From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jan 3 01:30:54 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 12:00:54 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] E-commerce negotiations expected to be launched at Davos - Statement against Message-ID: Hi All Wishing you all a great 2019! It is expected that plurilateral negotiations on e-commerce will be launched at the World Economic Forum's Davos annual meeting last week of Jan 2019, bypassing the WTO. The African groupandIndia had blocked attempts at launching ecom negotiations at the WTO Buenos Aires ministerial in Dec 2017 ... We have prepared the enclosed and below statement for sign ons. It highlights what is contained in the proposed rules, what are the proponents' true motives, why some developing countries get deceived, and why these rules should be stopped. Pl follow the instructions on the statement for endorsement...An email to be me would work as well.... best, parminder *Statement de**veloped by *_*Just Net Coalition* _ *E-commerce negotiations being launched at the WEF * *are really about rules for digital colonisation* *A call to the people and governments of the world to oppose legitimisation of* *the new land grab of people’s, communities’, and nations’ data * World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Davos meeting in January, 2019, is expected to witness the launch of plurilateral negotiations on global e-commerce rules, bypassing the WTO. Dominant digital interests – global digital business and governments supporting it – plan the proposed rules to be a blue-print for a whole new global digital order. *A new digital social contract* Agrarian-feudal economic and social relationships centred on land ownership, and industrial age ones on ownership of industrial and later intellectual capital. In the digital age, these relationships will revolve around ownership of data and the resultant artificial intelligence.^^1 The proposed e-commerce rules^^2 mandate unrestrained global flow of data – the primary resource of the digital society. This in essence means that data will be the property of whoever collects and hoards it. It provides an, in perpetuity, legitimacy to global data land-grabs by a few digital corporations such as Facebook, Google, Amazon, Alibaba, etc. These rules would insulate global digital corporations from national regulation by disallowing any requirement for their ‘local presence’ in the domestic territory, and inspection of their software and algorithms. Digital inter-connections, payments, authentication, cyber-security, etc, get mostly subject to global private law – under pro- big business arbitration – further curtailing the remit of domestic jurisdictions over global digital interactions. Prohibition against any border-crossing tax on commercial digital transactions would, in turn, debilitate the nation state’s finances in the digital era. Digital economy is not just a sector. It pervades and increasingly transforms all sectors – like the industrial society/economy paradigm did before it. As every sector and activity becomes digital, and infused with artificial intelligence, this proposed political economy and private governance framework for the digital will dominate all aspects of societies. It will increasingly upend the social contract that underlies the nation-state based mixed economy and welfarism for the last many decades. Digital opportunities, many believe, can bring unprecedented prosperity for all. But for this, digital governance must be based on principles of social justice and equity within and across societies. This is required even more in this formative period of the digital society. Quite the opposite is sought, however, through rules for global usurpation of the most valuable digital resource, and hamstringing national regulation. A few powerful businesses and governments plan to digitally control all social activities and economic sectors across the world. The omnipresent tentacles of the Internet, globally extracting granular data about every person and thing, underpin these new controls. *The e-commerce chimera* The biggest bluff of global e-commerce rules is how they get sold in the name of helping micro, small and medium enterprises in developing countries. So apparently, the new messiahs of small enterprises in developing countries are going to be a few US based global digital corporations, that _monopolise e-commerce _to _take up to 40 percent commissions _, _abuse sellers’ and manufacturers’ data _to manipulate them and/or replace their products by in-house ones, are _most arbitrary and exploitative _in their relationships with sellers/producers, and beyond national regulations to impose any fairness on their activities! Some developing country leaders get led to believe that global e-commerce simply represents a great expansion of the marketplace, opening more market opportunities for their struggling businesses. For one, expanded and more open markets are not necessarily better for their small businesses, an overwhelming majority of which deal in goods that are easily out-priced by global mass manufacturing centres like in China. The latter can now so much more readily penetrate even the remotest local markets. These leaders that are enthusiastic about global e-commerce perhaps need to first list the actual goods that their domestic businesses produce in a globally competitive manner! Artisan and other cultural goods tend to form the staple of the ‘global e-commerce for development’ rhetoric, but they constitute an extremely small part of any economy. Digitalisation can enhance efficiencies in every economic activity and layer of the economy. It is NOT digital efficiencies in the global trade layer that will bring the most immediate benefits to developing countries. It will simply expose their vulnerable economies and markets to endless exploitation. Developing countries need to first digitalise their domestic production processes, to produce globally valuable products cheaply. They must focus on developing domestic digital platforms. In short, they need to undertake digital industrialisation before they can benefit from global digital trade. To the extent that trade across borders also can stimulate industrialisation, and scale being important for the digital economy, _developing countries should first collaborate _among those with comparable digital development. The founder of e-commerce giant Alibaba, Jack Ma, himself considers _e-commerce to be an outdated concept _. This clearly underlines the fallacy of seeing e-commerce primarily as digitally-expanded marketplaces. What global digital platforms really do is to re-organise every sector employing data-based digital intelligence, and then control them in a monopolistic manner. Such controls tend to be very one-sided and highly exploitative, with deep lock-ins. This situation demands new kinds of digital regulation, and national frameworks mandating local ownership of data for nurturing domestic digital businesses. The proposed e-commerce rules pre-empt all such possibilities, which shows how their proponents know their game well into the future. Developing countries cannot simply hope that the benefits of their local producers getting new markets through global e-commerce will somehow outweigh the disadvantages of cheap products from mass manufacturing centres inundating their domestic markets. They would be equally misplaced to expect that global e-commerce rules will help the flourishing of their domestic digital platforms, where they already exist. The latter face quick annihilation as soon as global digital majors cast their eyes on the corresponding markets. India, which has been a little ahead of the curve among developing countries (other than China), has already seen its _major digital platform companies unionise _and seek government protection against global _‘capital dumping’ _. A reality check is needed for the chimera of ‘global e-commerce for development’ created by digital superpowers, with the support of some donor and international agencies. *Resist digital colonialism* Global business leaders from the South – like _Bob van Dijk, CEO of Naspers _, Africa’s biggest company; _Anil Ambani, head of India’s largest business house __;_and _Nandan Nilekani, Chairman of India’s top IT company _– have been warning against data and digital colonisation. Traders’ groups in many developing countries are holding protests, and local digital businesses are complaining, as they face being captured or wiped out by global digital corporations. Some developing country leaders, however, remain blinded by the lure of sitting at the high table with global digital business leaders, this time at the snow-white Davos. They keep hoping that these business leaders will somehow magically usher in the appropriate digital economy/ society in their countries. It would be useful to understand the future that dominant digital interests have in mind through the proposed e-commerce rules. Data flows unchecked from all countries to a very few global digital corporations, mostly in the US and some in China. Such expansive and minute data enables them to develop thorough real time digital intelligence about every sector and every single economic activity and actor. It would be as if the ‘brains’ of all physical activities and processes in all other countries are ‘outsourced’ to these few corporations. A complete cognitive lock-in and digital intelligence dependency soon sets the conditions for total economic and social domination. As it gets entrenched, future options for developing countries to ever extricate themselves also get foreclosed. In any case, as explained earlier, the proposed rules simultaneously de-fang key levers of national digital regulation, render digital relationships subject to global private law, and considerably squeeze the taxation base of the state. The choice of the Mecca of global business, WEF, for launching this potent new framework for domination of the world by a few digital corporations indeed rings of poetic appropriateness! We, the undersigned, call upon the people and the governments of the world to oppose this blatant attempt at a new elitist digital social contract which is nothing but one between the digital masters and the rest of us, laying out the rules of our digital servitude for all times to come. Let us claim our data, and our digital future, for ourselves! Just Net Coalition ……………………. ……………………. ……………………. /This statement is open for endorsements by organisations and individuals till January 15/^/th/ /, 2019. Please send your endorsement, or any questions, to /_/secretariat at justnetcoalition.org/ _/. Alternatively, you can endorse it online at /_/https://data.justnetcoalition.org/ _/. / 1Among others, the prominent author and public intellectual Yuval Harari _recently employed _the analogy across land, capital and data ownership. 2First developed as a part of the Trans Pacific Partnership trade treaty, its template of e-commerce rules has been repeated at all trade discussions that US and its allies get involved in, including at the WTO. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WEF and e-com plurilateral.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 329345 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 885 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Jan 8 23:19:19 2019 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 23:19:19 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits In-Reply-To: <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> Message-ID: While Ian’s idea is interesting, I wonder - Who is in the BB list and is not in the IGC list? Why is that the case? Are there barriers/conditions to entry? Are they high or low barriers? As Ian also noticed, both lists were born from different/specific communities, principles, ways of work, diversity, etc. Should the IGC’s principles and ways of work be laid out here, so they are handy for folks to review and give their opinion if this is the preferred way to move forward? It would be interesting to hear specially from those non overlapping folks before moving forward. I feel it would also be relevant to some if the ICG founders commit to be open to potential new input and feedback. Maybe there is a deal to be striken here to ensure IGC is the correct place. I don’t want to complicate things, I just want to make sure all are heard and have the tools to express their preference. Happy new year, everybody! C On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 9:29 PM Lee W McKnight wrote: > I support Ian's idea as well. > ------------------------------ > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net < > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> on behalf of Judith Hellerstein < > judith at jhellerstein.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 8, 2019 4:53:02 PM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best > Bits > > > HI, > > I support Ian's idea > > Judith > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO > Hellerstein & Associates > 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 > Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein > Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 > E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com > Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ > Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide > > > On 1/8/2019 3:35 PM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: > > I support the idea of merging. BB served a useful purpose for a while but > that time has past. > > I suggest the easiest way to do this is for BB to decide to disband, and > encourage any remaining members who are not already on the IGC mailing list > to join up there. > > Ian > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Mwendwa Kivuva" > To: "Sheetal Kumar" > Cc: "< bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" > Sent: 9/01/2019 4:52:30 AM > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits > > A good idea as this is, can we get the genesis of how CS was split into > different groupings? > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019, 8:31 PM Sheetal Kumar >> Dear all, >> >> (dropping IGC as this is just for Bestbits members) Firstly, happy new >> year! I am writing to follow up on the conversation with regards to a >> proposal to merge IGC and Bestbits, discussed by those who attended the >> call organised last December. >> >> As noted earlier, the merger of the two groups was suggested as a way of >> avoiding duplication of work between groups, pooling resources and >> streamlining efforts so that they're more focused and coordinated - >> particularly around key forums and events. >> >> It would be interesting to hear feedback on this idea, positive or >> otherwise. Otherwise, I suggest another call to decide next steps? >> >> Best >> Sheetal. >> >> On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 02:46, ian.peter at ianpeter.com < >> ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Arsene, >>> >>> Mergers are difficult and imagine that both sides are going to have to >>> change structurally so that they can work together. Both organisations have >>> working rules and practices, changing both sets will be complex and I think >>> unnecessary. >>> >>> My opinion is that, in this case, BB should just decide to fold - and in >>> doing so, encourage its members to join IGC if they are not already >>> involved. >>> >>> That's a lot simpler and leaves IGC intact and continuing as an umbrella >>> groups for civil society involvement in internet governance. >>> >>> (Best Bits copied in). Just suggesting this because I think it is a lot >>> easier. >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: "Arsène Tungali" >>> To: "Mueller, Milton L" >>> Cc: "Farzaneh Badiei" ; " >>> governance at lists.riseup.net" >>> Sent: 21/12/2018 9:12:28 AM >>> Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits >>> >>> Milton, i think i tried to explain why i was suggesting that. Sorry if >>> that was not clear. The reason is simple: we agreed to take time to discuss >>> the merger issue within the two groups separately. So, if we Cc both lists >>> that means to me we are not doing separately anymore. That’s my >>> understanding and i may be wrong. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> >>> On 20 Dec 2018, at 23:32, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>> >>> Why segregate the discussions, Arsene? >>> I don't understand that. It merely perpetuates the problem of a >>> fragmented and uncoordinated civil society! >>> >>> --MM >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [mailto:governance- >>> request at lists.riseup.net] On Behalf Of Arsène Tungali >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 12:32 AM >>> To: Farzaneh Badiei >>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < ; >>> governance >>> Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits >>> >>> Farzaneh, all, >>> >>> While we are still discussing and I do appreciate the discussion, may I >>> please >>> suggest we keep discussions separate in each specific group? >>> As I said in my original email, the issue of a merger should be discussed >>> SEPARATELY at the IGC and Best Bits lists. >>> >>> Each group needs to have an internal discussion. >>> >>> So, please do not Cc both groups when communicating. Some members are >>> on both lists and have posting rights on both but others don't, this may >>> lead >>> to having fragmented pieces of emails when everyone is responding. >>> >>> Hope this makes sense. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Arsene >>> >>> 2018-12-17 23:33 UTC+02:00, farzaneh badii : >>> >>> Thanks Arsene. >>> >>> We need to decide on merging IGC and BestBits. The suggestion comes >>> from the fact that we have not been active much during the past year. >>> Also fragmented efforts are a strain on resources. Having multiple >>> elections and multiple groups to coordinate (with really minimal >>> differences) and then not be active at all for a year is not really >>> >>> recommendable. >>> >>> >>> De told us that apparently there is some kind of consensus method if I >>> am not mistaken. De, is there a documented approach? >>> >>> I think the most important is to discuss why BestBits was created and >>> whether the reasons still stand and how BestBits members feel about >>> the merge. Maybe the ones with strong objections can be convinced, >>> >>> maybe not. >>> >>> Lets have the conversation. If we do not see a strong objection >>> (multiple organizations, individuals object and give reasons as to why >>> BestBits should remain even if dormant), then we can decide on the >>> merge. If there are strong objections, then we will not go with the >>> merge. >>> >>> From what I see from BestBits website, the following individuals are >>> at the steering committee of BestBits: >>> >>> >>> - Nighat Dad >>> - Poncelet Ileleji >>> - Renata Ribeiro >>> - Dave Burstein >>> - Imran Ahmed Shah [second term of election] >>> - Antonella Perini [co-opted by committee] >>> >>> Besbits CSCG Representatives >>> >>> - Claudio Lucena Neto (2018-2019) >>> - Sheetal Kumar (2017-2018) >>> >>> >>> Does this list still stand? Do the steering committee members of >>> BestBits and the reps on CSCG would like to weigh in? >>> >>> I know Sheetal was on the call. Would be good to hear from others. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:00 AM Arsène Tungali >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> You have probably seen this already on a different thread but thought >>> it well to have this discussion solely on the IGC list (as I expect >>> Best Bits to do the same), that's why i started this thread hoping to >>> hear from you on this important question. >>> >>> This need for merging was raised by some IGC members during a civil >>> society call that had mostly IGC and Best Bits participants; many of >>> whom are both IGC and Best Bits (BB) members. The call happened last >>> week and Farzaneh offered to share the link to the recording. >>> >>> I will not go into much details about the rationale but would welcome >>> anyone to weigh in and share their reasoning on whether or not we >>> should merge both lists. We will need to also answer the question on >>> how (who is doing what?) will this happen? Is the IGC going to become >>> BB or the latter becoming IGC? Or are we working towards a different >>> group where members of both groups will all be added? >>> >>> This brings back to my memory the whole hassle we had to migrate >>> (SAVE?) this list and allow us to have this discussion list (which >>> hasn't been quite active for a few months but where many feel safe to >>> share IG related updates). So i hope we discuss and take into account >>> the technical cost of the merging process (should it happen). >>> >>> I am also not sure how we will gauge consensus about this question on >>> this list? Should we vote? How long do we take to decide? Should we >>> consult IGC 'founders' or former Co-coordinators separately and ask >>> them what they think? >>> >>> During the call, Bruna and I offered to have a decision by >>> mid-January and we hope this is realistic given the holiday season. >>> We will then report to the group. >>> >>> I just wanted to throw this all here and would REALLY appreciate a >>> discussion that will help us move forward and come to a conclusion. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Arsene >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------ >>> **Arsène Tungali* * Co-Founder & >>> Executive Director, *Rudi international < >>> http://www.rudiinternational.org>*, >>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, >>> Tel: +243 993810967 >>> GPG: 523644A0 >>> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* >>> >>> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow >>> >> washington.html> >>> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil >>> >> programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past- >>> Ambassadors> >>> & Mexico >>> >> programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>) >>> - AFRISIG 2016 - >>> Blogger >>> - ICANN's GNSO Council >>> Member. AFRINIC >>> Fellow ( Mauritius >>> >> winners>)* >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- *Carolina Rossini * + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini PGP ID: 0xEC81015C -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nadira.araj at gmail.com Wed Jan 9 00:17:34 2019 From: nadira.araj at gmail.com (Nadira Alaraj) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 07:17:34 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> Message-ID: Valid questions Carolina, If you didn't get a replies from members of the founding Bestbits groups then the current membership are none affiliated individuals. Therefore, Ian's proposal is the practical solution. Best, Nadira On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, 06:19 Carolina Rossini While Ian’s idea is interesting, I wonder - Who is in the BB list and is > not in the IGC list? Why is that the case? Are there barriers/conditions to > entry? Are they high or low barriers? > > As Ian also noticed, both lists were born from different/specific > communities, principles, ways of work, diversity, etc. > > Should the IGC’s principles and ways of work be laid out here, so they are > handy for folks to review and give their opinion if this is the preferred > way to move forward? > > It would be interesting to hear specially from those non overlapping folks > before moving forward. I feel it would also be relevant to some if the ICG > founders commit to be open to potential new input and feedback. > > Maybe there is a deal to be striken here to ensure IGC is the correct > place. > > I don’t want to complicate things, I just want to make sure all are heard > and have the tools to express their preference. > > Happy new year, everybody! > > C > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 9:29 PM Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> I support Ian's idea as well. >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net < >> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> on behalf of Judith Hellerstein < >> judith at jhellerstein.com> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 8, 2019 4:53:02 PM >> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best >> Bits >> >> >> HI, >> >> I support Ian's idea >> >> Judith >> >> _________________________________________________________________________ >> Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO >> Hellerstein & Associates >> 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 >> Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein >> Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 >> E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com >> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ >> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >> >> >> On 1/8/2019 3:35 PM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: >> >> I support the idea of merging. BB served a useful purpose for a while but >> that time has past. >> >> I suggest the easiest way to do this is for BB to decide to disband, and >> encourage any remaining members who are not already on the IGC mailing list >> to join up there. >> >> Ian >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: "Mwendwa Kivuva" >> To: "Sheetal Kumar" >> Cc: "< bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" >> Sent: 9/01/2019 4:52:30 AM >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best >> Bits >> >> A good idea as this is, can we get the genesis of how CS was split into >> different groupings? >> >> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019, 8:31 PM Sheetal Kumar > >>> Dear all, >>> >>> (dropping IGC as this is just for Bestbits members) Firstly, happy new >>> year! I am writing to follow up on the conversation with regards to a >>> proposal to merge IGC and Bestbits, discussed by those who attended the >>> call organised last December. >>> >>> As noted earlier, the merger of the two groups was suggested as a way of >>> avoiding duplication of work between groups, pooling resources and >>> streamlining efforts so that they're more focused and coordinated - >>> particularly around key forums and events. >>> >>> It would be interesting to hear feedback on this idea, positive or >>> otherwise. Otherwise, I suggest another call to decide next steps? >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal. >>> >>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 02:46, ian.peter at ianpeter.com < >>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Arsene, >>>> >>>> Mergers are difficult and imagine that both sides are going to have to >>>> change structurally so that they can work together. Both organisations have >>>> working rules and practices, changing both sets will be complex and I think >>>> unnecessary. >>>> >>>> My opinion is that, in this case, BB should just decide to fold - and >>>> in doing so, encourage its members to join IGC if they are not already >>>> involved. >>>> >>>> That's a lot simpler and leaves IGC intact and continuing as an >>>> umbrella groups for civil society involvement in internet governance. >>>> >>>> (Best Bits copied in). Just suggesting this because I think it is a lot >>>> easier. >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>> From: "Arsène Tungali" >>>> To: "Mueller, Milton L" >>>> Cc: "Farzaneh Badiei" ; " >>>> governance at lists.riseup.net" >>>> Sent: 21/12/2018 9:12:28 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits >>>> >>>> Milton, i think i tried to explain why i was suggesting that. Sorry if >>>> that was not clear. The reason is simple: we agreed to take time to discuss >>>> the merger issue within the two groups separately. So, if we Cc both lists >>>> that means to me we are not doing separately anymore. That’s my >>>> understanding and i may be wrong. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> >>>> On 20 Dec 2018, at 23:32, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>> >>>> Why segregate the discussions, Arsene? >>>> I don't understand that. It merely perpetuates the problem of a >>>> fragmented and uncoordinated civil society! >>>> >>>> --MM >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [mailto:governance- >>>> request at lists.riseup.net] On Behalf Of Arsène Tungali >>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 12:32 AM >>>> To: Farzaneh Badiei >>>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < ; >>>> governance >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits >>>> >>>> Farzaneh, all, >>>> >>>> While we are still discussing and I do appreciate the discussion, may I >>>> please >>>> suggest we keep discussions separate in each specific group? >>>> As I said in my original email, the issue of a merger should be >>>> discussed >>>> SEPARATELY at the IGC and Best Bits lists. >>>> >>>> Each group needs to have an internal discussion. >>>> >>>> So, please do not Cc both groups when communicating. Some members are >>>> on both lists and have posting rights on both but others don't, this >>>> may lead >>>> to having fragmented pieces of emails when everyone is responding. >>>> >>>> Hope this makes sense. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Arsene >>>> >>>> 2018-12-17 23:33 UTC+02:00, farzaneh badii : >>>> >>>> Thanks Arsene. >>>> >>>> We need to decide on merging IGC and BestBits. The suggestion comes >>>> from the fact that we have not been active much during the past year. >>>> Also fragmented efforts are a strain on resources. Having multiple >>>> elections and multiple groups to coordinate (with really minimal >>>> differences) and then not be active at all for a year is not really >>>> >>>> recommendable. >>>> >>>> >>>> De told us that apparently there is some kind of consensus method if I >>>> am not mistaken. De, is there a documented approach? >>>> >>>> I think the most important is to discuss why BestBits was created and >>>> whether the reasons still stand and how BestBits members feel about >>>> the merge. Maybe the ones with strong objections can be convinced, >>>> >>>> maybe not. >>>> >>>> Lets have the conversation. If we do not see a strong objection >>>> (multiple organizations, individuals object and give reasons as to why >>>> BestBits should remain even if dormant), then we can decide on the >>>> merge. If there are strong objections, then we will not go with the >>>> merge. >>>> >>>> From what I see from BestBits website, the following individuals are >>>> at the steering committee of BestBits: >>>> >>>> >>>> - Nighat Dad >>>> - Poncelet Ileleji >>>> - Renata Ribeiro >>>> - Dave Burstein >>>> - Imran Ahmed Shah [second term of election] >>>> - Antonella Perini [co-opted by committee] >>>> >>>> Besbits CSCG Representatives >>>> >>>> - Claudio Lucena Neto (2018-2019) >>>> - Sheetal Kumar (2017-2018) >>>> >>>> >>>> Does this list still stand? Do the steering committee members of >>>> BestBits and the reps on CSCG would like to weigh in? >>>> >>>> I know Sheetal was on the call. Would be good to hear from others. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:00 AM Arsène Tungali >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> You have probably seen this already on a different thread but thought >>>> it well to have this discussion solely on the IGC list (as I expect >>>> Best Bits to do the same), that's why i started this thread hoping to >>>> hear from you on this important question. >>>> >>>> This need for merging was raised by some IGC members during a civil >>>> society call that had mostly IGC and Best Bits participants; many of >>>> whom are both IGC and Best Bits (BB) members. The call happened last >>>> week and Farzaneh offered to share the link to the recording. >>>> >>>> I will not go into much details about the rationale but would welcome >>>> anyone to weigh in and share their reasoning on whether or not we >>>> should merge both lists. We will need to also answer the question on >>>> how (who is doing what?) will this happen? Is the IGC going to become >>>> BB or the latter becoming IGC? Or are we working towards a different >>>> group where members of both groups will all be added? >>>> >>>> This brings back to my memory the whole hassle we had to migrate >>>> (SAVE?) this list and allow us to have this discussion list (which >>>> hasn't been quite active for a few months but where many feel safe to >>>> share IG related updates). So i hope we discuss and take into account >>>> the technical cost of the merging process (should it happen). >>>> >>>> I am also not sure how we will gauge consensus about this question on >>>> this list? Should we vote? How long do we take to decide? Should we >>>> consult IGC 'founders' or former Co-coordinators separately and ask >>>> them what they think? >>>> >>>> During the call, Bruna and I offered to have a decision by >>>> mid-January and we hope this is realistic given the holiday season. >>>> We will then report to the group. >>>> >>>> I just wanted to throw this all here and would REALLY appreciate a >>>> discussion that will help us move forward and come to a conclusion. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Arsene >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ------------------------ >>>> **Arsène Tungali* * Co-Founder & >>>> Executive Director, *Rudi international < >>>> http://www.rudiinternational.org>*, >>>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, >>>> Tel: +243 993810967 >>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* >>>> >>>> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow >>>> >>> washington.html> >>>> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil >>>> >>> programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past- >>>> Ambassadors> >>>> & Mexico >>>> >>> programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>) >>>> - AFRISIG 2016 - >>>> Blogger >>>> - ICANN's GNSO Council >>>> Member. AFRINIC >>>> Fellow ( Mauritius >>>> >>> winners>)* >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- > > *Carolina Rossini * > + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini > PGP ID: 0xEC81015C > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jan 9 01:16:45 2019 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 06:16:45 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> Message-ID: Actually while this seemed to me the obvious way forward at first - BB emerged out of IGC, so why not get back together again - on reflection there are a few issues. Firstly I note that the IGC website is down so I cant check things - but from memory IGC had a constitution which we adopted early on which proved very difficult to change, and which may not be altogether suitable for what is needed now. I think this should be looked at before everyone is locked into something that is unsuitable. Can someone get the website up and running? But in any case, merging I think is necessary. At the very worst, if IGC proves to be a not completely suitable platform going forward, there is always the option to start something else to overcome the problems and get everyone to move on. The key I think is to work together and to seek the simplest paths forward to do this. Ian ------ Original Message ------ From: "Nadira Alaraj" To: "Carolina Rossini" Cc: "" Sent: 9/01/2019 4:17:34 PM Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits >Valid questions Carolina, >If you didn't get a replies from members of the founding Bestbits >groups then the current membership are none affiliated individuals. >Therefore, Ian's proposal is the practical solution. >Best, >Nadira > >On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, 06:19 Carolina Rossini wrote: >>While Ian’s idea is interesting, I wonder - Who is in the BB list and >>is not in the IGC list? Why is that the case? Are there >>barriers/conditions to entry? Are they high or low barriers? >> >>As Ian also noticed, both lists were born from different/specific >>communities, principles, ways of work, diversity, etc. >> >>Should the IGC’s principles and ways of work be laid out here, so they >>are handy for folks to review and give their opinion if this is the >>preferred way to move forward? >> >>It would be interesting to hear specially from those non overlapping >>folks before moving forward. I feel it would also be relevant to some >>if the ICG founders commit to be open to potential new input and >>feedback. >> >>Maybe there is a deal to be striken here to ensure IGC is the correct >>place. >> >>I don’t want to complicate things, I just want to make sure all are >>heard and have the tools to express their preference. >> >>Happy new year, everybody! >> >>C >> >>On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 9:29 PM Lee W McKnight >>wrote: >>>I support Ian's idea as well. >>> >>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>From:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> on behalf of Judith Hellerstein >>> >>>Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 4:53:02 PM >>>To:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> >>>Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with >>>Best Bits >>> >>>HI, >>> >>>I support Ian's idea >>> >>>Judith >>> >>>_________________________________________________________________________ >>>Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO >>>Hellerstein & Associates >>>3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 >>>Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein >>>Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 >>>E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com >>>Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ >>>Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >>> >>> >>>On 1/8/2019 3:35 PM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com >>> wrote: >>>>I support the idea of merging. BB served a useful purpose for a >>>>while but that time has past. >>>> >>>>I suggest the easiest way to do this is for BB to decide to disband, >>>>and encourage any remaining members who are not already on the IGC >>>>mailing list to join up there. >>>> >>>>Ian >>>> >>>>------ Original Message ------ >>>>From: "Mwendwa Kivuva" >>>>To: "Sheetal Kumar" >>>>Cc: "< bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >>>>" >>>> >>>>Sent: 9/01/2019 4:52:30 AM >>>>Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with >>>>Best Bits >>>> >>>>>A good idea as this is, can we get the genesis of how CS was split >>>>>into different groupings? >>>>> >>>>>On Tue, Jan 8, 2019, 8:31 PM Sheetal Kumar >>>>wrote: >>>>>>Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>>(dropping IGC as this is just for Bestbits members) Firstly, happy >>>>>>new year! I am writing to follow up on the conversation with >>>>>>regards to a proposal to merge IGC and Bestbits, discussed by >>>>>>those who attended the call organised last December. >>>>>> >>>>>>As noted earlier, the merger of the two groups was suggested as a >>>>>>way of avoiding duplication of work between groups, pooling >>>>>>resources and streamlining efforts so that they're more focused >>>>>>and coordinated - particularly around key forums and events. >>>>>> >>>>>>It would be interesting to hear feedback on this idea, positive or >>>>>>otherwise. Otherwise, I suggest another call to decide next steps? >>>>>> >>>>>>Best >>>>>>Sheetal. >>>>>> >>>>>>On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 02:46, ian.peter at ianpeter.com >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>Hi Arsene, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Mergers are difficult and imagine that both sides are going to >>>>>>>have to change structurally so that they can work together. Both >>>>>>>organisations have working rules and practices, changing both >>>>>>>sets will be complex and I think unnecessary. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>My opinion is that, in this case, BB should just decide to fold - >>>>>>>and in doing so, encourage its members to join IGC if they are >>>>>>>not already involved. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>That's a lot simpler and leaves IGC intact and continuing as an >>>>>>>umbrella groups for civil society involvement in internet >>>>>>>governance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>(Best Bits copied in). Just suggesting this because I think it is >>>>>>>a lot easier. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Ian Peter >>>>>>> >>>>>>>------ Original Message ------ >>>>>>>From: "Arsène Tungali" >>>>>>>To: "Mueller, Milton L" >>>>>>>Cc: "Farzaneh Badiei" ; >>>>>>>"governance at lists.riseup.net" >>>>>>>Sent: 21/12/2018 9:12:28 AM >>>>>>>Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Milton, i think i tried to explain why i was suggesting that. >>>>>>>>Sorry if that was not clear. The reason is simple: we agreed to >>>>>>>>take time to discuss the merger issue within the two groups >>>>>>>>separately. So, if we Cc both lists that means to me we are not >>>>>>>>doing separately anymore. That’s my understanding and i may be >>>>>>>>wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On 20 Dec 2018, at 23:32, Mueller, Milton L >>>>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Why segregate the discussions, Arsene? >>>>>>>>>I don't understand that. It merely perpetuates the problem of a >>>>>>>>>fragmented and uncoordinated civil society! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>--MM >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>[mailto:governance- >>>>>>>>>>request at lists.riseup.net] On Behalf Of Arsène Tungali >>>>>>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 12:32 AM >>>>>>>>>>To: Farzaneh Badiei >>>>>>>>>>Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>>>>> < >>>>>>>>>>; >>>>>>>>>>governance >>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best >>>>>>>>>>Bits >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Farzaneh, all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>While we are still discussing and I do appreciate the >>>>>>>>>>discussion, may I please >>>>>>>>>>suggest we keep discussions separate in each specific group? >>>>>>>>>>As I said in my original email, the issue of a merger should >>>>>>>>>>be discussed >>>>>>>>>>SEPARATELY at the IGC and Best Bits lists. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Each group needs to have an internal discussion. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>So, please do not Cc both groups when communicating. Some >>>>>>>>>>members are >>>>>>>>>>on both lists and have posting rights on both but others >>>>>>>>>>don't, this may lead >>>>>>>>>>to having fragmented pieces of emails when everyone is >>>>>>>>>>responding. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Hope this makes sense. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>Arsene >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>2018-12-17 23:33 UTC+02:00, farzaneh badii >>>>>>>>>>: >>>>>>>>>>>Thanks Arsene. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>We need to decide on merging IGC and BestBits. The suggestion >>>>>>>>>>>comes >>>>>>>>>>>from the fact that we have not been active much during the >>>>>>>>>>>past year. >>>>>>>>>>>Also fragmented efforts are a strain on resources. Having >>>>>>>>>>>multiple >>>>>>>>>>>elections and multiple groups to coordinate (with really >>>>>>>>>>>minimal >>>>>>>>>>>differences) and then not be active at all for a year is not >>>>>>>>>>>really >>>>>>>>>>recommendable. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>De told us that apparently there is some kind of consensus >>>>>>>>>>>method if I >>>>>>>>>>>am not mistaken. De, is there a documented approach? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I think the most important is to discuss why BestBits was >>>>>>>>>>>created and >>>>>>>>>>>whether the reasons still stand and how BestBits members feel >>>>>>>>>>>about >>>>>>>>>>>the merge. Maybe the ones with strong objections can be >>>>>>>>>>>convinced, >>>>>>>>>>maybe not. >>>>>>>>>>>Lets have the conversation. If we do not see a strong >>>>>>>>>>>objection >>>>>>>>>>>(multiple organizations, individuals object and give reasons >>>>>>>>>>>as to why >>>>>>>>>>>BestBits should remain even if dormant), then we can decide >>>>>>>>>>>on the >>>>>>>>>>>merge. If there are strong objections, then we will not go >>>>>>>>>>>with the merge. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>From what I see from BestBits website, the following >>>>>>>>>>>individuals are >>>>>>>>>>>at the steering committee of BestBits: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>- Nighat Dad >>>>>>>>>>>- Poncelet Ileleji >>>>>>>>>>>- Renata Ribeiro >>>>>>>>>>>- Dave Burstein >>>>>>>>>>>- Imran Ahmed Shah [second term of election] >>>>>>>>>>>- Antonella Perini [co-opted by committee] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Besbits CSCG Representatives >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>- Claudio Lucena Neto (2018-2019) >>>>>>>>>>>- Sheetal Kumar (2017-2018) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Does this list still stand? Do the steering committee members >>>>>>>>>>>of >>>>>>>>>>>BestBits and the reps on CSCG would like to weigh in? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I know Sheetal was on the call. Would be good to hear from >>>>>>>>>>>others. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Farzaneh >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:00 AM Arsène Tungali >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Hi everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>You have probably seen this already on a different thread >>>>>>>>>>>>but thought >>>>>>>>>>>>it well to have this discussion solely on the IGC list (as I >>>>>>>>>>>>expect >>>>>>>>>>>>Best Bits to do the same), that's why i started this thread >>>>>>>>>>>>hoping to >>>>>>>>>>>>hear from you on this important question. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>This need for merging was raised by some IGC members during >>>>>>>>>>>>a civil >>>>>>>>>>>>society call that had mostly IGC and Best Bits participants; >>>>>>>>>>>>many of >>>>>>>>>>>>whom are both IGC and Best Bits (BB) members. The call >>>>>>>>>>>>happened last >>>>>>>>>>>>week and Farzaneh offered to share the link to the >>>>>>>>>>>>recording. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>I will not go into much details about the rationale but >>>>>>>>>>>>would welcome >>>>>>>>>>>>anyone to weigh in and share their reasoning on whether or >>>>>>>>>>>>not we >>>>>>>>>>>>should merge both lists. We will need to also answer the >>>>>>>>>>>>question on >>>>>>>>>>>>how (who is doing what?) will this happen? Is the IGC going >>>>>>>>>>>>to become >>>>>>>>>>>>BB or the latter becoming IGC? Or are we working towards a >>>>>>>>>>>>different >>>>>>>>>>>>group where members of both groups will all be added? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>This brings back to my memory the whole hassle we had to >>>>>>>>>>>>migrate >>>>>>>>>>>>(SAVE?) this list and allow us to have this discussion list >>>>>>>>>>>>(which >>>>>>>>>>>>hasn't been quite active for a few months but where many >>>>>>>>>>>>feel safe to >>>>>>>>>>>>share IG related updates). So i hope we discuss and take >>>>>>>>>>>>into account >>>>>>>>>>>>the technical cost of the merging process (should it >>>>>>>>>>>>happen). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>I am also not sure how we will gauge consensus about this >>>>>>>>>>>>question on >>>>>>>>>>>>this list? Should we vote? How long do we take to decide? >>>>>>>>>>>>Should we >>>>>>>>>>>>consult IGC 'founders' or former Co-coordinators separately >>>>>>>>>>>>and ask >>>>>>>>>>>>them what they think? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>During the call, Bruna and I offered to have a decision by >>>>>>>>>>>>mid-January and we hope this is realistic given the holiday >>>>>>>>>>>>season. >>>>>>>>>>>>We will then report to the group. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>I just wanted to throw this all here and would REALLY >>>>>>>>>>>>appreciate a >>>>>>>>>>>>discussion that will help us move forward and come to a >>>>>>>>>>>>conclusion. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>Arsene >>>>>>>>>>>>--- >>>>>>>>>>>>To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>>>>>List help: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>>>------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>**Arsène Tungali* * Co-Founder >>>>>>>>>>& >>>>>>>>>>Executive Director, *Rudi international >>>>>>>>>>*, >>>>>>>>>>CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, >>>>>>>>>>Tel: +243 993810967 >>>>>>>>>>GPG: 523644A0 >>>>>>>>>>*Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>2015 Mandela Washington Felllow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>washington.html> >>>>>>>>>>(YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past- >>>>>>>>>>Ambassadors> >>>>>>>>>>& Mexico >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>) >>>>>>>>>>- AFRISIG 2016 >>>>>>>>>> - Blogger >>>>>>>>>> - ICANN's GNSO Council >>>>>>>>>> Member. >>>>>>>>>>AFRINIC >>>>>>>>>>Fellow ( Mauritius >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>winners>)* >>>>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>-- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>>>0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>> >>>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>-- >> >>Carolina Rossini >>+ 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini >>PGP ID: 0xEC81015C >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james at cyberinvasion.net Wed Jan 9 02:43:03 2019 From: james at cyberinvasion.net (James Gannon) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 07:43:03 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> Message-ID: I believe the website and much of the email archives were lost recently no? Would It not make sense to merge into BB as there is a complete record available and it seems to have been the more effective and active community on the global stage? On 9 Jan 2019, at 07:16, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: Actually while this seemed to me the obvious way forward at first - BB emerged out of IGC, so why not get back together again - on reflection there are a few issues. Firstly I note that the IGC website is down so I cant check things - but from memory IGC had a constitution which we adopted early on which proved very difficult to change, and which may not be altogether suitable for what is needed now. I think this should be looked at before everyone is locked into something that is unsuitable. Can someone get the website up and running? But in any case, merging I think is necessary. At the very worst, if IGC proves to be a not completely suitable platform going forward, there is always the option to start something else to overcome the problems and get everyone to move on. The key I think is to work together and to seek the simplest paths forward to do this. Ian ------ Original Message ------ From: "Nadira Alaraj" > To: "Carolina Rossini" > Cc: ">" > Sent: 9/01/2019 4:17:34 PM Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits Valid questions Carolina, If you didn't get a replies from members of the founding Bestbits groups then the current membership are none affiliated individuals. Therefore, Ian's proposal is the practical solution. Best, Nadira On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, 06:19 Carolina Rossini wrote: While Ian’s idea is interesting, I wonder - Who is in the BB list and is not in the IGC list? Why is that the case? Are there barriers/conditions to entry? Are they high or low barriers? As Ian also noticed, both lists were born from different/specific communities, principles, ways of work, diversity, etc. Should the IGC’s principles and ways of work be laid out here, so they are handy for folks to review and give their opinion if this is the preferred way to move forward? It would be interesting to hear specially from those non overlapping folks before moving forward. I feel it would also be relevant to some if the ICG founders commit to be open to potential new input and feedback. Maybe there is a deal to be striken here to ensure IGC is the correct place. I don’t want to complicate things, I just want to make sure all are heard and have the tools to express their preference. Happy new year, everybody! C On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 9:29 PM Lee W McKnight > wrote: I support Ian's idea as well. ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > on behalf of Judith Hellerstein > Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 4:53:02 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits HI, I support Ian's idea Judith _________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On 1/8/2019 3:35 PM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: I support the idea of merging. BB served a useful purpose for a while but that time has past. I suggest the easiest way to do this is for BB to decide to disband, and encourage any remaining members who are not already on the IGC mailing list to join up there. Ian ------ Original Message ------ From: "Mwendwa Kivuva" > To: "Sheetal Kumar" > Cc: "< bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" > Sent: 9/01/2019 4:52:30 AM Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits A good idea as this is, can we get the genesis of how CS was split into different groupings? On Tue, Jan 8, 2019, 8:31 PM Sheetal Kumar wrote: Dear all, (dropping IGC as this is just for Bestbits members) Firstly, happy new year! I am writing to follow up on the conversation with regards to a proposal to merge IGC and Bestbits, discussed by those who attended the call organised last December. As noted earlier, the merger of the two groups was suggested as a way of avoiding duplication of work between groups, pooling resources and streamlining efforts so that they're more focused and coordinated - particularly around key forums and events. It would be interesting to hear feedback on this idea, positive or otherwise. Otherwise, I suggest another call to decide next steps? Best Sheetal. On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 02:46, ian.peter at ianpeter.com > wrote: Hi Arsene, Mergers are difficult and imagine that both sides are going to have to change structurally so that they can work together. Both organisations have working rules and practices, changing both sets will be complex and I think unnecessary. My opinion is that, in this case, BB should just decide to fold - and in doing so, encourage its members to join IGC if they are not already involved. That's a lot simpler and leaves IGC intact and continuing as an umbrella groups for civil society involvement in internet governance. (Best Bits copied in). Just suggesting this because I think it is a lot easier. Ian Peter ------ Original Message ------ From: "Arsène Tungali" > To: "Mueller, Milton L" > Cc: "Farzaneh Badiei" >; "governance at lists.riseup.net" > Sent: 21/12/2018 9:12:28 AM Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits Milton, i think i tried to explain why i was suggesting that. Sorry if that was not clear. The reason is simple: we agreed to take time to discuss the merger issue within the two groups separately. So, if we Cc both lists that means to me we are not doing separately anymore. That’s my understanding and i may be wrong. Sent from my iPhone On 20 Dec 2018, at 23:32, Mueller, Milton L > wrote: Why segregate the discussions, Arsene? I don't understand that. It merely perpetuates the problem of a fragmented and uncoordinated civil society! --MM -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [mailto:governance- request at lists.riseup.net] On Behalf Of Arsène Tungali Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 12:32 AM To: Farzaneh Badiei > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >; governance > Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits Farzaneh, all, While we are still discussing and I do appreciate the discussion, may I please suggest we keep discussions separate in each specific group? As I said in my original email, the issue of a merger should be discussed SEPARATELY at the IGC and Best Bits lists. Each group needs to have an internal discussion. So, please do not Cc both groups when communicating. Some members are on both lists and have posting rights on both but others don't, this may lead to having fragmented pieces of emails when everyone is responding. Hope this makes sense. Thanks, Arsene 2018-12-17 23:33 UTC+02:00, farzaneh badii >: Thanks Arsene. We need to decide on merging IGC and BestBits. The suggestion comes from the fact that we have not been active much during the past year. Also fragmented efforts are a strain on resources. Having multiple elections and multiple groups to coordinate (with really minimal differences) and then not be active at all for a year is not really recommendable. De told us that apparently there is some kind of consensus method if I am not mistaken. De, is there a documented approach? I think the most important is to discuss why BestBits was created and whether the reasons still stand and how BestBits members feel about the merge. Maybe the ones with strong objections can be convinced, maybe not. Lets have the conversation. If we do not see a strong objection (multiple organizations, individuals object and give reasons as to why BestBits should remain even if dormant), then we can decide on the merge. If there are strong objections, then we will not go with the merge. From what I see from BestBits website, the following individuals are at the steering committee of BestBits: - Nighat Dad - Poncelet Ileleji - Renata Ribeiro - Dave Burstein - Imran Ahmed Shah [second term of election] - Antonella Perini [co-opted by committee] Besbits CSCG Representatives - Claudio Lucena Neto (2018-2019) - Sheetal Kumar (2017-2018) Does this list still stand? Do the steering committee members of BestBits and the reps on CSCG would like to weigh in? I know Sheetal was on the call. Would be good to hear from others. Farzaneh On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:00 AM Arsène Tungali > wrote: Hi everyone, You have probably seen this already on a different thread but thought it well to have this discussion solely on the IGC list (as I expect Best Bits to do the same), that's why i started this thread hoping to hear from you on this important question. This need for merging was raised by some IGC members during a civil society call that had mostly IGC and Best Bits participants; many of whom are both IGC and Best Bits (BB) members. The call happened last week and Farzaneh offered to share the link to the recording. I will not go into much details about the rationale but would welcome anyone to weigh in and share their reasoning on whether or not we should merge both lists. We will need to also answer the question on how (who is doing what?) will this happen? Is the IGC going to become BB or the latter becoming IGC? Or are we working towards a different group where members of both groups will all be added? This brings back to my memory the whole hassle we had to migrate (SAVE?) this list and allow us to have this discussion list (which hasn't been quite active for a few months but where many feel safe to share IG related updates). So i hope we discuss and take into account the technical cost of the merging process (should it happen). I am also not sure how we will gauge consensus about this question on this list? Should we vote? How long do we take to decide? Should we consult IGC 'founders' or former Co-coordinators separately and ask them what they think? During the call, Bruna and I offered to have a decision by mid-January and we hope this is realistic given the holiday season. We will then report to the group. I just wanted to throw this all here and would REALLY appreciate a discussion that will help us move forward and come to a conclusion. Best regards, Arsene --- To unsubscribe: > List help: -- ------------------------ **Arsène Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >*, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger > - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Sheetal Kumar Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Carolina Rossini + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini PGP ID: 0xEC81015C ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From 6.internet at gmail.com Wed Jan 9 03:02:28 2019 From: 6.internet at gmail.com (sivasubramanian muthusamy) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:32:28 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:48 AM ian.peter at ianpeter.com < ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: > Actually while this seemed to me the obvious way forward at first - BB > emerged out of IGC, so why not get back together again - on reflection > there are a few issues. > +1. The participants of IGC were almost automatically added to BB. In any case BB is the more recent of the two lists, and a sizeable proportion of the BB list are IGC participants. It would be easier to merge into IGC list, the optics of a longer history is the added advantage of merging into IGC. Sivasubramanian M > > Firstly I note that the IGC website is down so I cant check things - but > from memory IGC had a constitution which we adopted early on which proved > very difficult to change, and which may not be altogether suitable for what > is needed now. I think this should be looked at before everyone is locked > into something that is unsuitable. Can someone get the website up and > running? > > But in any case, merging I think is necessary. At the very worst, if IGC > proves to be a not completely suitable platform going forward, there is > always the option to start something else to overcome the problems and get > everyone to move on. > > The key I think is to work together and to seek the simplest paths forward > to do this. > > Ian > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Nadira Alaraj" > To: "Carolina Rossini" > Cc: "" > Sent: 9/01/2019 4:17:34 PM > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits > > Valid questions Carolina, > If you didn't get a replies from members of the founding Bestbits groups > then the current membership are none affiliated individuals. Therefore, > Ian's proposal is the practical solution. > Best, > Nadira > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, 06:19 Carolina Rossini wrote: > >> While Ian’s idea is interesting, I wonder - Who is in the BB list and is >> not in the IGC list? Why is that the case? Are there barriers/conditions to >> entry? Are they high or low barriers? >> >> As Ian also noticed, both lists were born from different/specific >> communities, principles, ways of work, diversity, etc. >> >> Should the IGC’s principles and ways of work be laid out here, so they >> are handy for folks to review and give their opinion if this is the >> preferred way to move forward? >> >> It would be interesting to hear specially from those non overlapping >> folks before moving forward. I feel it would also be relevant to some if >> the ICG founders commit to be open to potential new input and feedback. >> >> Maybe there is a deal to be striken here to ensure IGC is the correct >> place. >> >> I don’t want to complicate things, I just want to make sure all are heard >> and have the tools to express their preference. >> >> Happy new year, everybody! >> >> C >> >> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 9:29 PM Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >>> I support Ian's idea as well. >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net < >>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> on behalf of Judith Hellerstein < >>> judith at jhellerstein.com> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 8, 2019 4:53:02 PM >>> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with >>> Best Bits >>> >>> >>> HI, >>> >>> I support Ian's idea >>> >>> Judith >>> >>> _________________________________________________________________________ >>> Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO >>> Hellerstein & Associates >>> 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 >>> Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein >>> Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 >>> E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com >>> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ >>> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >>> >>> >>> On 1/8/2019 3:35 PM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: >>> >>> I support the idea of merging. BB served a useful purpose for a while >>> but that time has past. >>> >>> I suggest the easiest way to do this is for BB to decide to disband, and >>> encourage any remaining members who are not already on the IGC mailing list >>> to join up there. >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: "Mwendwa Kivuva" >>> To: "Sheetal Kumar" >>> Cc: "< bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" >>> Sent: 9/01/2019 4:52:30 AM >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best >>> Bits >>> >>> A good idea as this is, can we get the genesis of how CS was split into >>> different groupings? >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019, 8:31 PM Sheetal Kumar >> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> (dropping IGC as this is just for Bestbits members) Firstly, happy new >>>> year! I am writing to follow up on the conversation with regards to a >>>> proposal to merge IGC and Bestbits, discussed by those who attended the >>>> call organised last December. >>>> >>>> As noted earlier, the merger of the two groups was suggested as a way >>>> of avoiding duplication of work between groups, pooling resources and >>>> streamlining efforts so that they're more focused and coordinated - >>>> particularly around key forums and events. >>>> >>>> It would be interesting to hear feedback on this idea, positive or >>>> otherwise. Otherwise, I suggest another call to decide next steps? >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Sheetal. >>>> >>>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 02:46, ian.peter at ianpeter.com < >>>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Arsene, >>>>> >>>>> Mergers are difficult and imagine that both sides are going to have to >>>>> change structurally so that they can work together. Both organisations have >>>>> working rules and practices, changing both sets will be complex and I think >>>>> unnecessary. >>>>> >>>>> My opinion is that, in this case, BB should just decide to fold - and >>>>> in doing so, encourage its members to join IGC if they are not already >>>>> involved. >>>>> >>>>> That's a lot simpler and leaves IGC intact and continuing as an >>>>> umbrella groups for civil society involvement in internet governance. >>>>> >>>>> (Best Bits copied in). Just suggesting this because I think it is a >>>>> lot easier. >>>>> >>>>> Ian Peter >>>>> >>>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>>> From: "Arsène Tungali" >>>>> To: "Mueller, Milton L" >>>>> Cc: "Farzaneh Badiei" ; " >>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net" >>>>> Sent: 21/12/2018 9:12:28 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits >>>>> >>>>> Milton, i think i tried to explain why i was suggesting that. Sorry if >>>>> that was not clear. The reason is simple: we agreed to take time to discuss >>>>> the merger issue within the two groups separately. So, if we Cc both lists >>>>> that means to me we are not doing separately anymore. That’s my >>>>> understanding and i may be wrong. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 20 Dec 2018, at 23:32, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Why segregate the discussions, Arsene? >>>>> I don't understand that. It merely perpetuates the problem of a >>>>> fragmented and uncoordinated civil society! >>>>> >>>>> --MM >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [mailto:governance- >>>>> request at lists.riseup.net] On Behalf Of Arsène Tungali >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 12:32 AM >>>>> To: Farzaneh Badiei >>>>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < ; >>>>> governance >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits >>>>> >>>>> Farzaneh, all, >>>>> >>>>> While we are still discussing and I do appreciate the discussion, may >>>>> I please >>>>> suggest we keep discussions separate in each specific group? >>>>> As I said in my original email, the issue of a merger should be >>>>> discussed >>>>> SEPARATELY at the IGC and Best Bits lists. >>>>> >>>>> Each group needs to have an internal discussion. >>>>> >>>>> So, please do not Cc both groups when communicating. Some members are >>>>> on both lists and have posting rights on both but others don't, this >>>>> may lead >>>>> to having fragmented pieces of emails when everyone is responding. >>>>> >>>>> Hope this makes sense. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Arsene >>>>> >>>>> 2018-12-17 23:33 UTC+02:00, farzaneh badii : >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Arsene. >>>>> >>>>> We need to decide on merging IGC and BestBits. The suggestion comes >>>>> from the fact that we have not been active much during the past year. >>>>> Also fragmented efforts are a strain on resources. Having multiple >>>>> elections and multiple groups to coordinate (with really minimal >>>>> differences) and then not be active at all for a year is not really >>>>> >>>>> recommendable. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> De told us that apparently there is some kind of consensus method if I >>>>> am not mistaken. De, is there a documented approach? >>>>> >>>>> I think the most important is to discuss why BestBits was created and >>>>> whether the reasons still stand and how BestBits members feel about >>>>> the merge. Maybe the ones with strong objections can be convinced, >>>>> >>>>> maybe not. >>>>> >>>>> Lets have the conversation. If we do not see a strong objection >>>>> (multiple organizations, individuals object and give reasons as to why >>>>> BestBits should remain even if dormant), then we can decide on the >>>>> merge. If there are strong objections, then we will not go with the >>>>> merge. >>>>> >>>>> From what I see from BestBits website, the following individuals are >>>>> at the steering committee of BestBits: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Nighat Dad >>>>> - Poncelet Ileleji >>>>> - Renata Ribeiro >>>>> - Dave Burstein >>>>> - Imran Ahmed Shah [second term of election] >>>>> - Antonella Perini [co-opted by committee] >>>>> >>>>> Besbits CSCG Representatives >>>>> >>>>> - Claudio Lucena Neto (2018-2019) >>>>> - Sheetal Kumar (2017-2018) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Does this list still stand? Do the steering committee members of >>>>> BestBits and the reps on CSCG would like to weigh in? >>>>> >>>>> I know Sheetal was on the call. Would be good to hear from others. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:00 AM Arsène Tungali >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>>>> You have probably seen this already on a different thread but thought >>>>> it well to have this discussion solely on the IGC list (as I expect >>>>> Best Bits to do the same), that's why i started this thread hoping to >>>>> hear from you on this important question. >>>>> >>>>> This need for merging was raised by some IGC members during a civil >>>>> society call that had mostly IGC and Best Bits participants; many of >>>>> whom are both IGC and Best Bits (BB) members. The call happened last >>>>> week and Farzaneh offered to share the link to the recording. >>>>> >>>>> I will not go into much details about the rationale but would welcome >>>>> anyone to weigh in and share their reasoning on whether or not we >>>>> should merge both lists. We will need to also answer the question on >>>>> how (who is doing what?) will this happen? Is the IGC going to become >>>>> BB or the latter becoming IGC? Or are we working towards a different >>>>> group where members of both groups will all be added? >>>>> >>>>> This brings back to my memory the whole hassle we had to migrate >>>>> (SAVE?) this list and allow us to have this discussion list (which >>>>> hasn't been quite active for a few months but where many feel safe to >>>>> share IG related updates). So i hope we discuss and take into account >>>>> the technical cost of the merging process (should it happen). >>>>> >>>>> I am also not sure how we will gauge consensus about this question on >>>>> this list? Should we vote? How long do we take to decide? Should we >>>>> consult IGC 'founders' or former Co-coordinators separately and ask >>>>> them what they think? >>>>> >>>>> During the call, Bruna and I offered to have a decision by >>>>> mid-January and we hope this is realistic given the holiday season. >>>>> We will then report to the group. >>>>> >>>>> I just wanted to throw this all here and would REALLY appreciate a >>>>> discussion that will help us move forward and come to a conclusion. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Arsene >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ------------------------ >>>>> **Arsène Tungali* * Co-Founder & >>>>> Executive Director, *Rudi international < >>>>> http://www.rudiinternational.org>*, >>>>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, >>>>> Tel: +243 993810967 >>>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>>> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* >>>>> >>>>> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow >>>>> >>>> washington.html> >>>>> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil >>>>> >>>> programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past- >>>>> Ambassadors> >>>>> & Mexico >>>>> >>>> programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>) >>>>> - AFRISIG 2016 - >>>>> Blogger >>>>> - ICANN's GNSO Council >>>>> Member. AFRINIC >>>>> Fellow ( Mauritius >>>>> >>>> winners>)* >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> -- >> >> *Carolina Rossini * >> + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini >> PGP ID: 0xEC81015C >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jan 9 03:37:40 2019 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 08:37:40 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> Message-ID: Fortunately all the IGC documents are preserved at the Internet Archive (archive.org, use the wayback machine). You can access the IGC charter there if you are not familiar with it. Ian ------ Original Message ------ From: "sivasubramanian muthusamy" <6.internet at gmail.com> To: "ian.peter at ianpeter.com" Cc: "Nadira Alaraj" ; "Carolina Rossini" ; "" Sent: 9/01/2019 7:02:28 PM Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits > > > >On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:48 AM ian.peter at ianpeter.com > wrote: >>Actually while this seemed to me the obvious way forward at first - BB >>emerged out of IGC, so why not get back together again - on reflection >>there are a few issues. > >+1. The participants of IGC were almost automatically added to BB. >In any case BB is the more recent of the two lists, and a sizeable >proportion of the BB list are IGC participants. It would be easier to >merge into IGC list, the optics of a longer history is the added >advantage of merging into IGC. > >Sivasubramanian M > >> >>Firstly I note that the IGC website is down so I cant check things - >>but from memory IGC had a constitution which we adopted early on which >>proved very difficult to change, and which may not be altogether >>suitable for what is needed now. I think this should be looked at >>before everyone is locked into something that is unsuitable. Can >>someone get the website up and running? >> >>But in any case, merging I think is necessary. At the very worst, if >>IGC proves to be a not completely suitable platform going forward, >>there is always the option to start something else to overcome the >>problems and get everyone to move on. >> >>The key I think is to work together and to seek the simplest paths >>forward to do this. >> >>Ian >> >>------ Original Message ------ >>From: "Nadira Alaraj" >>To: "Carolina Rossini" >>Cc: "" >>Sent: 9/01/2019 4:17:34 PM >>Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best >>Bits >> >>>Valid questions Carolina, >>>If you didn't get a replies from members of the founding Bestbits >>>groups then the current membership are none affiliated individuals. >>>Therefore, Ian's proposal is the practical solution. >>>Best, >>>Nadira >>> >>>On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, 06:19 Carolina Rossini >>>>>>While Ian’s idea is interesting, I wonder - Who is in the BB list >>>>and is not in the IGC list? Why is that the case? Are there >>>>barriers/conditions to entry? Are they high or low barriers? >>>> >>>>As Ian also noticed, both lists were born from different/specific >>>>communities, principles, ways of work, diversity, etc. >>>> >>>>Should the IGC’s principles and ways of work be laid out here, so >>>>they are handy for folks to review and give their opinion if this is >>>>the preferred way to move forward? >>>> >>>>It would be interesting to hear specially from those non overlapping >>>>folks before moving forward. I feel it would also be relevant to >>>>some if the ICG founders commit to be open to potential new input >>>>and feedback. >>>> >>>>Maybe there is a deal to be striken here to ensure IGC is the >>>>correct place. >>>> >>>>I don’t want to complicate things, I just want to make sure all are >>>>heard and have the tools to express their preference. >>>> >>>>Happy new year, everybody! >>>> >>>>C >>>> >>>>On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 9:29 PM Lee W McKnight >>>>wrote: >>>>>I support Ian's idea as well. >>>>> >>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>From:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> on behalf of Judith >>>>>Hellerstein >>>>>Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 4:53:02 PM >>>>>To:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> >>>>>Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with >>>>>Best Bits >>>>> >>>>>HI, >>>>> >>>>>I support Ian's idea >>>>> >>>>>Judith >>>>> >>>>>_________________________________________________________________________ >>>>>Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO >>>>>Hellerstein & Associates >>>>>3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 >>>>>Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein >>>>>Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 >>>>>E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com >>>>>Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ >>>>>Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>On 1/8/2019 3:35 PM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>I support the idea of merging. BB served a useful purpose for a >>>>>>while but that time has past. >>>>>> >>>>>>I suggest the easiest way to do this is for BB to decide to >>>>>>disband, and encourage any remaining members who are not already >>>>>>on the IGC mailing list to join up there. >>>>>> >>>>>>Ian >>>>>> >>>>>>------ Original Message ------ >>>>>>From: "Mwendwa Kivuva" >>>>>>To: "Sheetal Kumar" >>>>>>Cc: "< bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >>>>>>" >>>>>> >>>>>>Sent: 9/01/2019 4:52:30 AM >>>>>>Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with >>>>>>Best Bits >>>>>> >>>>>>>A good idea as this is, can we get the genesis of how CS was >>>>>>>split into different groupings? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>On Tue, Jan 8, 2019, 8:31 PM Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dear all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>(dropping IGC as this is just for Bestbits members) Firstly, >>>>>>>>happy new year! I am writing to follow up on the conversation >>>>>>>>with regards to a proposal to merge IGC and Bestbits, discussed >>>>>>>>by those who attended the call organised last December. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>As noted earlier, the merger of the two groups was suggested as >>>>>>>>a way of avoiding duplication of work between groups, pooling >>>>>>>>resources and streamlining efforts so that they're more focused >>>>>>>>and coordinated - particularly around key forums and events. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It would be interesting to hear feedback on this idea, positive >>>>>>>>or otherwise. Otherwise, I suggest another call to decide next >>>>>>>>steps? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Best >>>>>>>>Sheetal. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 02:46, ian.peter at ianpeter.com >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>Hi Arsene, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Mergers are difficult and imagine that both sides are going to >>>>>>>>>have to change structurally so that they can work together. >>>>>>>>>Both organisations have working rules and practices, changing >>>>>>>>>both sets will be complex and I think unnecessary. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>My opinion is that, in this case, BB should just decide to fold >>>>>>>>>- and in doing so, encourage its members to join IGC if they >>>>>>>>>are not already involved. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>That's a lot simpler and leaves IGC intact and continuing as an >>>>>>>>>umbrella groups for civil society involvement in internet >>>>>>>>>governance. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>(Best Bits copied in). Just suggesting this because I think it >>>>>>>>>is a lot easier. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Ian Peter >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>------ Original Message ------ >>>>>>>>>From: "Arsène Tungali" >>>>>>>>>To: "Mueller, Milton L" >>>>>>>>>Cc: "Farzaneh Badiei" ; >>>>>>>>>"governance at lists.riseup.net" >>>>>>>>>Sent: 21/12/2018 9:12:28 AM >>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best >>>>>>>>>Bits >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Milton, i think i tried to explain why i was suggesting that. >>>>>>>>>>Sorry if that was not clear. The reason is simple: we agreed >>>>>>>>>>to take time to discuss the merger issue within the two groups >>>>>>>>>>separately. So, if we Cc both lists that means to me we are >>>>>>>>>>not doing separately anymore. That’s my understanding and i >>>>>>>>>>may be wrong. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On 20 Dec 2018, at 23:32, Mueller, Milton L >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Why segregate the discussions, Arsene? >>>>>>>>>>>I don't understand that. It merely perpetuates the problem of >>>>>>>>>>>a fragmented and uncoordinated civil society! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>--MM >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>[mailto:governance- >>>>>>>>>>>>request at lists.riseup.net] On Behalf Of Arsène Tungali >>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 12:32 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>To: Farzaneh Badiei >>>>>>>>>>>>Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>>>>>>> < >>>>>>>>>>>>; >>>>>>>>>>>>governance >>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best >>>>>>>>>>>>Bits >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Farzaneh, all, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>While we are still discussing and I do appreciate the >>>>>>>>>>>>discussion, may I please >>>>>>>>>>>>suggest we keep discussions separate in each specific group? >>>>>>>>>>>>As I said in my original email, the issue of a merger should >>>>>>>>>>>>be discussed >>>>>>>>>>>>SEPARATELY at the IGC and Best Bits lists. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Each group needs to have an internal discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>So, please do not Cc both groups when communicating. Some >>>>>>>>>>>>members are >>>>>>>>>>>>on both lists and have posting rights on both but others >>>>>>>>>>>>don't, this may lead >>>>>>>>>>>>to having fragmented pieces of emails when everyone is >>>>>>>>>>>>responding. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Hope this makes sense. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>Arsene >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>2018-12-17 23:33 UTC+02:00, farzaneh badii >>>>>>>>>>>>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>Thanks Arsene. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>We need to decide on merging IGC and BestBits. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>suggestion comes >>>>>>>>>>>>>from the fact that we have not been active much during the >>>>>>>>>>>>>past year. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Also fragmented efforts are a strain on resources. Having >>>>>>>>>>>>>multiple >>>>>>>>>>>>>elections and multiple groups to coordinate (with really >>>>>>>>>>>>>minimal >>>>>>>>>>>>>differences) and then not be active at all for a year is >>>>>>>>>>>>>not really >>>>>>>>>>>>recommendable. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>De told us that apparently there is some kind of consensus >>>>>>>>>>>>>method if I >>>>>>>>>>>>>am not mistaken. De, is there a documented approach? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>I think the most important is to discuss why BestBits was >>>>>>>>>>>>>created and >>>>>>>>>>>>>whether the reasons still stand and how BestBits members >>>>>>>>>>>>>feel about >>>>>>>>>>>>>the merge. Maybe the ones with strong objections can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>convinced, >>>>>>>>>>>>maybe not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Lets have the conversation. If we do not see a strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>objection >>>>>>>>>>>>>(multiple organizations, individuals object and give >>>>>>>>>>>>>reasons as to why >>>>>>>>>>>>>BestBits should remain even if dormant), then we can decide >>>>>>>>>>>>>on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>merge. If there are strong objections, then we will not go >>>>>>>>>>>>>with the merge. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>From what I see from BestBits website, the following >>>>>>>>>>>>>individuals are >>>>>>>>>>>>>at the steering committee of BestBits: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Nighat Dad >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Poncelet Ileleji >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Renata Ribeiro >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Dave Burstein >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Imran Ahmed Shah [second term of election] >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Antonella Perini [co-opted by committee] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Besbits CSCG Representatives >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Claudio Lucena Neto (2018-2019) >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Sheetal Kumar (2017-2018) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Does this list still stand? Do the steering committee >>>>>>>>>>>>>members of >>>>>>>>>>>>>BestBits and the reps on CSCG would like to weigh in? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>I know Sheetal was on the call. Would be good to hear from >>>>>>>>>>>>>others. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Farzaneh >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:00 AM Arsène Tungali >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>You have probably seen this already on a different thread >>>>>>>>>>>>>>but thought >>>>>>>>>>>>>>it well to have this discussion solely on the IGC list (as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I expect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Best Bits to do the same), that's why i started this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>thread hoping to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>hear from you on this important question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>This need for merging was raised by some IGC members >>>>>>>>>>>>>>during a civil >>>>>>>>>>>>>>society call that had mostly IGC and Best Bits >>>>>>>>>>>>>>participants; many of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>whom are both IGC and Best Bits (BB) members. The call >>>>>>>>>>>>>>happened last >>>>>>>>>>>>>>week and Farzaneh offered to share the link to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>recording. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I will not go into much details about the rationale but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>would welcome >>>>>>>>>>>>>>anyone to weigh in and share their reasoning on whether or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>not we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>should merge both lists. We will need to also answer the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>question on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>how (who is doing what?) will this happen? Is the IGC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>going to become >>>>>>>>>>>>>>BB or the latter becoming IGC? Or are we working towards a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>group where members of both groups will all be added? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>This brings back to my memory the whole hassle we had to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>migrate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>(SAVE?) this list and allow us to have this discussion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>list (which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>hasn't been quite active for a few months but where many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>feel safe to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>share IG related updates). So i hope we discuss and take >>>>>>>>>>>>>>into account >>>>>>>>>>>>>>the technical cost of the merging process (should it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>happen). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I am also not sure how we will gauge consensus about this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>question on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>this list? Should we vote? How long do we take to decide? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Should we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>consult IGC 'founders' or former Co-coordinators >>>>>>>>>>>>>>separately and ask >>>>>>>>>>>>>>them what they think? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>During the call, Bruna and I offered to have a decision by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>mid-January and we hope this is realistic given the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>holiday season. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>We will then report to the group. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I just wanted to throw this all here and would REALLY >>>>>>>>>>>>>>appreciate a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>discussion that will help us move forward and come to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>conclusion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Arsene >>>>>>>>>>>>>>--- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>List help: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>>>>>------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>**Arsène Tungali* * >>>>>>>>>>>>Co-Founder & >>>>>>>>>>>>Executive Director, *Rudi international >>>>>>>>>>>>*, >>>>>>>>>>>>CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, >>>>>>>>>>>>Tel: +243 993810967 >>>>>>>>>>>>GPG: 523644A0 >>>>>>>>>>>>*Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>2015 Mandela Washington Felllow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>washington.html> >>>>>>>>>>>>(YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past- >>>>>>>>>>>>Ambassadors> >>>>>>>>>>>>& Mexico >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>) >>>>>>>>>>>>- AFRISIG 2016 >>>>>>>>>>>> - Blogger >>>>>>>>>>>> - ICANN's GNSO Council >>>>>>>>>>>> Member. >>>>>>>>>>>>AFRINIC >>>>>>>>>>>>Fellow ( Mauritius >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>winners>)* >>>>>>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>>>>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>>>Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>>Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>>T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>>>PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>>>>>0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>>>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>-- >>>> >>>>Carolina Rossini >>>>+ 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini >>>>PGP ID: 0xEC81015C >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emmanuelvitus at gmail.com Wed Jan 9 08:20:38 2019 From: emmanuelvitus at gmail.com (Emmanuel vitus Agbenonwossi) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:20:38 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [Digital Rights and Inclusion Forum 2019, April 23 - 25 Lagos Nigeria] Registration and Call for Session Proposals Message-ID: Apologies for cross posting. --------------------------- FRANCAIS EN BAS --------------------------- Dear Community members, Happy New Year 2019! For those who may be interested, the Registration and Call for Session Proposals for Paradigm Initiative’s Digital Rights and Inclusion Forum (formerly Internet Freedom Forum) is still on for a few weeks till January 31. Stakeholders in the digital space across the world will converge in Lagos From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Jan 9 09:37:07 2019 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 14:37:07 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> , Message-ID: <9cf49f2528844abd81df93abb79c84b5@syr.edu> To fill in a bit of history, if I recall correctly, Avri Doria working from an IETF - style and - meeting-methods tool-box, was instrumental in formalizing IGC procedures back in the day. By design it was possible to change/modify, but not easy. Fairness and transparency were rules 1 2 3 etc. Keeping that procedural and technical infrastructure up after the fracturing/spin-outs of Best Bits and Just Net Coalition, obviously became more difficult after Jeremy Malcolm out of goodness of his heart fatiigue, moved on from maintenance. Benefits of IGC core procedure is its light-weight, meaning just if folks are on list for 2 months, and pledge allegiance to charter/affirm civil society memebrship, they are voting members; and we just need 2 volunteers to be co-coordinators on staggering terms; plus another fool/I mean kind person like Ian to chair a nomcom when needed. Of course modifying that charter now would be a thing someone could look into. BestBits had more formal group membership structure. As I recall. Anyway, my vote is for a BestBits list person - or a couple - to volunteer to co-coordinate IGC with Arsene, who has been stuck in that role for several years now. In our collective dreams, if a Best Bits organizational member had the resources to house/revive/support the IGC site, that would be great too. ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net on behalf of ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 1:16:45 AM To: Nadira Alaraj; Carolina Rossini Cc: Subject: Re[2]: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits Actually while this seemed to me the obvious way forward at first - BB emerged out of IGC, so why not get back together again - on reflection there are a few issues. Firstly I note that the IGC website is down so I cant check things - but from memory IGC had a constitution which we adopted early on which proved very difficult to change, and which may not be altogether suitable for what is needed now. I think this should be looked at before everyone is locked into something that is unsuitable. Can someone get the website up and running? But in any case, merging I think is necessary. At the very worst, if IGC proves to be a not completely suitable platform going forward, there is always the option to start something else to overcome the problems and get everyone to move on. The key I think is to work together and to seek the simplest paths forward to do this. Ian ------ Original Message ------ From: "Nadira Alaraj" > To: "Carolina Rossini" > Cc: "" > Sent: 9/01/2019 4:17:34 PM Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits Valid questions Carolina, If you didn't get a replies from members of the founding Bestbits groups then the current membership are none affiliated individuals. Therefore, Ian's proposal is the practical solution. Best, Nadira On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, 06:19 Carolina Rossini wrote: While Ian’s idea is interesting, I wonder - Who is in the BB list and is not in the IGC list? Why is that the case? Are there barriers/conditions to entry? Are they high or low barriers? As Ian also noticed, both lists were born from different/specific communities, principles, ways of work, diversity, etc. Should the IGC’s principles and ways of work be laid out here, so they are handy for folks to review and give their opinion if this is the preferred way to move forward? It would be interesting to hear specially from those non overlapping folks before moving forward. I feel it would also be relevant to some if the ICG founders commit to be open to potential new input and feedback. Maybe there is a deal to be striken here to ensure IGC is the correct place. I don’t want to complicate things, I just want to make sure all are heard and have the tools to express their preference. Happy new year, everybody! C On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 9:29 PM Lee W McKnight > wrote: I support Ian's idea as well. ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > on behalf of Judith Hellerstein > Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 4:53:02 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits HI, I support Ian's idea Judith _________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On 1/8/2019 3:35 PM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: I support the idea of merging. BB served a useful purpose for a while but that time has past. I suggest the easiest way to do this is for BB to decide to disband, and encourage any remaining members who are not already on the IGC mailing list to join up there. Ian ------ Original Message ------ From: "Mwendwa Kivuva" > To: "Sheetal Kumar" > Cc: "< bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" > Sent: 9/01/2019 4:52:30 AM Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits A good idea as this is, can we get the genesis of how CS was split into different groupings? On Tue, Jan 8, 2019, 8:31 PM Sheetal Kumar wrote: Dear all, (dropping IGC as this is just for Bestbits members) Firstly, happy new year! I am writing to follow up on the conversation with regards to a proposal to merge IGC and Bestbits, discussed by those who attended the call organised last December. As noted earlier, the merger of the two groups was suggested as a way of avoiding duplication of work between groups, pooling resources and streamlining efforts so that they're more focused and coordinated - particularly around key forums and events. It would be interesting to hear feedback on this idea, positive or otherwise. Otherwise, I suggest another call to decide next steps? Best Sheetal. On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 02:46, ian.peter at ianpeter.com > wrote: Hi Arsene, Mergers are difficult and imagine that both sides are going to have to change structurally so that they can work together. Both organisations have working rules and practices, changing both sets will be complex and I think unnecessary. My opinion is that, in this case, BB should just decide to fold - and in doing so, encourage its members to join IGC if they are not already involved. That's a lot simpler and leaves IGC intact and continuing as an umbrella groups for civil society involvement in internet governance. (Best Bits copied in). Just suggesting this because I think it is a lot easier. Ian Peter ------ Original Message ------ From: "Arsène Tungali" > To: "Mueller, Milton L" > Cc: "Farzaneh Badiei" >; "governance at lists.riseup.net" > Sent: 21/12/2018 9:12:28 AM Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits Milton, i think i tried to explain why i was suggesting that. Sorry if that was not clear. The reason is simple: we agreed to take time to discuss the merger issue within the two groups separately. So, if we Cc both lists that means to me we are not doing separately anymore. That’s my understanding and i may be wrong. Sent from my iPhone On 20 Dec 2018, at 23:32, Mueller, Milton L > wrote: Why segregate the discussions, Arsene? I don't understand that. It merely perpetuates the problem of a fragmented and uncoordinated civil society! --MM -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [mailto:governance- request at lists.riseup.net] On Behalf Of Arsène Tungali Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 12:32 AM To: Farzaneh Badiei > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >; governance > Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits Farzaneh, all, While we are still discussing and I do appreciate the discussion, may I please suggest we keep discussions separate in each specific group? As I said in my original email, the issue of a merger should be discussed SEPARATELY at the IGC and Best Bits lists. Each group needs to have an internal discussion. So, please do not Cc both groups when communicating. Some members are on both lists and have posting rights on both but others don't, this may lead to having fragmented pieces of emails when everyone is responding. Hope this makes sense. Thanks, Arsene 2018-12-17 23:33 UTC+02:00, farzaneh badii >: Thanks Arsene. We need to decide on merging IGC and BestBits. The suggestion comes from the fact that we have not been active much during the past year. Also fragmented efforts are a strain on resources. Having multiple elections and multiple groups to coordinate (with really minimal differences) and then not be active at all for a year is not really recommendable. De told us that apparently there is some kind of consensus method if I am not mistaken. De, is there a documented approach? I think the most important is to discuss why BestBits was created and whether the reasons still stand and how BestBits members feel about the merge. Maybe the ones with strong objections can be convinced, maybe not. Lets have the conversation. If we do not see a strong objection (multiple organizations, individuals object and give reasons as to why BestBits should remain even if dormant), then we can decide on the merge. If there are strong objections, then we will not go with the merge. From what I see from BestBits website, the following individuals are at the steering committee of BestBits: - Nighat Dad - Poncelet Ileleji - Renata Ribeiro - Dave Burstein - Imran Ahmed Shah [second term of election] - Antonella Perini [co-opted by committee] Besbits CSCG Representatives - Claudio Lucena Neto (2018-2019) - Sheetal Kumar (2017-2018) Does this list still stand? Do the steering committee members of BestBits and the reps on CSCG would like to weigh in? I know Sheetal was on the call. Would be good to hear from others. Farzaneh On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:00 AM Arsène Tungali > wrote: Hi everyone, You have probably seen this already on a different thread but thought it well to have this discussion solely on the IGC list (as I expect Best Bits to do the same), that's why i started this thread hoping to hear from you on this important question. This need for merging was raised by some IGC members during a civil society call that had mostly IGC and Best Bits participants; many of whom are both IGC and Best Bits (BB) members. The call happened last week and Farzaneh offered to share the link to the recording. I will not go into much details about the rationale but would welcome anyone to weigh in and share their reasoning on whether or not we should merge both lists. We will need to also answer the question on how (who is doing what?) will this happen? Is the IGC going to become BB or the latter becoming IGC? Or are we working towards a different group where members of both groups will all be added? This brings back to my memory the whole hassle we had to migrate (SAVE?) this list and allow us to have this discussion list (which hasn't been quite active for a few months but where many feel safe to share IG related updates). So i hope we discuss and take into account the technical cost of the merging process (should it happen). I am also not sure how we will gauge consensus about this question on this list? Should we vote? How long do we take to decide? Should we consult IGC 'founders' or former Co-coordinators separately and ask them what they think? During the call, Bruna and I offered to have a decision by mid-January and we hope this is realistic given the holiday season. We will then report to the group. I just wanted to throw this all here and would REALLY appreciate a discussion that will help us move forward and come to a conclusion. Best regards, Arsene --- To unsubscribe: > List help: -- ------------------------ **Arsène Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Sheetal Kumar Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Carolina Rossini + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini PGP ID: 0xEC81015C ____________________________________________________________ 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 jeremy at malcolm.id.au Wed Jan 9 11:36:06 2019 From: jeremy at malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 08:36:06 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> Message-ID: On 1/8/19 10:16 PM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: > Actually while this seemed to me the obvious way forward at first - BB > emerged out of IGC, so why not get back together again - on reflection > there are a few issues. > > Firstly I note that the IGC website is down so I cant check things - > but from memory IGC had a constitution which we adopted early on which > proved very difficult to change, and which may not be altogether > suitable for what is needed now. I think this should be looked at > before everyone is locked into something that is unsuitable. Can > someone get the website up and running? I can't volunteer for that because whenever I volunteer to run a website for a limited time I end up doing so in perpetuity, and I feel bad about stopping. However, I can donate a paid virtual server for SOMEONE ELSE to administer on their own. This is the one that Best Bits is using now. It's paid up for about 5 years. Also, as one of the original co-founders of Best Bits I do support the merger, and your (Ian's) suggestion still seems to be the best one on the table. There are previous Steering Committee members of Best Bits who aren't as happy about it, but I don't think that a good alternative has been put forward yet. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jan 10 00:58:13 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 11:28:13 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Workshop on global digital justice In-Reply-To: <3438a770-c0e7-d1ac-ab91-398923231515@itforchange.net> References: <3438a770-c0e7-d1ac-ab91-398923231515@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear All Wishing you a great 2019! Just Net Coalition plans a meeting between March 25th to 27th in Bangkok as a strategic get together of groups interested in issues of equity and social justice in the digital era. The plan is to shape and take forward a global digital justice agenda, working together as a network. This is also meant to further develop and strengthen the Just Net Coalition . The workshop is titled*"Equity and Social Justice in a Digital World: An Inter Sectoral/ Movements Dialogue for a Digital Justice Agenda". * Participants will come from (1) organisations that are already engaged with digital issues and (2) traditional civil society groups that have begun to feel the digital impact and pressure on their work, and would like to understand the digital better, from a progressive point of view, and collaborate in developing a global digital justice agenda. With a digital justice agenda we mean working equally on civil and political rights side as on social, economic and cultural rights. A datafied state is a major threat, but so is data discrimination by the private sector and a big corporation driven data economy that further concentrates wealth and power, within and across societies. Social and economic justice is a key part of this effort, which need to be brought to the centre stage of digital activism. This is also attempt to built bridges between digital activism in the geo-political South and North. Participants will mainly be groups that are already engaged in or with the Just Net Coalition in various ways. But we are eager to also include groups and people that we may not yet be in contact or engaged with, but who are eager to work on social and economic justice issues in a digital context. Such a commitment should be central to such groups/ people's work for them to fruitfully work with JNC and its various partners.  This email is an outreach to such groups/ people who may want to engage with us with regard to this initiative of Just Net Coalition, and possibly work with us on these important issues. The accent is to work primarily with organisations because the effort is to develop a strong and sustainable civil society constituency in this area. However, we are open to also dialogue with committed individuals with demonstrated work in these areas. As mentioned, this is a strategic get together, and invitation to the meeting is selective, as per various mentioned criteria. But please do not at all hesitate to ping us , ask questions or clarifications. We need a lots of us to work together for social justice in the digital age. We would normally expect any additional participant to be able to self-fund, but in a few select cases we may  be able to offer funding support.  Since the meeting is not that far off, if you are going to write to us, please do it asap. Best regards parminder IT for Change ON behalf of Just Net Coalition ’s Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Digital justice workshop note.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 50899 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 885 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From amritachoudhury8 at gmail.com Thu Jan 3 03:09:09 2019 From: amritachoudhury8 at gmail.com (Amrita) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 13:39:09 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Curated News on IG Events & Policy developments in December, 2018 from the Indian Perspective Message-ID: <00fa01d4a33b$9cff1df0$d6fd59d0$@com> Dear All, Apologies for cross posting. For those who may be interested, read curated news about Internet Governance (IG) events and policies from the Indian perspective, in the CCAOI December 2018 newsletter using this link . Regards, Amrita Choudhury CCAOI -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Thu Jan 10 05:01:02 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:01:02 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear all, I would agree with those further who have noted that we should have a discussion informed by certain information about the history of both groups: why were they constituted, what are their respective mandates/constitutions/charters etc? As a very first step, this information should be clear and accessible. We should be able to compare the mandates/guiding principles/charters. I can't access the IGC Charter via the link I'm afraid, or at least I can't find it when I visit archive.org. Would there be another way to share it? @Ian Peter - you also mentioned an IGC constitution, was this different from the charter? There is a lot more publicly available information about Bestbits available (see https://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/) than there is about IGC (indeed almost none, unless it is in the archive where I unfortunately haven't been able to find the information myself). For those who were part of the first Steering Committee of Bestbits - could you share more information about how it was constituted and why? Best Sheetal. On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 16:36, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 1/8/19 10:16 PM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: > > Actually while this seemed to me the obvious way forward at first - BB > emerged out of IGC, so why not get back together again - on reflection > there are a few issues. > > Firstly I note that the IGC website is down so I cant check things - but > from memory IGC had a constitution which we adopted early on which proved > very difficult to change, and which may not be altogether suitable for what > is needed now. I think this should be looked at before everyone is locked > into something that is unsuitable. Can someone get the website up and > running? > > > I can't volunteer for that because whenever I volunteer to run a website > for a limited time I end up doing so in perpetuity, and I feel bad about > stopping. However, I can donate a paid virtual server for SOMEONE ELSE to > administer on their own. This is the one that Best Bits is using now. It's > paid up for about 5 years. > > Also, as one of the original co-founders of Best Bits I do support the > merger, and your (Ian's) suggestion still seems to be the best one on the > table. There are previous Steering Committee members of Best Bits who > aren't as happy about it, but I don't think that a good alternative has > been put forward yet. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek > echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O - > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- *Sheetal Kumar* Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike.oghia at gmail.com Thu Jan 10 05:45:16 2019 From: mike.oghia at gmail.com (Michael J. Oghia) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 11:45:16 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi everyone, Sheetal makes a great point. I also just searched for the charter, hoping to find a full-length version of it on a blog somewhere. No luck. Does anyone have a PDF or. .doc version somewhere? Best, -Michael On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:01 AM Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > I would agree with those further who have noted that we should have a > discussion informed by certain information about the history of both > groups: why were they constituted, what are their respective > mandates/constitutions/charters etc? As a very first step, this information > should be clear and accessible. We should be able to compare the > mandates/guiding principles/charters. I can't access the IGC Charter via > the link I'm afraid, or at least I can't find it when I visit archive.org. > Would there be another way to share it? @Ian Peter - you also mentioned an > IGC constitution, was this different from the charter? There is a lot more > publicly available information about Bestbits available (see > https://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/) than there is about IGC > (indeed almost none, unless it is in the archive where I unfortunately > haven't been able to find the information myself). > > For those who were part of the first Steering Committee of Bestbits - > could you share more information about how it was constituted and why? > > Best > Sheetal. > > On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 16:36, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 1/8/19 10:16 PM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: >> >> Actually while this seemed to me the obvious way forward at first - BB >> emerged out of IGC, so why not get back together again - on reflection >> there are a few issues. >> >> Firstly I note that the IGC website is down so I cant check things - but >> from memory IGC had a constitution which we adopted early on which proved >> very difficult to change, and which may not be altogether suitable for what >> is needed now. I think this should be looked at before everyone is locked >> into something that is unsuitable. Can someone get the website up and >> running? >> >> >> I can't volunteer for that because whenever I volunteer to run a website >> for a limited time I end up doing so in perpetuity, and I feel bad about >> stopping. However, I can donate a paid virtual server for SOMEONE ELSE to >> administer on their own. This is the one that Best Bits is using now. It's >> paid up for about 5 years. >> >> Also, as one of the original co-founders of Best Bits I do support the >> merger, and your (Ian's) suggestion still seems to be the best one on the >> table. There are previous Steering Committee members of Best Bits who >> aren't as happy about it, but I don't think that a good alternative has >> been put forward yet. >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek >> echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O - >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 nnenna75 at gmail.com Thu Jan 10 06:41:42 2019 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 11:41:42 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi people My participation here (both ways) have gone down.. but since I have been around from Day 0 of each of these, I can share some thoughts. 1. IGC, the parent list underwent tough building processes. The "democratic" legacy of IGC is important when/if merging. 2. One of the reasons BB came to be was that IGC, at a certain point got too "talky, trashy and winding", in my opinion. Nothing was getting done and insults were freely served. 3. BB also came from a certain convening of Civil society actors during an IGF. It therefore became the "Action-oriented" network of CS people around IGF. 4. Over the years, though.. IGC has calmed down and BB has tired out. Beyond fusion/merger/marriage of both lists, is the greater question of how the non-government and non-industry actors engage in the internet/digital development landscape. A whole lot has changed, challenges have changed, and working methods may need to change if new objectives are to be achieved. Just as a reminder, this is NOT the first time that a merger idea has come. I have attached two screenshots. Happy New Year. Nnenna On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 10:46 AM Michael J. Oghia wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Sheetal makes a great point. I also just searched for the charter, hoping > to find a full-length version of it on a blog somewhere. No luck. Does > anyone have a PDF or. .doc version somewhere? > > Best, > -Michael > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:01 AM Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> I would agree with those further who have noted that we should have a >> discussion informed by certain information about the history of both >> groups: why were they constituted, what are their respective >> mandates/constitutions/charters etc? As a very first step, this information >> should be clear and accessible. We should be able to compare the >> mandates/guiding principles/charters. I can't access the IGC Charter via >> the link I'm afraid, or at least I can't find it when I visit archive.org. >> Would there be another way to share it? @Ian Peter - you also mentioned an >> IGC constitution, was this different from the charter? There is a lot more >> publicly available information about Bestbits available (see >> https://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/) than there is about IGC >> (indeed almost none, unless it is in the archive where I unfortunately >> haven't been able to find the information myself). >> >> For those who were part of the first Steering Committee of Bestbits - >> could you share more information about how it was constituted and why? >> >> Best >> Sheetal. >> >> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 16:36, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> On 1/8/19 10:16 PM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: >>> >>> Actually while this seemed to me the obvious way forward at first - BB >>> emerged out of IGC, so why not get back together again - on reflection >>> there are a few issues. >>> >>> Firstly I note that the IGC website is down so I cant check things - but >>> from memory IGC had a constitution which we adopted early on which proved >>> very difficult to change, and which may not be altogether suitable for what >>> is needed now. I think this should be looked at before everyone is locked >>> into something that is unsuitable. Can someone get the website up and >>> running? >>> >>> >>> I can't volunteer for that because whenever I volunteer to run a website >>> for a limited time I end up doing so in perpetuity, and I feel bad about >>> stopping. However, I can donate a paid virtual server for SOMEONE ELSE to >>> administer on their own. This is the one that Best Bits is using now. It's >>> paid up for about 5 years. >>> >>> Also, as one of the original co-founders of Best Bits I do support the >>> merger, and your (Ian's) suggestion still seems to be the best one on the >>> table. There are previous Steering Committee members of Best Bits who >>> aren't as happy about it, but I don't think that a good alternative has >>> been put forward yet. >>> >>> -- >>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek >>> echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O - >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: BBits.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 101814 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: BBits1.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 91325 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Thu Jan 10 07:30:04 2019 From: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via bestbits Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 12:30:04 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> Message-ID: <276364263.9332067.1547123404753@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Sheetal and All Friends at IGC & BestBits, Please find herewith Charter of IG Caucus. We can discuss it further to provide support for the re-establishment of Website of IGC CS, if really required. Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah[on behalf of IGF Pakistan] On Thursday, 10 January 2019, 15:46:10 GMT+5, Michael J. Oghia wrote: Hi everyone, Sheetal makes a great point. I also just searched for the charter, hoping to find a full-length version of it on a blog somewhere. No luck. Does anyone have a PDF or. .doc version somewhere? Best, -Michael On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:01 AM Sheetal Kumar wrote: Dear all, I would agree with those further who have noted that we should have a discussion informed by certain information about the history of both groups: why were they constituted, what are their respective mandates/constitutions/charters etc? As a very first step, this information should be clear and accessible. We should be able to compare the mandates/guiding principles/charters.I can't access the IGC Charter via the link I'm afraid, or at least I can't find it when I visit archive.org. Would there be another way to share it? @Ian Peter - you also mentioned an IGC constitution, was this different from the charter? There is a lot more publicly available information about Bestbits available (see https://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/) than there is about IGC (indeed almost none, unless it is in the archive where I unfortunately haven't been able to find the information myself). For those who were part of the first Steering Committee of Bestbits - could you share more information about how it was constituted and why? BestSheetal. On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 16:36, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 1/8/19 10:16 PM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: Actually while this seemed to me the obvious way forward at first - BB emerged out of IGC, so why not get back together again - on reflection there are a few issues. Firstly I note that the IGC website is down so I cant check things - but from memory IGC had a constitution which we adopted early on which proved very difficult to change, and which may not be altogether suitable for what is needed now. I think this should be looked at before everyone is locked into something that is unsuitable. Can someone get the website up and running? I can't volunteer for that because whenever I volunteer to run a website for a limited time I end up doing so in perpetuity, and I feel bad about stopping. However, I can donate a paid virtual server for SOMEONE ELSE to administer on their own. This is the one that Best Bits is using now. It's paid up for about 5 years. Also, as one of the original co-founders of Best Bits I do support the merger, and your (Ian's) suggestion still seems to be the best one on the table. There are previous Steering Committee members of Best Bits who aren't as happy about it, but I don't think that a good alternative has been put forward yet. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O - ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Sheetal KumarProgramme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITALSecond Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JLT: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Internet Governance Caucus Charter - Backup Copy as on Jan-2015.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 292794 bytes Desc: not available URL: From james at cyberinvasion.net Thu Jan 10 07:34:40 2019 From: james at cyberinvasion.net (James Gannon) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 12:34:40 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits In-Reply-To: <276364263.9332067.1547123404753@mail.yahoo.com> References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> <276364263.9332067.1547123404753@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0EE66990-DC17-4A22-A12B-7EF11FA9F54B@cyberinvasion.net> http://igcaucus.org/ Seems to resolve to a crypto currency site…... On 10 Jan 2019, at 13:30, Imran Ahmed Shah > wrote: Dear Sheetal and All Friends at IGC & BestBits, Please find herewith Charter of IG Caucus. We can discuss it further to provide support for the re-establishment of Website of IGC CS, if really required. Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah [on behalf of IGF Pakistan] On Thursday, 10 January 2019, 15:46:10 GMT+5, Michael J. Oghia > wrote: Hi everyone, Sheetal makes a great point. I also just searched for the charter, hoping to find a full-length version of it on a blog somewhere. No luck. Does anyone have a PDF or. .doc version somewhere? Best, -Michael On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:01 AM Sheetal Kumar > wrote: Dear all, I would agree with those further who have noted that we should have a discussion informed by certain information about the history of both groups: why were they constituted, what are their respective mandates/constitutions/charters etc? As a very first step, this information should be clear and accessible. We should be able to compare the mandates/guiding principles/charters. I can't access the IGC Charter via the link I'm afraid, or at least I can't find it when I visit archive.org. Would there be another way to share it? @Ian Peter - you also mentioned an IGC constitution, was this different from the charter? There is a lot more publicly available information about Bestbits available (see https://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/) than there is about IGC (indeed almost none, unless it is in the archive where I unfortunately haven't been able to find the information myself). For those who were part of the first Steering Committee of Bestbits - could you share more information about how it was constituted and why? Best Sheetal. On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 16:36, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: On 1/8/19 10:16 PM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: Actually while this seemed to me the obvious way forward at first - BB emerged out of IGC, so why not get back together again - on reflection there are a few issues. Firstly I note that the IGC website is down so I cant check things - but from memory IGC had a constitution which we adopted early on which proved very difficult to change, and which may not be altogether suitable for what is needed now. I think this should be looked at before everyone is locked into something that is unsuitable. Can someone get the website up and running? I can't volunteer for that because whenever I volunteer to run a website for a limited time I end up doing so in perpetuity, and I feel bad about stopping. However, I can donate a paid virtual server for SOMEONE ELSE to administer on their own. This is the one that Best Bits is using now. It's paid up for about 5 years. Also, as one of the original co-founders of Best Bits I do support the merger, and your (Ian's) suggestion still seems to be the best one on the table. There are previous Steering Committee members of Best Bits who aren't as happy about it, but I don't think that a good alternative has been put forward yet. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O - ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Sheetal Kumar Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at malcolm.id.au Thu Jan 10 13:08:56 2019 From: jeremy at malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:08:56 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> Message-ID: <6bb74092-192b-8370-b0e8-1987dd61e8e2@malcolm.id.au> On 1/10/19 2:01 AM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > For those who were part of the first Steering Committee of Bestbits - > could you share more information about how it was constituted and why? It was because IGC discourse had become toxic and dysfunctional, and people were dropping out. It had been a while since it had been able to agree on a joint statement. At the same time, the 2012 ITU WCIT was coming up, and being able to collaborate on joint action was important, so a few conversations between people both inside and outside of IGC resulted in them becoming the first volunteer steering committee. But then the same civil society politics that had driven the IGC into the ground started to disrupt Best Bits too. There were (misplaced but damaging) allegations about various participants having hidden agendas or not being transparent enough about their own funding. So whereas the original committee had been fairly lightweight and informal, pressure to adopt more formal mechanisms of accountability resulted in us investing a lot of time in creating a more elaborate set of rules and processes. As it turned out, this was too heavy and people weren't motivated to engage in these new processes, indicating that the more lightweight structure had probably been better. If there was a group of willing people who could resuscitate Best Bits, even without formal elections, I'd be all for that. But I don't think there is. I personally have given as much time to it as I'd like to give, because I'm focusing my energy on my new nonprofit Prostasia Foundation now. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O - From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Jan 11 08:09:35 2019 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 09:09:35 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits In-Reply-To: <6bb74092-192b-8370-b0e8-1987dd61e8e2@malcolm.id.au> References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> <6bb74092-192b-8370-b0e8-1987dd61e8e2@malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Please excuse the cross-posting. I've been following this discussion with care, and have a couple of questions which seem to fall in line with what Nnenna and Jeremy are saying. 1. If we had more or less stopped sharing information/discussing things/ working together within IGC and Bestbits separately, would merging the two groups again really improve participation? 2. Is there a way for us to look at what needs to be done, what we want to do, how we want to do it? 3. Who are "we"? Are we the same as the people who started IGC and Bestbits - same objectives, same perceptions and perspectives, same priorities? Without answers to these questions it seems unlikely that we would make much progress. Purely as an illustration please consider IRPC (which many of us also belong to) which is currently having some difficulty with identifying volunteers to carry out management tasks for the group. Civil society still needs a means to discuss issues and find a common voice, but is this the right way to do that now or do we need to devise something different? Best wishes for 2019 Deirdre On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 14:09, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 1/10/19 2:01 AM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > > > For those who were part of the first Steering Committee of Bestbits - > > could you share more information about how it was constituted and why? > > > It was because IGC discourse had become toxic and dysfunctional, and > people were dropping out. It had been a while since it had been able to > agree on a joint statement. At the same time, the 2012 ITU WCIT was > coming up, and being able to collaborate on joint action was important, > so a few conversations between people both inside and outside of IGC > resulted in them becoming the first volunteer steering committee. > > But then the same civil society politics that had driven the IGC into > the ground started to disrupt Best Bits too. There were (misplaced but > damaging) allegations about various participants having hidden agendas > or not being transparent enough about their own funding. So whereas the > original committee had been fairly lightweight and informal, pressure to > adopt more formal mechanisms of accountability resulted in us investing > a lot of time in creating a more elaborate set of rules and processes. > As it turned out, this was too heavy and people weren't motivated to > engage in these new processes, indicating that the more lightweight > structure had probably been better. > > If there was a group of willing people who could resuscitate Best Bits, > even without formal elections, I'd be all for that. But I don't think > there is. I personally have given as much time to it as I'd like to > give, because I'm focusing my energy on my new nonprofit Prostasia > Foundation now. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek > echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O - > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nigidaad at gmail.com Mon Jan 14 12:35:03 2019 From: nigidaad at gmail.com (Nighat Dad) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 22:35:03 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Two year cyber harassment helpline report & other DRF studies Message-ID: Dear all, Happy New Year and hoping you are well. I wanted to share few of our recently released reports on the list. Our research report titled “Online Participation of Female Politicians In Pakistan's General Elections 2018” observed that harassment of female politicians was qualitatively and quantitatively gendered. Furthermore, the report monitors online misinformation and political advertisements. We also make recommendations for the ECP and political parties to ensure that social media is regulated in line with freedom of expression. The research report can be accessed here: https://digitalrightsfoundation.pk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Booklet-Elections-Web-low.pdf . December also saw the cyber harassment helpline completing two years of operations. In its bi-annual report, “Cyber Harassment Helpline: Two Year Report, December 2016 - November 2018”, we report that the helpline received 2302 complaints from December 1, 2016, till November 30, 2018, with an average of 91 calls each month. 59% of the calls at the Helpline were by women, whereas 41% of the callers were men. Additionally, Facebook is the most widely used platform in Pakistan, which is reflected in the fact that 29% of the helpline callers experienced harassment there. The report can be accessed here: https://digitalrightsfoundation.pk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Booklet-Helpline.pdf . DRF also released its study documenting the experiences of Pakistani women with online harassment during the 16 days of Activism Campaign. These case studies capture the experience of Pakistani women in digital spaces and puts forward recommendations based on these lived experiences. These cases highlight the seriousness of online violence against young women from all walks of life. Click here to download the report. The reports have been covered extensively in the media (both electronic and print): Dawn: https://www.dawn.com/news/1450158. The Express Tribune: https://tribune.com.pk/story/1862432/1-report-online-harassment-female-politicians-likely-face-objectifying-comments-online/ . Hum News: https://www.facebook.com/DigitalRightsFoundation/videos/349136435883399/. GEO TV: https://www.facebook.com/150002775140293/posts/1224078057732754/. The reports have been covered extensively in the media (both electronic and print): Dawn: https://www.dawn.com/news/1450158. The Express Tribune: https://tribune.com.pk/story/1862432/1-report-online-harassment-female-politicians-likely-face-objectifying-comments-online/ . Hum News: https://www.facebook.com/DigitalRightsFoundation/videos/349136435883399/. GEO TV: https://www.facebook.com/150002775140293/posts/1224078057732754/. The Nation: https://nation.com.pk/02-Jan-2019/improving-reporting-mechanism-of-online-violence-proposed . The News International: https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/413615-harassment-helpline-r -- Best, Nighat Dad Executive Director Digital Rights Foundation PGP: 386F2A5F Fingerprint: 73C2 8F10 60D4 6553 0BFA D174 8AA1 226F 386F 2A5F Office Number: +92-42-35852180 DRF: Facebook | Twitter | Website Hamara Internet: Facebook | Twitter | Website Cyber Harassment Helpline: 0800-39393 Subscribe to DRF Newsletter [image: Inline image 1] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saragtti at gmail.com Mon Jan 14 14:34:58 2019 From: saragtti at gmail.com (Sara Fratti) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 13:34:58 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Women SIG ISOC is nominated to the WSIS Prizes Contest 2019 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Women SIG Internet Society Date: lun., 14 ene. 2019 a las 13:06 Subject: Women SIG ISOC is nominated to the WSIS Prizes Contest 2019 To: Thanks to your support last year we organized the 1st Global Editathon: Girls in ICT . This year we started with the news that the initiative is nominated to the WSIS Prizes Contest 2019 . Thank you very much for your support, we achieved this recognition. Now we want to win to continue promoting more actions in favor of girls and women. Do you help us with your vote? 1.- Register here: https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/stocktaking/Account/Login?ReturnUrl=%2Fnet4%2Fwsis%2Fstocktaking%2FPrizes%2F2019%2FVote 2.- Log in and vote here https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/stocktaking/Account/Login?ReturnUrl=%2Fnet4%2Fwsis%2Fstocktaking%2FPrizes%2F2019%2FMyVotes%3Fjts%3DZ160CO#start 3.- Where to find it: - Global Editathon: Girls in ICT - Category 4 - Capacity building 4.- Thank you Important: You must vote in ALL 18 categories for your vote to count! Deadline for voting is February 10. -- “Promote a global neutral space that works towards the involvement of women in technology and contributes to reducing the gender gap in the field”. Facebook: SIG Women Twitter: @SIGWomenISOC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From yannis at registry.asia Wed Jan 16 04:22:05 2019 From: yannis at registry.asia (Yannis Li) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 17:22:05 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Reminder: APrIGF Fellowship Program 2019 Application Deadline: 30 Jan (Wed) References: <9AFF7A5A-4855-4D5F-A8BA-71AA8CABDE25@aprigf.asia> Message-ID: <808CCEF5-EF6D-41CC-8F3C-7EB71E89225E@registry.asia> Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum APrIGF Vladivostok 2019 16 Jul - 19 Jul 2019 Far Eastern University, Vladivostok, Russia http://2019.aprigf.asia APrIGF Fellowship Program 2019 is opening for applications between 22 Dec 2018 00:00 UTC to 30 Jan 2019 24:00 UTC. Hosted by the Coordination Center of TLD RU, APrIGF 2019 will take place at Far Eastern Federal University on Russky Island in Vladivostok in late July 2019. The aim of an APrIGF Fellowship is to encourage active participation in the APrIGF Program among Asia-Pacific communities. While the fellowship aims to offer financial assistance to both new and experienced participants as well as those who have or have not submitted workshop proposals, the number of selected fellows from among the large number of applications we expect to receive, will be limited to the funding that is available for our Fellowship program. The final selection decision by the Fellowship Committee will therefore be based according to a points system each member allocates to the set of evaluation criteria. For more information about the eligibility and engagement requirement, please visit: https://www.aprigf.asia/news/2019/aprigf-vladivostok-2019-fellowship-application.html Stay tuned for the open call for workshop next week! Best Regards, Secretariat of APrIGF http://www.aprigf.asia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Tue Jan 8 12:31:13 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 17:31:13 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear all, (dropping IGC as this is just for Bestbits members) Firstly, happy new year! I am writing to follow up on the conversation with regards to a proposal to merge IGC and Bestbits, discussed by those who attended the call organised last December. As noted earlier, the merger of the two groups was suggested as a way of avoiding duplication of work between groups, pooling resources and streamlining efforts so that they're more focused and coordinated - particularly around key forums and events. It would be interesting to hear feedback on this idea, positive or otherwise. Otherwise, I suggest another call to decide next steps? Best Sheetal. On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 02:46, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: > Hi Arsene, > > Mergers are difficult and imagine that both sides are going to have to > change structurally so that they can work together. Both organisations have > working rules and practices, changing both sets will be complex and I think > unnecessary. > > My opinion is that, in this case, BB should just decide to fold - and in > doing so, encourage its members to join IGC if they are not already > involved. > > That's a lot simpler and leaves IGC intact and continuing as an umbrella > groups for civil society involvement in internet governance. > > (Best Bits copied in). Just suggesting this because I think it is a lot > easier. > > Ian Peter > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Arsène Tungali" > To: "Mueller, Milton L" > Cc: "Farzaneh Badiei" ; " > governance at lists.riseup.net" > Sent: 21/12/2018 9:12:28 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits > > Milton, i think i tried to explain why i was suggesting that. Sorry if > that was not clear. The reason is simple: we agreed to take time to discuss > the merger issue within the two groups separately. So, if we Cc both lists > that means to me we are not doing separately anymore. That’s my > understanding and i may be wrong. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 20 Dec 2018, at 23:32, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Why segregate the discussions, Arsene? > I don't understand that. It merely perpetuates the problem of a fragmented > and uncoordinated civil society! > > --MM > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [mailto:governance- > request at lists.riseup.net] On Behalf Of Arsène Tungali > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 12:32 AM > To: Farzaneh Badiei > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < ; > governance > Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits > > Farzaneh, all, > > While we are still discussing and I do appreciate the discussion, may I > please > suggest we keep discussions separate in each specific group? > As I said in my original email, the issue of a merger should be discussed > SEPARATELY at the IGC and Best Bits lists. > > Each group needs to have an internal discussion. > > So, please do not Cc both groups when communicating. Some members are > on both lists and have posting rights on both but others don't, this may > lead > to having fragmented pieces of emails when everyone is responding. > > Hope this makes sense. > > Thanks, > Arsene > > 2018-12-17 23:33 UTC+02:00, farzaneh badii : > > Thanks Arsene. > > We need to decide on merging IGC and BestBits. The suggestion comes > from the fact that we have not been active much during the past year. > Also fragmented efforts are a strain on resources. Having multiple > elections and multiple groups to coordinate (with really minimal > differences) and then not be active at all for a year is not really > > recommendable. > > > De told us that apparently there is some kind of consensus method if I > am not mistaken. De, is there a documented approach? > > I think the most important is to discuss why BestBits was created and > whether the reasons still stand and how BestBits members feel about > the merge. Maybe the ones with strong objections can be convinced, > > maybe not. > > Lets have the conversation. If we do not see a strong objection > (multiple organizations, individuals object and give reasons as to why > BestBits should remain even if dormant), then we can decide on the > merge. If there are strong objections, then we will not go with the merge. > > From what I see from BestBits website, the following individuals are > at the steering committee of BestBits: > > > - Nighat Dad > - Poncelet Ileleji > - Renata Ribeiro > - Dave Burstein > - Imran Ahmed Shah [second term of election] > - Antonella Perini [co-opted by committee] > > Besbits CSCG Representatives > > - Claudio Lucena Neto (2018-2019) > - Sheetal Kumar (2017-2018) > > > Does this list still stand? Do the steering committee members of > BestBits and the reps on CSCG would like to weigh in? > > I know Sheetal was on the call. Would be good to hear from others. > > > > > > Farzaneh > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:00 AM Arsène Tungali > > wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > You have probably seen this already on a different thread but thought > it well to have this discussion solely on the IGC list (as I expect > Best Bits to do the same), that's why i started this thread hoping to > hear from you on this important question. > > This need for merging was raised by some IGC members during a civil > society call that had mostly IGC and Best Bits participants; many of > whom are both IGC and Best Bits (BB) members. The call happened last > week and Farzaneh offered to share the link to the recording. > > I will not go into much details about the rationale but would welcome > anyone to weigh in and share their reasoning on whether or not we > should merge both lists. We will need to also answer the question on > how (who is doing what?) will this happen? Is the IGC going to become > BB or the latter becoming IGC? Or are we working towards a different > group where members of both groups will all be added? > > This brings back to my memory the whole hassle we had to migrate > (SAVE?) this list and allow us to have this discussion list (which > hasn't been quite active for a few months but where many feel safe to > share IG related updates). So i hope we discuss and take into account > the technical cost of the merging process (should it happen). > > I am also not sure how we will gauge consensus about this question on > this list? Should we vote? How long do we take to decide? Should we > consult IGC 'founders' or former Co-coordinators separately and ask > them what they think? > > During the call, Bruna and I offered to have a decision by > mid-January and we hope this is realistic given the holiday season. > We will then report to the group. > > I just wanted to throw this all here and would REALLY appreciate a > discussion that will help us move forward and come to a conclusion. > > Best regards, > Arsene > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > > > > > -- > ------------------------ > **Arsène Tungali* * Co-Founder & > Executive Director, *Rudi international >*, > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, > Tel: +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* > > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow > washington.html> > (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil > programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past- > Ambassadors> > & Mexico > programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>) > - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger > - ICANN's GNSO Council > Member. AFRINIC > Fellow ( Mauritius > winners>)* > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- *Sheetal Kumar* Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike.oghia at gmail.com Thu Jan 17 03:41:56 2019 From: mike.oghia at gmail.com (Michael J. Oghia) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 09:41:56 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Feedback Needed: The Open Internet for Democracy Advocacy Playbook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Open Internet for Democracy Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 11:30 PM Subject: Feedback Needed: The Open Internet for Democracy Advocacy Playbook To: Dear Open Internet for Democracy Community Members, We are excited to announce that the first draft of the Open Internet for Democracy Playbook is open for public feedback, and we welcome your input! The Open Internet for Democracy Playbook serves as a companion piece to the Democratic Principles for an Open Internet , which is a framework for understanding what principles must be upheld in order for the internet to foster democracy. The Playbook includes ideas and recommendations for the advocates of digital freedoms, focusing on tailored approaches to advocacy that apply across diverse local contexts. This Playbook is not designed to address every advocacy scenario - but we wanted to be sure to link advocates with a wide array of resources and strategies to assist them with their work. This is where YOU come in! Given that the strength of any resource is improved through incorporating collective knowledge - we wanted to ask for your feedback and input on the draft playbook . Currently, the Playbook looks at four different scenarios: 1. Responding to government policy or proposed policy 2. Pushing back against internet disruptions 3. Building digital resilience of marginalized communities 4. Building digital rights literacy For each scenario, we are looking for your suggestions for the following: - What online (or offline) advocacy tools or resources have you used that have been helpful? - Which training materials (in any language) have you found effective as it relates to each scenario? - Which advocacy organizations/groups should be listed in the Playbook as useful partners or resources? - Any approaches or techniques for each scenario that we’ve missed? - Any other suggestions you have! You can either add your comments and suggestions directly to the Google Doc, or you can email us at opennetprinciples at gmail.com as well. Contributors will be listed in the acknowledgments section, unless requested otherwise. Thank you for your support to help us make this a useful and practical tool for activists working under difficult circumstances to preserve an open and democratic internet. Best, The Open Internet for Democracy Team ________ You are receiving this message because you are part of the Open Internet for Democracy Community fostered by the Open Internet for Democracy Initiative , a collaborative effort between the National Democratic Institute (NDI) , the Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA) , and the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) . The Open Internet for Democracy Community is a non-public list of experts and members of civil society, political groups, private sector, and independent media who are involved in the internet freedom space and care about protecting and preserving an open internet. This community will serve as a portion of our mailing list that will receive occasional updates on the Initiative’s activities, advocacy strategies, as well as emails when we are soliciting feedback on documents such as the Democratic Principles for an Open Internet and the Open Internet for Democracy Advocacy Playbook . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dmitry.epstein at gmail.com Thu Jan 17 04:21:33 2019 From: dmitry.epstein at gmail.com (Dmitry Epstein) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 11:21:33 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Two CFPs for academic conference Message-ID: Dear Best Bits community, I hope those of you engaged in research will find the following two opportunities interesting. Both are for satellite events of the annual meeting of the International Communication Association to be held in Washington, DC in May this year (additional details in the links). - ICA Pre-Conference "Internet Governance and Communication beyond Boundaries" - https://www.giga-net.org/call-for-papers-ica-pre-conference-washington-dc-usa/ - ICA Post-Conference "Privacy research across cultural, political, and geographic boundaries" - http://www.thinkmacro.org/cprn/ica2019/ Please consider submitting your work. Best, Dmitry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Fri Jan 18 09:13:49 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 14:13:49 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> <6bb74092-192b-8370-b0e8-1987dd61e8e2@malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Dear all It's been great to see the engagement on this topic, and thanks to those who have shared their perspectives and the relevant documents too. In December when we had the call we agreed to touch base again in the middle of January to agree a way forward. The discussions here provide rich ground for the discussion, and Farzaneh has kindly offered to set up a conference call space for us. I am circulating below a doodle for our second call to decide next steps. This is a suggested agenda: 1) Identification/agreement of challenges and issues faced in each network 2) Discussion of options, e.g merger of lists/establishment of new/maintenance of status quo, e.g using lists as information sharing devices: pros and cons of each approach 3) Discussion of next steps/agreement on process for decision making regarding future of Bestbits Having spoken to those who arranged the last call, we suggest only Bestbits members are invited but that we also reach out to some IGC folks to help provide some background and inform the discussion only. https://doodle.com/poll/yzmbvibwp6n4s976 If everyone could fill out the doodle by the end of next week (Friday, 25 Jan) we can set a time and send the conference room link too. Best Sheetal. On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 13:10, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Please excuse the cross-posting. > I've been following this discussion with care, and have a couple of > questions which seem to fall in line with what Nnenna and Jeremy are saying. > 1. If we had more or less stopped sharing information/discussing things/ > working together within IGC and Bestbits separately, would merging the two > groups again really improve participation? > 2. Is there a way for us to look at what needs to be done, what we want to > do, how we want to do it? > 3. Who are "we"? Are we the same as the people who started IGC and > Bestbits - same objectives, same perceptions and perspectives, same > priorities? > Without answers to these questions it seems unlikely that we would make > much progress. > Purely as an illustration please consider IRPC (which many of us also > belong to) which is currently having some difficulty with identifying > volunteers to carry out management tasks for the group. > Civil society still needs a means to discuss issues and find a common > voice, but is this the right way to do that now or do we need to devise > something different? > Best wishes for 2019 > Deirdre > > On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 14:09, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 1/10/19 2:01 AM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >> >> > For those who were part of the first Steering Committee of Bestbits - >> > could you share more information about how it was constituted and why? >> >> >> It was because IGC discourse had become toxic and dysfunctional, and >> people were dropping out. It had been a while since it had been able to >> agree on a joint statement. At the same time, the 2012 ITU WCIT was >> coming up, and being able to collaborate on joint action was important, >> so a few conversations between people both inside and outside of IGC >> resulted in them becoming the first volunteer steering committee. >> >> But then the same civil society politics that had driven the IGC into >> the ground started to disrupt Best Bits too. There were (misplaced but >> damaging) allegations about various participants having hidden agendas >> or not being transparent enough about their own funding. So whereas the >> original committee had been fairly lightweight and informal, pressure to >> adopt more formal mechanisms of accountability resulted in us investing >> a lot of time in creating a more elaborate set of rules and processes. >> As it turned out, this was too heavy and people weren't motivated to >> engage in these new processes, indicating that the more lightweight >> structure had probably been better. >> >> If there was a group of willing people who could resuscitate Best Bits, >> even without formal elections, I'd be all for that. But I don't think >> there is. I personally have given as much time to it as I'd like to >> give, because I'm focusing my energy on my new nonprofit Prostasia >> Foundation now. >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek >> echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O - >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan.oppermann at gmail.com Sat Jan 19 11:04:03 2019 From: dan.oppermann at gmail.com (Daniel Oppermann) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 14:04:03 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] New edited collection "Internet Governance in the Global South - History, Theory, and Contemporary Debates" Message-ID: <40242204-3640-b9e1-7e46-3e32f57a4f13@gmail.com> Dear all, At NUPRI-USP (Núcleo de Pesquisa em Relações Internacionais) we published the edited collection "Internet Governance in the Global South - History, Theory, and Contemporary Debates". The book can be downloaded for free at the NUPRI website https://www.nupri.com.br. The content: From yannis at registry.asia Mon Jan 21 06:31:03 2019 From: yannis at registry.asia (Yannis Li) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 19:31:03 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] APrIGF Vladivostok 2019 - Open Call for Workshop Proposals [Deadline: 18 Mar] References: Message-ID: <05F51729-B8C4-4501-8918-B10CECED7002@registry.asia> Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum APrIGF Vladivostok 2019 16 July - 19 July 2019 Far Eastern University, Vladivostok http://2019.aprigf.asia Open Call for Workshop Proposals 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 2019 meeting will be held at the Far Eastern University on Russky Island hosted by Coordination Center for TLD RU. Our Multi-Stakeholder Steering Group(MSG) now would like to call upon the community to contribute to the program development process and suggest any workshop proposals for 2019. Overarching Theme: Ensuring a Safe, Secure, and Universal Internet for All in Asia Pacific Online Submission Form: https://www.aprigf.asia/news/2019/call-for-workshop-proposals.html Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline: 18 Mar 2018 (Mon), 24:00 UTC **Kindly read through the CFP guideline and the 2019 sub-themes before you submit a proposal! Sign up as a Potential Speaker If you are planning to participate in APrIGF whether in-person or remotely and are open to sharing your expertise as a speaker, we encourage you to sign up as a potential speaker. Person who is providing information to this Potential Speaker Form will be listed publicly as a directory where you may be invited by workshop organizers to be speaker/penalist on workshop relating to his/her field of expertise and experiences. Sign up Instructions and List: https://igf.asia/2019speakers If you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact the secretariat at sec at aprigf.asia . If you are interested to join the APrIGF community to share and discuss relevant issues or seek collaborators for a workshop, you may subscribe to the mailing list discuss at aprigf.asia by sending in subscription request to the secretariat. We also welcome any organisation to become a sponsor. Please contact the secretariat for more information. Best Regards, Secretariat of APrIGF http://www.aprigf.asia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gayatri at apc.org Tue Jan 29 18:09:42 2019 From: gayatri at apc.org (Gayatri Khandhadai) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 18:09:42 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] APC is hiring for the Challenge project Message-ID: <3919e0c2-0c14-662e-6aca-7e31f1495130@apc.org> Dear Partners, APC is excited to announce the beginning of the project titled "Challenging hate narratives and violations of freedom of religion and expression online in Asia" with the support of the European Instrument For Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR).  The Challenge project will be implemented by APC in partnership with the Southeast Asian Press Alliance and APC members Media Matters for Democracy from Pakistan and the Myanmar ICT for Development Organization. As a first step, we are hiring for two new positions. We are looking for individuals, based in Asia and interested in joining APC as Movement building support coordinator and Administrative and finance assistant. Please note that the deadline for applications is *6 February 2019*. It would be great if you are able to circulate these calls to your networks. Please also note that there will be several announcements related to this project in the coming days, keep an eye out for these! Best, Gayatri Khandhadai Asia Policy Regional Coordinator -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Wed Jan 30 05:07:42 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:07:42 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> <6bb74092-192b-8370-b0e8-1987dd61e8e2@malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Dear all, Thank you for filling out the doodle! It seems the best time for the call is* 4-6 PM UTC on February 11*. The full details of the call, including how to join, are below. Thanks to Farzaneh for setting up the room. Looking forward to speaking to as many of you as possible on the 11th! Best Sheetal. *Bestbits call: Future pathways * *Date and time: * 11 February, 4:00-6:00 PM UTC *Online Meeting room: * To join the Meeting: https://bluejeans.com/819760256 To join via Room System: Video Conferencing System: bjn.vc -or-199.48.152.152 Meeting ID : 819760256 To join via phone : 1) Dial: +1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose)) +1.888.240.2560 (US Toll Free) +1.408.317.9253 (US (Primary, San Jose)) (see all numbers - http://bluejeans.com/numbers) 2) Enter Conference ID : 819760256 Please note that if you call in, your phone number will appear on the Bluejeans room page. We would like to record and share the link with the BestBits network on the mailing list. Please let us know if you do not want the recording to be shared on an open mailing list if you call in. *Proposed agenda: * *Aim: *to discuss the future of the Bestbits and IGC lists, including the possibility of a merger + other options 1) Identification/agreement of challenges and issues faced in each network 2) Discussion of options, e.g merger of lists/establishment of new/maintenance of status quo - using lists as information sharing devices: pros and cons of each 3) Discussion of next steps/agreement on process for decision making regarding future of the lists *RSVP on etherpad* I've put the agenda in this pad and I've also added the names of those who indicated they were available for the call at this time. Of course, as a Bestbits member you can join the call without indicating that in the pad, this is just to have a vague idea of numbers. On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 14:13, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all > > It's been great to see the engagement on this topic, and thanks to those > who have shared their perspectives and the relevant documents too. > > In December when we had the call we agreed to touch base again in the > middle of January to agree a way forward. The discussions here provide rich > ground for the discussion, and Farzaneh has kindly offered to set up a > conference call space for us. > > I am circulating below a doodle for our second call to decide next steps. > This is a suggested agenda: > > 1) Identification/agreement of challenges and issues faced in each > network > 2) Discussion of options, e.g merger of lists/establishment of > new/maintenance of status quo, e.g using lists as information sharing > devices: pros and cons of each approach > 3) Discussion of next steps/agreement on process for decision making > regarding future of Bestbits > > Having spoken to those who arranged the last call, we suggest only > Bestbits members are invited but that we also reach out to some IGC folks > to help provide some background and inform the discussion only. > > https://doodle.com/poll/yzmbvibwp6n4s976 > > If everyone could fill out the doodle by the end of next week (Friday, 25 > Jan) we can set a time and send the conference room link too. > > Best > Sheetal. > > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 13:10, Deirdre Williams > wrote: > >> Please excuse the cross-posting. >> I've been following this discussion with care, and have a couple of >> questions which seem to fall in line with what Nnenna and Jeremy are saying. >> 1. If we had more or less stopped sharing information/discussing things/ >> working together within IGC and Bestbits separately, would merging the two >> groups again really improve participation? >> 2. Is there a way for us to look at what needs to be done, what we want >> to do, how we want to do it? >> 3. Who are "we"? Are we the same as the people who started IGC and >> Bestbits - same objectives, same perceptions and perspectives, same >> priorities? >> Without answers to these questions it seems unlikely that we would make >> much progress. >> Purely as an illustration please consider IRPC (which many of us also >> belong to) which is currently having some difficulty with identifying >> volunteers to carry out management tasks for the group. >> Civil society still needs a means to discuss issues and find a common >> voice, but is this the right way to do that now or do we need to devise >> something different? >> Best wishes for 2019 >> Deirdre >> >> On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 14:09, Jeremy Malcolm >> wrote: >> >>> On 1/10/19 2:01 AM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>> >>> > For those who were part of the first Steering Committee of Bestbits - >>> > could you share more information about how it was constituted and why? >>> >>> >>> It was because IGC discourse had become toxic and dysfunctional, and >>> people were dropping out. It had been a while since it had been able to >>> agree on a joint statement. At the same time, the 2012 ITU WCIT was >>> coming up, and being able to collaborate on joint action was important, >>> so a few conversations between people both inside and outside of IGC >>> resulted in them becoming the first volunteer steering committee. >>> >>> But then the same civil society politics that had driven the IGC into >>> the ground started to disrupt Best Bits too. There were (misplaced but >>> damaging) allegations about various participants having hidden agendas >>> or not being transparent enough about their own funding. So whereas the >>> original committee had been fairly lightweight and informal, pressure to >>> adopt more formal mechanisms of accountability resulted in us investing >>> a lot of time in creating a more elaborate set of rules and processes. >>> As it turned out, this was too heavy and people weren't motivated to >>> engage in these new processes, indicating that the more lightweight >>> structure had probably been better. >>> >>> If there was a group of willing people who could resuscitate Best Bits, >>> even without formal elections, I'd be all for that. But I don't think >>> there is. I personally have given as much time to it as I'd like to >>> give, because I'm focusing my energy on my new nonprofit Prostasia >>> Foundation now. >>> >>> -- >>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek >>> echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O - >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> > > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Tue Jan 8 12:52:30 2019 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 20:52:30 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> Message-ID: A good idea as this is, can we get the genesis of how CS was split into different groupings? On Tue, Jan 8, 2019, 8:31 PM Sheetal Kumar Dear all, > > (dropping IGC as this is just for Bestbits members) Firstly, happy new > year! I am writing to follow up on the conversation with regards to a > proposal to merge IGC and Bestbits, discussed by those who attended the > call organised last December. > > As noted earlier, the merger of the two groups was suggested as a way of > avoiding duplication of work between groups, pooling resources and > streamlining efforts so that they're more focused and coordinated - > particularly around key forums and events. > > It would be interesting to hear feedback on this idea, positive or > otherwise. Otherwise, I suggest another call to decide next steps? > > Best > Sheetal. > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 02:46, ian.peter at ianpeter.com < > ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: > >> Hi Arsene, >> >> Mergers are difficult and imagine that both sides are going to have to >> change structurally so that they can work together. Both organisations have >> working rules and practices, changing both sets will be complex and I think >> unnecessary. >> >> My opinion is that, in this case, BB should just decide to fold - and in >> doing so, encourage its members to join IGC if they are not already >> involved. >> >> That's a lot simpler and leaves IGC intact and continuing as an umbrella >> groups for civil society involvement in internet governance. >> >> (Best Bits copied in). Just suggesting this because I think it is a lot >> easier. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: "Arsène Tungali" >> To: "Mueller, Milton L" >> Cc: "Farzaneh Badiei" ; " >> governance at lists.riseup.net" >> Sent: 21/12/2018 9:12:28 AM >> Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits >> >> Milton, i think i tried to explain why i was suggesting that. Sorry if >> that was not clear. The reason is simple: we agreed to take time to discuss >> the merger issue within the two groups separately. So, if we Cc both lists >> that means to me we are not doing separately anymore. That’s my >> understanding and i may be wrong. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> On 20 Dec 2018, at 23:32, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >> >> Why segregate the discussions, Arsene? >> I don't understand that. It merely perpetuates the problem of a >> fragmented and uncoordinated civil society! >> >> --MM >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [mailto:governance- >> request at lists.riseup.net] On Behalf Of Arsène Tungali >> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 12:32 AM >> To: Farzaneh Badiei >> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < ; >> governance >> Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits >> >> Farzaneh, all, >> >> While we are still discussing and I do appreciate the discussion, may I >> please >> suggest we keep discussions separate in each specific group? >> As I said in my original email, the issue of a merger should be discussed >> SEPARATELY at the IGC and Best Bits lists. >> >> Each group needs to have an internal discussion. >> >> So, please do not Cc both groups when communicating. Some members are >> on both lists and have posting rights on both but others don't, this may >> lead >> to having fragmented pieces of emails when everyone is responding. >> >> Hope this makes sense. >> >> Thanks, >> Arsene >> >> 2018-12-17 23:33 UTC+02:00, farzaneh badii : >> >> Thanks Arsene. >> >> We need to decide on merging IGC and BestBits. The suggestion comes >> from the fact that we have not been active much during the past year. >> Also fragmented efforts are a strain on resources. Having multiple >> elections and multiple groups to coordinate (with really minimal >> differences) and then not be active at all for a year is not really >> >> recommendable. >> >> >> De told us that apparently there is some kind of consensus method if I >> am not mistaken. De, is there a documented approach? >> >> I think the most important is to discuss why BestBits was created and >> whether the reasons still stand and how BestBits members feel about >> the merge. Maybe the ones with strong objections can be convinced, >> >> maybe not. >> >> Lets have the conversation. If we do not see a strong objection >> (multiple organizations, individuals object and give reasons as to why >> BestBits should remain even if dormant), then we can decide on the >> merge. If there are strong objections, then we will not go with the merge. >> >> From what I see from BestBits website, the following individuals are >> at the steering committee of BestBits: >> >> >> - Nighat Dad >> - Poncelet Ileleji >> - Renata Ribeiro >> - Dave Burstein >> - Imran Ahmed Shah [second term of election] >> - Antonella Perini [co-opted by committee] >> >> Besbits CSCG Representatives >> >> - Claudio Lucena Neto (2018-2019) >> - Sheetal Kumar (2017-2018) >> >> >> Does this list still stand? Do the steering committee members of >> BestBits and the reps on CSCG would like to weigh in? >> >> I know Sheetal was on the call. Would be good to hear from others. >> >> >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:00 AM Arsène Tungali >> >> wrote: >> >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> You have probably seen this already on a different thread but thought >> it well to have this discussion solely on the IGC list (as I expect >> Best Bits to do the same), that's why i started this thread hoping to >> hear from you on this important question. >> >> This need for merging was raised by some IGC members during a civil >> society call that had mostly IGC and Best Bits participants; many of >> whom are both IGC and Best Bits (BB) members. The call happened last >> week and Farzaneh offered to share the link to the recording. >> >> I will not go into much details about the rationale but would welcome >> anyone to weigh in and share their reasoning on whether or not we >> should merge both lists. We will need to also answer the question on >> how (who is doing what?) will this happen? Is the IGC going to become >> BB or the latter becoming IGC? Or are we working towards a different >> group where members of both groups will all be added? >> >> This brings back to my memory the whole hassle we had to migrate >> (SAVE?) this list and allow us to have this discussion list (which >> hasn't been quite active for a few months but where many feel safe to >> share IG related updates). So i hope we discuss and take into account >> the technical cost of the merging process (should it happen). >> >> I am also not sure how we will gauge consensus about this question on >> this list? Should we vote? How long do we take to decide? Should we >> consult IGC 'founders' or former Co-coordinators separately and ask >> them what they think? >> >> During the call, Bruna and I offered to have a decision by >> mid-January and we hope this is realistic given the holiday season. >> We will then report to the group. >> >> I just wanted to throw this all here and would REALLY appreciate a >> discussion that will help us move forward and come to a conclusion. >> >> Best regards, >> Arsene >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------ >> **Arsène Tungali* * Co-Founder & >> Executive Director, *Rudi international > >*, >> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, >> Tel: +243 993810967 >> GPG: 523644A0 >> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* >> >> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow >> > washington.html> >> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil >> > programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past- >> Ambassadors> >> & Mexico >> > programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>) >> - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger >> - ICANN's GNSO Council >> Member. AFRINIC >> Fellow ( Mauritius >> > winners>)* >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jan 8 15:35:58 2019 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2019 20:35:58 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> Message-ID: I support the idea of merging. BB served a useful purpose for a while but that time has past. I suggest the easiest way to do this is for BB to decide to disband, and encourage any remaining members who are not already on the IGC mailing list to join up there. Ian ------ Original Message ------ From: "Mwendwa Kivuva" To: "Sheetal Kumar" Cc: "< bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" Sent: 9/01/2019 4:52:30 AM Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits >A good idea as this is, can we get the genesis of how CS was split into >different groupings? > >On Tue, Jan 8, 2019, 8:31 PM Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>Dear all, >> >>(dropping IGC as this is just for Bestbits members) Firstly, happy new >>year! I am writing to follow up on the conversation with regards to a >>proposal to merge IGC and Bestbits, discussed by those who attended >>the call organised last December. >> >>As noted earlier, the merger of the two groups was suggested as a way >>of avoiding duplication of work between groups, pooling resources and >>streamlining efforts so that they're more focused and coordinated - >>particularly around key forums and events. >> >>It would be interesting to hear feedback on this idea, positive or >>otherwise. Otherwise, I suggest another call to decide next steps? >> >>Best >>Sheetal. >> >>On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 02:46, ian.peter at ianpeter.com >> wrote: >>>Hi Arsene, >>> >>>Mergers are difficult and imagine that both sides are going to have >>>to change structurally so that they can work together. Both >>>organisations have working rules and practices, changing both sets >>>will be complex and I think unnecessary. >>> >>>My opinion is that, in this case, BB should just decide to fold - and >>>in doing so, encourage its members to join IGC if they are not >>>already involved. >>> >>>That's a lot simpler and leaves IGC intact and continuing as an >>>umbrella groups for civil society involvement in internet governance. >>> >>>(Best Bits copied in). Just suggesting this because I think it is a >>>lot easier. >>> >>>Ian Peter >>> >>>------ Original Message ------ >>>From: "Arsène Tungali" >>>To: "Mueller, Milton L" >>>Cc: "Farzaneh Badiei" ; >>>"governance at lists.riseup.net" >>>Sent: 21/12/2018 9:12:28 AM >>>Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits >>> >>>>Milton, i think i tried to explain why i was suggesting that. Sorry >>>>if that was not clear. The reason is simple: we agreed to take time >>>>to discuss the merger issue within the two groups separately. So, if >>>>we Cc both lists that means to me we are not doing separately >>>>anymore. That’s my understanding and i may be wrong. >>>> >>>>Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>>On 20 Dec 2018, at 23:32, Mueller, Milton L >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>Why segregate the discussions, Arsene? >>>>>I don't understand that. It merely perpetuates the problem of a >>>>>fragmented and uncoordinated civil society! >>>>> >>>>>--MM >>>>> >>>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>>From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [mailto:governance- >>>>>>request at lists.riseup.net] On Behalf Of Arsène Tungali >>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 12:32 AM >>>>>>To: Farzaneh Badiei >>>>>>Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >>>>>>; >>>>>>governance >>>>>>Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits >>>>>> >>>>>>Farzaneh, all, >>>>>> >>>>>>While we are still discussing and I do appreciate the discussion, >>>>>>may I please >>>>>>suggest we keep discussions separate in each specific group? >>>>>>As I said in my original email, the issue of a merger should be >>>>>>discussed >>>>>>SEPARATELY at the IGC and Best Bits lists. >>>>>> >>>>>>Each group needs to have an internal discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>>So, please do not Cc both groups when communicating. Some members >>>>>>are >>>>>>on both lists and have posting rights on both but others don't, >>>>>>this may lead >>>>>>to having fragmented pieces of emails when everyone is responding. >>>>>> >>>>>>Hope this makes sense. >>>>>> >>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>>Arsene >>>>>> >>>>>>2018-12-17 23:33 UTC+02:00, farzaneh badii >>>>>>: >>>>>>>Thanks Arsene. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>We need to decide on merging IGC and BestBits. The suggestion >>>>>>>comes >>>>>>>from the fact that we have not been active much during the past >>>>>>>year. >>>>>>>Also fragmented efforts are a strain on resources. Having >>>>>>>multiple >>>>>>>elections and multiple groups to coordinate (with really minimal >>>>>>>differences) and then not be active at all for a year is not >>>>>>>really >>>>>>recommendable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>De told us that apparently there is some kind of consensus method >>>>>>>if I >>>>>>>am not mistaken. De, is there a documented approach? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I think the most important is to discuss why BestBits was created >>>>>>>and >>>>>>>whether the reasons still stand and how BestBits members feel >>>>>>>about >>>>>>>the merge. Maybe the ones with strong objections can be >>>>>>>convinced, >>>>>>maybe not. >>>>>>>Lets have the conversation. If we do not see a strong objection >>>>>>>(multiple organizations, individuals object and give reasons as >>>>>>>to why >>>>>>>BestBits should remain even if dormant), then we can decide on >>>>>>>the >>>>>>>merge. If there are strong objections, then we will not go with >>>>>>>the merge. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>From what I see from BestBits website, the following individuals >>>>>>>are >>>>>>>at the steering committee of BestBits: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>- Nighat Dad >>>>>>>- Poncelet Ileleji >>>>>>>- Renata Ribeiro >>>>>>>- Dave Burstein >>>>>>>- Imran Ahmed Shah [second term of election] >>>>>>>- Antonella Perini [co-opted by committee] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Besbits CSCG Representatives >>>>>>> >>>>>>>- Claudio Lucena Neto (2018-2019) >>>>>>>- Sheetal Kumar (2017-2018) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Does this list still stand? Do the steering committee members of >>>>>>>BestBits and the reps on CSCG would like to weigh in? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I know Sheetal was on the call. Would be good to hear from >>>>>>>others. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Farzaneh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:00 AM Arsène Tungali >>>>>>> >>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Hi everyone, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You have probably seen this already on a different thread but >>>>>>>>thought >>>>>>>>it well to have this discussion solely on the IGC list (as I >>>>>>>>expect >>>>>>>>Best Bits to do the same), that's why i started this thread >>>>>>>>hoping to >>>>>>>>hear from you on this important question. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>This need for merging was raised by some IGC members during a >>>>>>>>civil >>>>>>>>society call that had mostly IGC and Best Bits participants; >>>>>>>>many of >>>>>>>>whom are both IGC and Best Bits (BB) members. The call happened >>>>>>>>last >>>>>>>>week and Farzaneh offered to share the link to the recording. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I will not go into much details about the rationale but would >>>>>>>>welcome >>>>>>>>anyone to weigh in and share their reasoning on whether or not >>>>>>>>we >>>>>>>>should merge both lists. We will need to also answer the >>>>>>>>question on >>>>>>>>how (who is doing what?) will this happen? Is the IGC going to >>>>>>>>become >>>>>>>>BB or the latter becoming IGC? Or are we working towards a >>>>>>>>different >>>>>>>>group where members of both groups will all be added? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>This brings back to my memory the whole hassle we had to migrate >>>>>>>>(SAVE?) this list and allow us to have this discussion list >>>>>>>>(which >>>>>>>>hasn't been quite active for a few months but where many feel >>>>>>>>safe to >>>>>>>>share IG related updates). So i hope we discuss and take into >>>>>>>>account >>>>>>>>the technical cost of the merging process (should it happen). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I am also not sure how we will gauge consensus about this >>>>>>>>question on >>>>>>>>this list? Should we vote? How long do we take to decide? Should >>>>>>>>we >>>>>>>>consult IGC 'founders' or former Co-coordinators separately and >>>>>>>>ask >>>>>>>>them what they think? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>During the call, Bruna and I offered to have a decision by >>>>>>>>mid-January and we hope this is realistic given the holiday >>>>>>>>season. >>>>>>>>We will then report to the group. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I just wanted to throw this all here and would REALLY appreciate >>>>>>>>a >>>>>>>>discussion that will help us move forward and come to a >>>>>>>>conclusion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Best regards, >>>>>>>>Arsene >>>>>>>>--- >>>>>>>>To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>List help: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>-- >>>>>>------------------------ >>>>>>**Arsène Tungali* * Co-Founder & >>>>>>Executive Director, *Rudi international >>>>>>*, >>>>>>CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, >>>>>>Tel: +243 993810967 >>>>>>GPG: 523644A0 >>>>>>*Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* >>>>>> >>>>>>2015 Mandela Washington Felllow >>>>>>>>>>>washington.html> >>>>>>(YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil >>>>>>>>>>>programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past- >>>>>>Ambassadors> >>>>>>& Mexico >>>>>>>>>>>programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>) >>>>>>- AFRISIG 2016 - >>>>>>Blogger >>>>>> - ICANN's GNSO Council >>>>>> Member. AFRINIC >>>>>>Fellow ( Mauritius >>>>>>>>>>>winners>)* >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >>-- >> >> >>Sheetal Kumar >>Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>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 wjdrake at gmail.com Tue Jan 8 15:53:46 2019 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 21:53:46 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> Message-ID: <90196B3D-097B-4D03-9547-96204A82DA70@gmail.com> Hi Ian Your approach makes sense to me. Best Bill > On Jan 8, 2019, at 21:35, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: > > I support the idea of merging. BB served a useful purpose for a while but that time has past. > > I suggest the easiest way to do this is for BB to decide to disband, and encourage any remaining members who are not already on the IGC mailing list to join up there. > > Ian > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Mwendwa Kivuva" > > To: "Sheetal Kumar" > > Cc: "< bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" > > Sent: 9/01/2019 4:52:30 AM > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits > >> A good idea as this is, can we get the genesis of how CS was split into different groupings? >> >> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019, 8:31 PM Sheetal Kumar wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> (dropping IGC as this is just for Bestbits members) Firstly, happy new year! I am writing to follow up on the conversation with regards to a proposal to merge IGC and Bestbits, discussed by those who attended the call organised last December. >> >> As noted earlier, the merger of the two groups was suggested as a way of avoiding duplication of work between groups, pooling resources and streamlining efforts so that they're more focused and coordinated - particularly around key forums and events. >> >> It would be interesting to hear feedback on this idea, positive or otherwise. Otherwise, I suggest another call to decide next steps? >> >> Best >> Sheetal. >> >> On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 02:46, ian.peter at ianpeter.com > wrote: >> Hi Arsene, >> >> Mergers are difficult and imagine that both sides are going to have to change structurally so that they can work together. Both organisations have working rules and practices, changing both sets will be complex and I think unnecessary. >> >> My opinion is that, in this case, BB should just decide to fold - and in doing so, encourage its members to join IGC if they are not already involved. >> >> That's a lot simpler and leaves IGC intact and continuing as an umbrella groups for civil society involvement in internet governance. >> >> (Best Bits copied in). Just suggesting this because I think it is a lot easier. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: "Arsène Tungali" > >> To: "Mueller, Milton L" > >> Cc: "Farzaneh Badiei" >; "governance at lists.riseup.net " > >> Sent: 21/12/2018 9:12:28 AM >> Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits >> >>> Milton, i think i tried to explain why i was suggesting that. Sorry if that was not clear. The reason is simple: we agreed to take time to discuss the merger issue within the two groups separately. So, if we Cc both lists that means to me we are not doing separately anymore. That’s my understanding and i may be wrong. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On 20 Dec 2018, at 23:32, Mueller, Milton L > wrote: >>>> >>>> Why segregate the discussions, Arsene? >>>> I don't understand that. It merely perpetuates the problem of a fragmented and uncoordinated civil society! >>>> >>>> --MM >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [mailto:governance- >>>>> request at lists.riseup.net ] On Behalf Of Arsène Tungali >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 12:32 AM >>>>> To: Farzaneh Badiei > >>>>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > < >; >>>>> governance > >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits >>>>> >>>>> Farzaneh, all, >>>>> >>>>> While we are still discussing and I do appreciate the discussion, may I please >>>>> suggest we keep discussions separate in each specific group? >>>>> As I said in my original email, the issue of a merger should be discussed >>>>> SEPARATELY at the IGC and Best Bits lists. >>>>> >>>>> Each group needs to have an internal discussion. >>>>> >>>>> So, please do not Cc both groups when communicating. Some members are >>>>> on both lists and have posting rights on both but others don't, this may lead >>>>> to having fragmented pieces of emails when everyone is responding. >>>>> >>>>> Hope this makes sense. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Arsene >>>>> >>>>> 2018-12-17 23:33 UTC+02:00, farzaneh badii >: >>>>>> Thanks Arsene. >>>>>> >>>>>> We need to decide on merging IGC and BestBits. The suggestion comes >>>>>> from the fact that we have not been active much during the past year. >>>>>> Also fragmented efforts are a strain on resources. Having multiple >>>>>> elections and multiple groups to coordinate (with really minimal >>>>>> differences) and then not be active at all for a year is not really >>>>> recommendable. >>>>>> >>>>>> De told us that apparently there is some kind of consensus method if I >>>>>> am not mistaken. De, is there a documented approach? >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the most important is to discuss why BestBits was created and >>>>>> whether the reasons still stand and how BestBits members feel about >>>>>> the merge. Maybe the ones with strong objections can be convinced, >>>>> maybe not. >>>>>> Lets have the conversation. If we do not see a strong objection >>>>>> (multiple organizations, individuals object and give reasons as to why >>>>>> BestBits should remain even if dormant), then we can decide on the >>>>>> merge. If there are strong objections, then we will not go with the merge. >>>>>> >>>>>> From what I see from BestBits website, the following individuals are >>>>>> at the steering committee of BestBits: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - Nighat Dad >>>>>> - Poncelet Ileleji >>>>>> - Renata Ribeiro >>>>>> - Dave Burstein >>>>>> - Imran Ahmed Shah [second term of election] >>>>>> - Antonella Perini [co-opted by committee] >>>>>> >>>>>> Besbits CSCG Representatives >>>>>> >>>>>> - Claudio Lucena Neto (2018-2019) >>>>>> - Sheetal Kumar (2017-2018) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Does this list still stand? Do the steering committee members of >>>>>> BestBits and the reps on CSCG would like to weigh in? >>>>>> >>>>>> I know Sheetal was on the call. Would be good to hear from others. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:00 AM Arsène Tungali >>>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You have probably seen this already on a different thread but thought >>>>>>> it well to have this discussion solely on the IGC list (as I expect >>>>>>> Best Bits to do the same), that's why i started this thread hoping to >>>>>>> hear from you on this important question. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This need for merging was raised by some IGC members during a civil >>>>>>> society call that had mostly IGC and Best Bits participants; many of >>>>>>> whom are both IGC and Best Bits (BB) members. The call happened last >>>>>>> week and Farzaneh offered to share the link to the recording. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will not go into much details about the rationale but would welcome >>>>>>> anyone to weigh in and share their reasoning on whether or not we >>>>>>> should merge both lists. We will need to also answer the question on >>>>>>> how (who is doing what?) will this happen? Is the IGC going to become >>>>>>> BB or the latter becoming IGC? Or are we working towards a different >>>>>>> group where members of both groups will all be added? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This brings back to my memory the whole hassle we had to migrate >>>>>>> (SAVE?) this list and allow us to have this discussion list (which >>>>>>> hasn't been quite active for a few months but where many feel safe to >>>>>>> share IG related updates). So i hope we discuss and take into account >>>>>>> the technical cost of the merging process (should it happen). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am also not sure how we will gauge consensus about this question on >>>>>>> this list? Should we vote? How long do we take to decide? Should we >>>>>>> consult IGC 'founders' or former Co-coordinators separately and ask >>>>>>> them what they think? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> During the call, Bruna and I offered to have a decision by >>>>>>> mid-January and we hope this is realistic given the holiday season. >>>>>>> We will then report to the group. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I just wanted to throw this all here and would REALLY appreciate a >>>>>>> discussion that will help us move forward and come to a conclusion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> Arsene >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe: > >>>>>>> List help: > >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ------------------------ >>>>> **Arsène Tungali* >* Co-Founder & >>>>> Executive Director, *Rudi international >*, >>>>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl >*, >>>>> Tel: +243 993810967 >>>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>>> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* >>>>> >>>>> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow >>>>> - >>>>> washington.html> >>>>> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil >>>>> - >>>>> programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past- >>>>> Ambassadors> >>>>> & Mexico >>>>> - >>>>> programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>) >>>>> - AFRISIG 2016 > - Blogger >>>>> > - ICANN's GNSO Council >>>>> > Member. AFRINIC >>>>> Fellow ( Mauritius >>>>> - >>>>> winners>)* >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> -- >> >> >> Sheetal Kumar >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Department of Communication and Media Research University of Zurich, Switzerland william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists) www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Jan 8 16:42:05 2019 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 19:42:05 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits In-Reply-To: <90196B3D-097B-4D03-9547-96204A82DA70@gmail.com> References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <90196B3D-097B-4D03-9547-96204A82DA70@gmail.com> Message-ID: <82240dfd-c20a-7d8f-576a-6927d4278947@cafonso.ca> I agree with Ian's suggestion. frt rgds --c.a. On 08/01/2019 18:53, William Drake wrote: > Hi Ian > > Your approach makes sense to me. > > Best > > Bill > >> On Jan 8, 2019, at 21:35, ian.peter at ianpeter.com >> wrote: >> >> I support the idea of merging. BB served a useful purpose for a while >> but that time has past. >> >> I suggest the easiest way to do this is for BB to decide to disband, >> and encourage any remaining members who are not already on the IGC >> mailing list to join up there.  >> >> Ian [...] -- Carlos A. Afonso [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br From judith at jhellerstein.com Tue Jan 8 16:53:02 2019 From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 16:53:02 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Jan 8 21:29:14 2019 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 02:29:14 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits In-Reply-To: References: <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> , Message-ID: <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> I support Ian's idea as well. ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net on behalf of Judith Hellerstein Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 4:53:02 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits HI, I support Ian's idea Judith _________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On 1/8/2019 3:35 PM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: I support the idea of merging. BB served a useful purpose for a while but that time has past. I suggest the easiest way to do this is for BB to decide to disband, and encourage any remaining members who are not already on the IGC mailing list to join up there. Ian ------ Original Message ------ From: "Mwendwa Kivuva" > To: "Sheetal Kumar" > Cc: "< bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" > Sent: 9/01/2019 4:52:30 AM Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits A good idea as this is, can we get the genesis of how CS was split into different groupings? On Tue, Jan 8, 2019, 8:31 PM Sheetal Kumar wrote: Dear all, (dropping IGC as this is just for Bestbits members) Firstly, happy new year! I am writing to follow up on the conversation with regards to a proposal to merge IGC and Bestbits, discussed by those who attended the call organised last December. As noted earlier, the merger of the two groups was suggested as a way of avoiding duplication of work between groups, pooling resources and streamlining efforts so that they're more focused and coordinated - particularly around key forums and events. It would be interesting to hear feedback on this idea, positive or otherwise. Otherwise, I suggest another call to decide next steps? Best Sheetal. On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 02:46, ian.peter at ianpeter.com > wrote: Hi Arsene, Mergers are difficult and imagine that both sides are going to have to change structurally so that they can work together. Both organisations have working rules and practices, changing both sets will be complex and I think unnecessary. My opinion is that, in this case, BB should just decide to fold - and in doing so, encourage its members to join IGC if they are not already involved. That's a lot simpler and leaves IGC intact and continuing as an umbrella groups for civil society involvement in internet governance. (Best Bits copied in). Just suggesting this because I think it is a lot easier. Ian Peter ------ Original Message ------ From: "Arsène Tungali" > To: "Mueller, Milton L" > Cc: "Farzaneh Badiei" >; "governance at lists.riseup.net" > Sent: 21/12/2018 9:12:28 AM Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits Milton, i think i tried to explain why i was suggesting that. Sorry if that was not clear. The reason is simple: we agreed to take time to discuss the merger issue within the two groups separately. So, if we Cc both lists that means to me we are not doing separately anymore. That’s my understanding and i may be wrong. Sent from my iPhone On 20 Dec 2018, at 23:32, Mueller, Milton L > wrote: Why segregate the discussions, Arsene? I don't understand that. It merely perpetuates the problem of a fragmented and uncoordinated civil society! --MM -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [mailto:governance- request at lists.riseup.net] On Behalf Of Arsène Tungali Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 12:32 AM To: Farzaneh Badiei > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >; governance > Subject: Re: [governance] IMPORTANT : Merging IGC with Best Bits Farzaneh, all, While we are still discussing and I do appreciate the discussion, may I please suggest we keep discussions separate in each specific group? As I said in my original email, the issue of a merger should be discussed SEPARATELY at the IGC and Best Bits lists. Each group needs to have an internal discussion. So, please do not Cc both groups when communicating. Some members are on both lists and have posting rights on both but others don't, this may lead to having fragmented pieces of emails when everyone is responding. Hope this makes sense. Thanks, Arsene 2018-12-17 23:33 UTC+02:00, farzaneh badii >: Thanks Arsene. We need to decide on merging IGC and BestBits. The suggestion comes from the fact that we have not been active much during the past year. Also fragmented efforts are a strain on resources. Having multiple elections and multiple groups to coordinate (with really minimal differences) and then not be active at all for a year is not really recommendable. De told us that apparently there is some kind of consensus method if I am not mistaken. De, is there a documented approach? I think the most important is to discuss why BestBits was created and whether the reasons still stand and how BestBits members feel about the merge. Maybe the ones with strong objections can be convinced, maybe not. Lets have the conversation. If we do not see a strong objection (multiple organizations, individuals object and give reasons as to why BestBits should remain even if dormant), then we can decide on the merge. If there are strong objections, then we will not go with the merge. From what I see from BestBits website, the following individuals are at the steering committee of BestBits: - Nighat Dad - Poncelet Ileleji - Renata Ribeiro - Dave Burstein - Imran Ahmed Shah [second term of election] - Antonella Perini [co-opted by committee] Besbits CSCG Representatives - Claudio Lucena Neto (2018-2019) - Sheetal Kumar (2017-2018) Does this list still stand? Do the steering committee members of BestBits and the reps on CSCG would like to weigh in? I know Sheetal was on the call. Would be good to hear from others. Farzaneh On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:00 AM Arsène Tungali > wrote: Hi everyone, You have probably seen this already on a different thread but thought it well to have this discussion solely on the IGC list (as I expect Best Bits to do the same), that's why i started this thread hoping to hear from you on this important question. This need for merging was raised by some IGC members during a civil society call that had mostly IGC and Best Bits participants; many of whom are both IGC and Best Bits (BB) members. The call happened last week and Farzaneh offered to share the link to the recording. I will not go into much details about the rationale but would welcome anyone to weigh in and share their reasoning on whether or not we should merge both lists. We will need to also answer the question on how (who is doing what?) will this happen? Is the IGC going to become BB or the latter becoming IGC? Or are we working towards a different group where members of both groups will all be added? This brings back to my memory the whole hassle we had to migrate (SAVE?) this list and allow us to have this discussion list (which hasn't been quite active for a few months but where many feel safe to share IG related updates). So i hope we discuss and take into account the technical cost of the merging process (should it happen). I am also not sure how we will gauge consensus about this question on this list? Should we vote? How long do we take to decide? Should we consult IGC 'founders' or former Co-coordinators separately and ask them what they think? During the call, Bruna and I offered to have a decision by mid-January and we hope this is realistic given the holiday season. We will then report to the group. I just wanted to throw this all here and would REALLY appreciate a discussion that will help us move forward and come to a conclusion. Best regards, Arsene --- To unsubscribe: > List help: -- ------------------------ **Arsène Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN's GNSO Council Member. AFRINIC Fellow ( Mauritius )* ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Sheetal Kumar Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: