowed the petitions filed by 4 public interest petitioners against mobile > network shutdowns. The shutdowns have been declared as illegal being > contrary to the provisions of Section 54 of the PTA Act which states that > the government can exercise this drastic power only when a Proclamation of > Emergency has been issued - which has happened only a couple of times in > our history. In all other circumstance, the shutdowns are illegal. > > The ruling, being against PTA and Federal Government, would be applicable > all over Pakistan. > > While we expect an appeal, this is nonetheless a great victory for digital > rights in the context of present day Pakistan. > > The order was announced by Justice Ather Minallah today. We have applied > for a copy of the detailed judgment which should be . Once we have the > detailed judgment, it would be helpful to sit and discuss this" > > Best, > Nighat Dad > Digital Rights Foundation > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From renata.avila at webfoundation.org Mon Feb 26 11:06:30 2018 From: renata.avila at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 17:06:30 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Connectivity for All: Insights from the 2018 Inclusive Internet Index Message-ID: Forwarding the message below, that might be of your interest, the new Inclusive Internet Index, commissioned by Facebook. Connectivity for All: Insights from the 2018 Inclusive Internet Index *By Robert Pepper, Head of Global Connectivity Policy and Planning, and Molly Jackman, Public Policy Research Manager* Connectivity gives people voice, and helps them find and share knowledge, strengthen their economies, and improve their communities. Bringing people online can offer life-changing opportunities, but there are still approximately 3.8 billion people without internet access. At Facebook, we’re working to change that. For the second year in a row, Facebook commissioned the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) to create a comprehensive Inclusive Internet Index. This year’s index covers 91% of the world’s population and an expanded data set of 86 countries, up from 75 countries in 2017. The index assesses a country’s internet inclusion across four categories: availability, affordability, relevance, and readiness. This captures the availability and quality of internet services, as well as ways in which people use the internet for personal, social, and economic purposes. In addition, this year’s index is published alongside a new global Value of the Internet Survey, which polled 4,267 respondents from 85 countries to gauge perceptions on how internet use impacts people’s lives. The first index gave us valuable insights to help address the barriers to global connectivity. This year’s index shows us that there is cause for optimism: Global connectivity has increased 8.3%, and more people are connected than ever before. While this progress is encouraging, we are still far from achieving full internet inclusivity. This year’s index also finds: - *Fast growth of connectivity in low-income countries: *Emerging markets, especially in Africa, experienced the fastest and greatest progress over the last year. While connectivity worldwide grew 8.3%, there was a 65.1% increase in low-income countries. The proportion of households with internet access in low-income countries grew from 8% to 13.2% (a 65.1% improvement), with the largest year-on-year increases in Rwanda (490%), Nepal (138%), and Tanzania (87.8%). - *Mobile internet services are increasingly vital in many low-income countries: *In some countries, fixed-line internet access is too expensive or inaccessible — that’s why mobile services are critical. The index reveals that coverage of 4G networking services grew significantly as networks in low-income countries are being upgraded. In fact, the average 4G coverage rate for low-income countries increased year-over-year from 9.1% to 17.3%, with particularly rapid expansion in Guatemala (3,935%), Indonesia (658.8%), Thailand (366.7%), Zambia (330.6%), and China (244%). - *The cost of accessing the internet is falling:* The cost of mobile broadband data plans in lower-income countries decreased about 17.3% from last year, with Argentina (-89.2%), El Salvador (-76.5%), Tanzania (-69.2%), and Ethiopia (-60.9%) experiencing the steepest relative cost declines. Overall, however, people are still devoting too much of their earnings on internet access relative to their income level. In too many low-income countries, it is still not as affordable as the UN 2025 target of less than 2% of GNI per capita. - *There is still much work to be done to close the gender gap: *Across the indexed countries, on average, men are 33.5% more likely to have internet access than women. The gap is even larger in low-income countries, which have an average gender access gap of 80.2% compared with 3.7% among high-income countries. This is a sobering finding, but there is evidence to be optimistic. Governments have shown the benefits of setting gender-specific targets in national digital plans, embedding internet access in wider gender equality plans, targeting women in ICT skills training programs, and increasing the attractiveness of entering ICT professions for women. The study found that the UK, Namibia, and Ireland, followed by Austria, Chile, and South Africa, are among the top e-inclusion performers of the year, all with female digital skills training plans. - *The internet is empowering, especially to citizens in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa: *67% of survey respondents believe that access to the internet is a human right. Not only do people say that the internet helped them become more confident to express themselves, but the majority of respondents also say that the internet has helped them become more independent and economically empowered. If the ability to use and benefit from the internet is unevenly distributed, it could serve to deepen inequality. - *Privacy and security are top-of-mind:* People want confidence that their activity online is private. The data show that concerns about security and privacy may limit people’s use of the internet – for example, when it comes to making purchases online, only 62.1% of survey respondents feel that making purchases online is safe and secure. Closing the remaining gaps in internet inclusion will require collaboration among all players. Governments can help on the supply side, enabling new technologies and networks, and on the demand side, helping foster and develop e-government, public health, and education applications. Academics, technologists, civil society, and private companies can continue to extend the internet’s infrastructure and invent new technologies and applications that increase access to connectivity and amplify its relevance. At Facebook, our efforts are focused on expanding and improving connectivity through a number of initiatives, partnerships, and technologies. We know there’s no single technology or solution that will get the job done, which is why we’re focused on a building-block approach — developing a range of next-generation technologies and programs that can help bring the cost of connectivity down to reach the unconnected, and increase capacity and performance for everyone else. There is still more to do. Identifying and understanding barriers to connectivity is essential to continued progress in bringing more people online, and we hope that researchers and policymakers can learn from this report. Connecting the world won’t happen overnight, but with continued research and collaboration between governments, policymakers, and businesses, we remain confident that we can continue our progress toward our shared goal of closing the digital divide and making the internet more inclusive. The full Inclusive Internet Index can be accessed at http:// theinclusiveinternet.eiu.com You can read more about Facebook’s connectivity efforts and our announcements at Mobile World Congress here . Renata Avila *Senior Digital Rights Advisor* renata.avila at webfoundation.org *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA* *| * *www.webfoundation.org* * | Twitter: @webfoundation* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Feb 1 10:11:58 2018 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 20:41:58 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] WGEC fails to give any recommendation In-Reply-To: <49468b0d-7405-8f4b-7dbe-4ce958538932@itforchange.net> References: <241dd309-66ea-49f3-054f-aaed94536dab@gmail.com> <49468b0d-7405-8f4b-7dbe-4ce958538932@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <48da0e26-d069-9087-34d1-5bbc53fc5f4b@itforchange.net> The following is the initial political statement on the failure of the WGEC to come up with any recommendation which has been developed on the behalf of many civil society groups I work with. A more elaborate collectively developed statement will follow. STATEMENT BEGINS The UN CSTD Working Group On Enhanced Cooperation (on International public policies pertaining to the Internet) was tasked with developing institutional proposals towards appropriate global governance of the Internet, and the larger digital phenomenon. After five meeting over two years, it wound up yesterday, 31st January, without giving any recommendation. We are extremely disappointed at this continued abdication by the governments and the UN system of what is one of the most important public policy and governance requirements today. It will astonish ordinary people on the streets to know that the governments of the world and the UN think that all is well with the global Internet and the global digital phenomenon, and with its social, economic, political, social and cultural effects. And, that people should just get on with it with no need for any globally democratic development of norms, principles, polices and laws in this all important area. As one delegate put it succinctly at the Working Group meeting, to the effect, that we are kidding ourselves if we think that international law does not need to – and would not eventually – come to the Internet. Well, we do not think it is kidding though. It is all bare knuckle adult stuff, of protecting very narrow commercial and political interests, and letting the global public interest sink in the bargain. But let us beware, we would sink together if we do not develop means to float together. As the Internet/ digital becomes key of all our social structures, what provides us the means of collective floating (or non-sinking) are the appropriate and adequate global mechanisms for Internet’s governance in public interest. We seem to be just waiting for some catastrophic events to force us to begin doing what we must; which is never a sane course of action. We once again appeal to the leaders of the global community to abandon this dangerous and suicidal path of abdication. Let us contribute to building the required global political institutions for the fast emerging global digital society – which will ensure the rule of law, and people’s safety, happiness, prosperity, equity and social justice. The Working Group gathered all views – including through public comments – on various institutional responses that may be appropriate to meet the needs of global governance of the Internet/ digital phenomenon. Some of these views, especially a common proposal by many members of the Working Group, present clear ways forward for setting up a new global institution for Internet’s governance. What is required now is political will, at the highest level, to take this proposal forward and implement it. This task is best suited for the UN General Assembly which should undertake a dedicated discussion on this subject, taking into account various institutional proposals that were submitted to and discussed by the Working Group. The G 77 group of developing countries already made a written initial proposal for a new institutional mechanism in 2014 during the preparatory process of the ten year review of the World Summit on the Information Society. In this statement it was agreed that the proposal will be further fleshed out in terms of specific details of such an institutional mechanism. The inputs to, and the deliberations of, the Working Group now provide enough material to undertake this task which should urgently be taken up by G 77, and other supporting countries, and a full proposal made in this regard to the UN General Assembly later this year. for IT for Change, and other civil society organisations ENDS Thanks, and best regards, parminder On Thursday 01 February 2018 08:38 PM, parminder wrote: > > The UN General Assembly mandated Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > (on international Internet related public policies) which was tasked > to develop institutional means for appropriate governance of the > global Internet folded up yesterday after 4 years of work ( 2 years > each of two versions) without making any recommendation. I wrote the > following email to the group that lays out how I see the group's work, > especially its failure to come up with any recommendation... > > parminder > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: thanks, goodbye, and a few reflections on WGEC > Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 19:22:35 +0530 > From: parminder > To: CSTD-WGEC at unctad.org , stdev > > > > > Dear All > > As the two years of WGEC end (4 for me, continuing from the last > WGEC), one departs with a lot of learning, growth and good memoires. > Thank you all for being a part of it. I wish to say farewell to all, > till we meet again! > > On the work side: after a night’s sleep over it, this is what I feel > about the WGEC’s work. > > There were promising exciting moments in the last hours. If these > could have come earlier it might just have been possible for us to > have made some progress. But then, unfortunately, they did not. In the > end, my summative assessment is as follows. It would have been nice to > have had a report, but it is more truthful that there isnt one. That > is the true reflection of the state of affairs. And while we have > responsibilities to ourselves and to the group of nice-ness and > collegiality, there is a much higher responsibility of telling the > undiluted truth to the global public. > > And the truth is that on the matter of how public governance of the > global Internet and the digital phenomenon should be undertaken in the > UN, we today are even more apart then we were even at the WSIS. A good > proof of it comes from examining what was the central piece of the > excitement of the last hours yesterday (an excitement, I admit, I > shared in the room at that time.). At Tunis, the global community > could agree that (1) the current mechanisms of global public > governance of the Internet were inadequate ( Tunis Agenda, para 60), > and (2) urgent further work is needed that “could envisage creation of > a suitable framework or mechanisms…” ( para 61). Seventeen years after > WSIS, when theInternet/ digital has transformed the world beyond what > anyone could haveimaginedin Tunis, and there are unthinkably > monumental governance needs and challenges, a weak formulation that we > can continue to consider “the possibility of new [institutional > approaches]” was offered as the “big” (and the only) carrot. That too > only in the last few hours. > > And then is was quickly withdrawn, seeminglyin exchange of putting, in > a portion of the report that mentioned“the keyissues discussed” (and > of course non agreed ), a para or two each of the two key divergent > positions on the need fornew institutional development. This would > just have been a factual statement of what actually got presented and > discussed, but not agreed.While I myself shared in the excited > possibility of us getting some agreement somehow, it is evident that > this was much less that what the Tunis Agenda already mentions. > Although it is admittedlybetter that what has evergot into the texts > since then, which was why some of us wereready to take it, until the > offer got withdrawn. This is where the negotiations collapsed, as time > was in any case not on our side. > > A “no report” therefore conveys the fact of the matter more truthfully > to our constituents that a report that, apologies the for dismissive > tone, but, honestly, largely said things to the effect that “people in > the world should be more honest and friendly”. Would such a reporthave > representedprogress? Not in my view. It would more likely have been a > smoke screen of seemingprogress on the subject, for some unnecessary > months or years, which would have onlyretardedurgent consideration of > this most important global public policy imperative, whichis required > right now. We are already late in fact. > > So rather than rue that we could not agree to some weak and largely > meaningless report regardinghow global public governance of the > Internet (and the digital phenomenon) should be done, let us be > satisfied that we put inour best efforts to converge, and then > honestly we let the world know that there does notyet exist the > political will to develop appropriate global mechanismsof public > governance of the Internet. Even in tragedy, honestly serves better > that superfluous make-believes thatcould elevate one’sspirits > temporarily. Thepublic interest is served best by stating the actual > fact, and we did that by the act of “no report”. > > I much thank Amb Benedicto for his exceptionally patient, inclusive > and capable handling of a very difficult discussion. Special kudos for > the secretariat for providing high quality professional helpthat never > slipped, which letour work go on sosmoothly. > > And a warm thanks and goodbye to all members. > > Best regards > > parminder > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder.js at gmail.com Thu Feb 1 09:48:36 2018 From: parminder.js at gmail.com (parminder) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 20:18:36 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] UN Working Group considering mechanisms for global governance of Internet fails In-Reply-To: <241dd309-66ea-49f3-054f-aaed94536dab@gmail.com> References: <241dd309-66ea-49f3-054f-aaed94536dab@gmail.com> Message-ID: <76282711-caa3-7846-ee88-f4cf0985e714@gmail.com> The UN General Assembly mandated Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (on international Internet related public policies) which was tasked to develop institutional means for appropriate governance of the global Internet folded up yesterday after 4 years of work ( 2 years each of two versions) without making any recommendation. I wrote the following email to the group that lays out how I see the group's work, especially its failure to come up with any recommendation... parminder -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: thanks, goodbye, and a few reflections on WGEC Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 19:22:35 +0530 From: parminder To: CSTD-WGEC at unctad.org , stdev Dear All As the two years of WGEC end (4 for me, continuing from the last WGEC), one departs with a lot of learning, growth and good memoires. Thank you all for being a part of it. I wish to say farewell to all, till we meet again! On the work side: after a night’s sleep over it, this is what I feel about the WGEC’s work. There were promising exciting moments in the last hours. If these could have come earlier it might just have been possible for us to have made some progress. But then, unfortunately, they did not. In the end, my summative assessment is as follows. It would have been nice to have had a report, but it is more truthful that there isnt one. That is the true reflection of the state of affairs. And while we have responsibilities to ourselves and to the group of nice-ness and collegiality, there is a much higher responsibility of telling the undiluted truth to the global public. And the truth is that on the matter of how public governance of the global Internet and the digital phenomenon should be undertaken in the UN, we today are even more apart then we were even at the WSIS. A good proof of it comes from examining what was the central piece of the excitement of the last hours yesterday (an excitement, I admit, I shared in the room at that time.). At Tunis, the global community could agree that (1) the current mechanisms of global public governance of the Internet were inadequate ( Tunis Agenda, para 60), and (2) urgent further work is needed that “could envisage creation of a suitable framework or mechanisms…” ( para 61). Seventeen years after WSIS, when theInternet/ digital has transformed the world beyond what anyone could haveimaginedin Tunis, and there are unthinkably monumental governance needs and challenges, a weak formulation that we can continue to consider “the possibility of new [institutional approaches]” was offered as the “big” (and the only) carrot. That too only in the last few hours. And then is was quickly withdrawn, seeminglyin exchange of putting, in a portion of the report that mentioned“the keyissues discussed” (and of course non agreed ), a para or two each of the two key divergent positions on the need fornew institutional development. This would just have been a factual statement of what actually got presented and discussed, but not agreed.While I myself shared in the excited possibility of us getting some agreement somehow, it is evident that this was much less that what the Tunis Agenda already mentions. Although it is admittedlybetter that what has evergot into the texts since then, which was why some of us wereready to take it, until the offer got withdrawn. This is where the negotiations collapsed, as the time was in any case not on our side. A “no report” therefore conveys the fact of the matter more truthfully to our constituents that a report that, apologies the for dismissive tone, but, honestly, largely said things to the effect that “people in the world should be more honest and friendly”. Would such a reporthave representedprogress? Not in my view. It would more likely have been a smoke screen of seemingprogress on the subject, for some unnecessary months or years, which would have onlyretardedurgent consideration of this most important global public policy imperative, whichis required right now. We are already late in fact. So rather than rue that we could not agree to some weak and largely meaningless report regardinghow global public governance of the Internet (and the digital phenomenon) should be done, let us be satisfied that we put inour best efforts to converge, and then honestly we let the world know that there does notyet exist the political will to develop appropriate global mechanismsof public governance of the Internet. Even in tragedy, honestly serves better that superfluous make-believes thatcould elevate one’sspirits temporarily. Thepublic interest is served best by stating the actual fact, and we did that by the act of “no report”. I much thank Amb Benedicto for his exceptionally patient, inclusive and capable handling of a very difficult discussion. Special kudos for the secretariat for providing high quality professional helpthat never slipped, which letour work go on sosmoothly. And a warm thanks and goodbye to all members. Best regards parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richard at gp-digital.org Thu Feb 1 13:03:59 2018 From: richard at gp-digital.org (Richard Wingfield) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 18:03:59 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Participation at ITU Plenipot 2018 Message-ID: Dear all, In case of interest, please find below information which is sent on behalf of all of the organisations listed at the end of this communication. __________________________________________________________ *Civil Society Participation at PP-18* The ITU will hold its quadrennial Plenipotentiary Conference this November. At the conference – PP-18 – the ITU will be setting out its strategic and financial agenda for the upcoming years, which will involve the discussion of a range of Internet-related policy issues that concern the exercise of human rights online. It is therefore critical for civil society voices to be heard at PP-18. In recent years, issues including online privacy, cybersecurity, and the gender digital divide have become significant flashpoints within the ITU work-agenda, particularly as the focus on the Internet of Things and over-the-top (OTT) services grows. Proposals put forth by ITU Members during other recent conferences, including the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly in 2016 and the World Telecommunication Development Conference in 2017, show the growing importance of these issues and highlight the likelihood of these being put forward again during the regional preparatory meetings leading up to PP-18. Many among these proposals bear serious implications for the free and full exercise of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights online – rights which people are entitled to online as well as offline – as well as the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda. Significant barriers currently impede robust and meaningful civil society participation in ITU decision-making processes: most notably, the high financial costs of attendance at the regional meetings, and conferences such as PP-18. Despite the new ITU Document/Information Access policy, access to proposals from ITU Member States continue to be an issue. Moreover, restrictions that limit participation of civil society in some study groups and working groups to only Member States continue to restrict civil society from becoming more active. As a result, civil society is often barred from protecting human rights against adverse policy and standards development. We are a group of civil society organizations committed to participating in the discussions at PP-18, despite these barriers. In the months ahead, we urge civil society to get more involved. Specifically, interested organizations can: - Request to join the national delegations of Member States, and observe or participate in the national or regional preparatory processes for PP-18. The most effective way to influence PP-18 outcomes is by engaging with national delegations, and working within these delegations to ensure that these viewpoints are taken into account, though this is not a substitute for ensuring an independent civil society voice at PP-18 itself; - Participate in the ITU’s open consultation processes , including the next held by the Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet) in early 2019, and for the ITU’s Strategic and Financial Plans 2020-2023 (CWG-SFP); - Encourage the ITU to establish an open platform for public views to be heard ahead of PP-18, as was offered in 2014, with sufficient time for participation, and participate in such a platform; and - Follow what Member States say and do in other spaces and processes leading up to PP-18. Fundamentally, civil society participation at PP-18 will only be as effective as our preparation, coordination and collaboration from now until the end of the conference. Therefore, we encourage civil society organizations that are interested to join the newly established Civil Society PP-18 mailing list to continue the discussion. We will use this list to plan future coordination meetings, share information, and work together. Click here to join the mailing list. (New members will be added to the list on a ‘no objection’ basis following a 24-hour consideration period.) As the ITU looks to its financial and strategic future this November, we must ensure that it protects the future of a free and open Internet. *Global Partners Digital* *Public Knowledge* *ARTICLE 19* *Derechos Digitales* *Asociación por los Derechos Civiles.* *Access Now* *Association for Progressive Communications* __________________________________________________________ *Richard Wingfield* Legal Officer | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)203 818 3258 | Skype: richard at gp-digital.org gp-digital.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daveb at dslprime.com Thu Feb 1 16:15:50 2018 From: daveb at dslprime.com (Dave Burstein) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 16:15:50 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] UN Working Group considering mechanisms for global governance of Internet fails In-Reply-To: <76282711-caa3-7846-ee88-f4cf0985e714@gmail.com> References: <241dd309-66ea-49f3-054f-aaed94536dab@gmail.com> <76282711-caa3-7846-ee88-f4cf0985e714@gmail.com> Message-ID: Parminder Thanks for this. As usual, there was minimal press reporting. I don't have the details of the "civil society" position on this. My point of view I believe well-informed but please speak up if you think I have it wrong. Parminder and others, I'd welcome hearing about anything from Civil Society that differs from the U.S. position of preventing the ITU or any group with a strong government component from doing anything of substance. (The euphemism is "only high order principles.) I'm sure folks like Vint Cerf support "multistakeholder" and "consensus" for honorable fear of governments. Knowing Parminder's work, I expect he's in that camp, also for honorable reasons. The key governments with that point of view are playing realpolitik, wanting to make sure that nothing hinders what the U.S. is doing around the world. For those new to this discussion, "enhanced cooperation" was put into the WSIS as a concession to governments who thought they should have an active role. It deferred the discussion so a consensus document could be put out. Since then, the U.S. and allies have fought hard to block anything of the sort. It's part of the U.S. effort to keep China and Russia far away from any Internet issues, especially security. (I'm on a State Department Committee and have senior sources.) Please note: I'm saying this about the *government* position. I am not implying that the Parminder of NGOs have similar motivation. The U.S. "walked out" of the WCIT over this and in 2017 continued to block anything substantive at the ITU. Demanding "multistakeholder consensus" sounds noble but means that any major government has a de facto veto over any action. The U.S. has used this to block efforts to ensure reasonable royalties, reduce cartel-like pricing for backhaul/transit, and expect the multinationals to pay taxes. Which I'm told are the most important *international* issues keeping the cost of access high. Dave On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:48 AM, parminder wrote: > The UN General Assembly mandated Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (on > international Internet related public policies) which was tasked to develop > institutional means for appropriate governance of the global Internet > folded up yesterday after 4 years of work ( 2 years each of two versions) > without making any recommendation. I wrote the following email to the group > that lays out how I see the group's work, especially its failure to come up > with any recommendation... > > parminder > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: thanks, goodbye, and a few reflections on WGEC > Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 19:22:35 +0530 > From: parminder > To: CSTD-WGEC at unctad.org , > stdev > > Dear All > > As the two years of WGEC end (4 for me, continuing from the last WGEC), > one departs with a lot of learning, growth and good memoires. Thank you all > for being a part of it. I wish to say farewell to all, till we meet again! > > On the work side: after a night’s sleep over it, this is what I feel about > the WGEC’s work. > > There were promising exciting moments in the last hours. If these could > have come earlier it might just have been possible for us to have made some > progress. But then, unfortunately, they did not. In the end, my summative > assessment is as follows. It would have been nice to have had a report, but > it is more truthful that there isnt one. That is the true reflection of the > state of affairs. And while we have responsibilities to ourselves and to > the group of nice-ness and collegiality, there is a much higher > responsibility of telling the undiluted truth to the global public. > > And the truth is that on the matter of how public governance of the global > Internet and the digital phenomenon should be undertaken in the UN, we > today are even more apart then we were even at the WSIS. A good proof of it > comes from examining what was the central piece of the excitement of the > last hours yesterday (an excitement, I admit, I shared in the room at that > time.). At Tunis, the global community could agree that (1) the current > mechanisms of global public governance of the Internet were inadequate ( Tunis > Agenda, para 60), and (2) urgent further work is needed that “could > envisage creation of a suitable framework or mechanisms…” ( para 61). > Seventeen years after WSIS, when the Internet/ digital has transformed > the world beyond what anyone could have imagined in Tunis, and there are unthinkably > monumental governance needs and challenges, a weak formulation that we > can continue to consider “the possibility of new [institutional > approaches]” was offered as the “big” (and the only) carrot. That too > only in the last few hours. > > And then is was quickly withdrawn, seemingly in exchange of putting, in a > portion of the report that mentioned “the key issues discussed” (and of > course non agreed ), a para or two each of the two key divergent > positions on the need for new institutional development. This would just > have been a factual statement of what actually got presented and discussed, > but not agreed. While I myself shared in the excited possibility of us > getting some agreement somehow, it is evident that this was much less that > what the Tunis Agenda already mentions. Although it is admittedly better > that what has ever got into the texts since then, which was why some of > us were ready to take it, until the offer got withdrawn. This is where > the negotiations collapsed, as the time was in any case not on our side. > > A “no report” therefore conveys the fact of the matter more truthfully to > our constituents that a report that, apologies the for dismissive tone, > but, honestly, largely said things to the effect that “people in the world > should be more honest and friendly”. Would such a report have represented > progress? Not in my view. It would more likely have been a smoke screen > of seeming progress on the subject, for some unnecessary months or years, which > would have only retarded urgent consideration of this most important > global public policy imperative, which is required right now. We are > already late in fact. > > So rather than rue that we could not agree to some weak and largely > meaningless report regarding how global public governance of the Internet > (and the digital phenomenon) should be done, let us be satisfied that we put > in our best efforts to converge, and then honestly we let the world know > that there does not yet exist the political will to develop appropriate > global mechanisms of public governance of the Internet. Even in tragedy, honestly > serves better that superfluous make-believes that could elevate one’s > spirits temporarily. The public interest is served best by stating the > actual fact, and we did that by the act of “no report”. > > I much thank Amb Benedicto for his exceptionally patient, inclusive and > capable handling of a very difficult discussion. Special kudos for the > secretariat for providing high quality professional help that never > slipped, which let our work go on so smoothly. > > And a warm thanks and goodbye to all members. > > Best regards > > parminder > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Editor, Fast Net News, Wireless One.news, Net Policy News and DSL Prime Author with Jennie Bourne DSL (Wiley) and Web Video: Making It Great, Getting It Noticed (Peachpit) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daveb at dslprime.com Thu Feb 1 18:51:27 2018 From: daveb at dslprime.com (Dave Burstein) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 18:51:27 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] UN Working Group considering mechanisms for global governance of Internet fails In-Reply-To: References: <241dd309-66ea-49f3-054f-aaed94536dab@gmail.com> <76282711-caa3-7846-ee88-f4cf0985e714@gmail.com> Message-ID: Quickly I didn't mean "a Marc Anthony’s funeral oration vibe" when I said I believe Parminder, Vint Cerf, and similar are taking their positions "honorably" because they fear any government involvement. No satire or implications. I do know the U.S. *government* position is a cold war revival. Larry Strickling, a lead of the U.S. government at WCIT explained their position by asking me, "Dave, do you want Russia and China running the Internet." I do, actually, alongside other nations. China is now 1/3rd of the Internet. A system that excludes them is unstable. (See the board of ICANN or ISOC.) As I predicted, what's happening is the excluded are building their alternate institutions: BRICs agreements, World Internet Conference, Belt & Road extending to Europe and Africa, Russia's alternate root. http://netpolicynews.com/index.php/component/content/article/89-r/941-russia-orders-alternate-internet-system On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I’m getting a strong Marc Anthony’s funeral oration vibe here when I read > your email :) > > But how would moving all this mess to the UN make it multistakeholder? > You’d just see a more government centric model, with most stakeholders kept > away from policy making. > > Maybe some favoured civil society would get in based on how close they are > to their individual governments but that’s about it. > > And as for industry the traditional telecom players would have a > disproportionate presence compared to most anyone else. > > There is a lot to carp and criticise over the existing model, but > exchanging it for the UN would be that old Aesop fable of the fish getting > king stork instead of king log. > > _____________________________ > From: Dave Burstein > Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 2:46 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] UN Working Group considering > mechanisms for global governance of Internet fails > To: parminder > Cc: , BestBitsList < > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org < > forum at justnetcoalition.org> > > (The euphemism is "only high order principles.) I'm sure folks like Vint > Cerf support "multistakeholder" and "consensus" for honorable fear of > governments. Knowing Parminder's work, I expect he's in that camp, also for > honorable reasons. > > > -- Editor, Fast Net News, Wireless One.news, Net Policy News and DSL Prime Author with Jennie Bourne DSL (Wiley) and Web Video: Making It Great, Getting It Noticed (Peachpit) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daveb at dslprime.com Thu Feb 1 19:27:41 2018 From: daveb at dslprime.com (Dave Burstein) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 19:27:41 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] UN Working Group considering mechanisms for global governance of Internet fails In-Reply-To: <2E5535D4-07DA-417C-AC19-BBCA8E2399D4@hserus.net> References: <241dd309-66ea-49f3-054f-aaed94536dab@gmail.com> <76282711-caa3-7846-ee88-f4cf0985e714@gmail.com> <2E5535D4-07DA-417C-AC19-BBCA8E2399D4@hserus.net> Message-ID: > > S​ince Suresh asked ​"it’d be interesting if the Chinese have fit > internet governance issues into that effort instead of a string of roads, > ports etc > ​"​ > ​ > > ​Actually, they have Putin, Xi, Modi, Temer, Zuma: Our 3,000,000,000 People Think the U.S. Shouldn’t Run the Internet (Xiamen Statement) First Look http://bit.ly/BRICsIG I don't like the authoritarian nature of the Chinese government, but I think we're fooling ourselves if we try to run the Internet without them. ​ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: