[governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership
Suresh Ramasubramanian
suresh at hserus.net
Thu Jun 27 01:22:29 EDT 2013
Thanks for sharing this. Looks like a further rebuttal of some long
recycled canards is in order. Now for a letter to the editor of the indian
express
--srs (htc one x)
On 27 June 2013 10:43:20 AM parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> From the Indian Express, of yesterday..... The author recently retired
> as India's Permanent Representative to the UN.
>
>
>
>
> Wide asleep on the net
>
> *Hardeep S Puri* Posted online: Thu Jun 27 2013, 05:15 hrs
> **/The Snowden revelations point to the urgency to overhaul the current
> architecture of global internet governance/
>
> Disclosures by Edward Snowden of the PRISM project by the National Security
> Agency of the United States government have revived discussions about the
> need for democratisation of the current architecture of global internet
> governance. Notwithstanding the sophistry and grandstanding about
> preserving the multi-stakeholder model, freedom of expression and avoiding
> control of content, the current system is anything but any of these. Behind
> this veneer, the economic, commercial and political interests of a powerful
> group are sought to be entrenched.
>
> The US not only possesses the capacity to keep our citizens under
> surveillance, but in fact tracks telephone calls, emails, chats and other
> communications based on the internet every month, in the name of
> counter-terrorism. Being ranked fifth, bracketed with Jordan and Pakistan
> and ahead of Saudi Arabia, China and Russia, should be a matter of concern
> for India.
>
> Apologists among Indian IT majors and industry associations can be expected
> to rise in defence of the current model of internet governance; after all,
> many of them depend on global internet majors for their business, and have
> always spoken and acted on behalf of the latter. Whenever discussions are
> held on the subject, the former find ways of occupying the space and
> manipulating opinions that echo the interests of the latter.
>
> India called for democratisation of global internet governance and proposed
> in October 2011 the setting up of a Committee for Internet-Related Policies
> (CIRP), accountable to the United Nations General Assembly, to deal with
> international public policies relating to the internet. Instead of
> discussing the pros and cons of different elements of the proposal, there
> was an orchestrated cacophony in the media designed to drown any reasoned
> debate. Calls were made to force India to withdraw the proposal. India’s
> proposal was characterised as catastrophic, threatening a “UN takeover of
> the internet”, and doomed to bring down Indian IT firms.
>
> India’s policy on this subject of considerable strategic significance has
> been consistent for over a decade. The initial calls for democratisation of
> global internet governance were made by then ministers Arun Shourie in
> December 2003 in Geneva and Dayanidhi Maran in Tunis in November 2005, at
> the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS). India pursued the
> implementation of the report of the Working Group on Internet Governance
> (WGIG) chaired by Nitin Desai on the subject during the 2003 -05 period and
> the Tunis Agenda, which mandated that the “International management of the
> internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic”. The report
> got implemented only in parts, through the setting up of the Internet
> Governance Forum whose ineffectiveness has been increasingly recognised in
> recent months even by Western commentators and academics. The more
> important recommendations on dealing with public policy issues were buried
> deep, without any meaningful discussion of the options presented in the report.
>
> The WGIG had identified significant governance gaps with regard to the
> internet: these included unilateral control of the root zone files and
> systems and lack of accountability of root zone operators; concerns over
> allocation policies for IP addresses and domain names; confusion about
> application of intellectual property rights in cyberspace; substantially
> higher connectivity costs in developing countries located far from internet
> backbones; lack of multilateral mechanisms to ensure network stability and
> security; lack of effective mechanisms to prevent and prosecute internet
> crimes and spam; barriers to multi-stakeholder participation; restrictions
> on freedom of expression; inconsistent application of privacy and
> data-protection rights; absence of global standards for consumer rights;
> insufficient progress towards multilingualism; and insufficient
> capacity-building in developing countries. The Indian proposal had only
> suggested that these very same issues, as well as policy issues that have
> evolved since WSIS, be considered by the CIRP; it had not proposed that the
> UN “take over the internet”, or that the current technical arrangements be
> overturned, as argued by the detractors.
>
> We need to recognise the implications of the current model. On the one
> hand, India is asked to ratify the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, in
> the negotiation of which India played no part, in order for us to be
> eligible to be qualified as a “data-secure” country. On the other, India is
> sought to be excluded from any forum or deliberations where the global
> rules for governance of the internet or management of critical internet
> resources and logical infrastructure are evolved. Another aspect that is
> seldom appreciated here is the discomfort that European countries have with
> the current US-dominated model of global governance of the internet, as
> demonstrated by statements emanating from their officials, the number of
> legal disputes European bodies have launched against US internet majors,
> and attempts by countries like France to modify the existing system.
>
> Well before the Snowden disclosures, the security, socio-economic and legal
> implications of the current model of internet governance had become quite
> apparent. Just to take one example, the Julian Assange phenomenon and the
> WikiLeaks disclosures had amply demonstrated some of them. Concerns about
> shell companies and tax avoidance by global internet majors provide another
> instance. The use of Stuxnet was a third one.
>
> The US is clearly determined to continue its relentless pursuit of the
> current model of global internet governance, for preserving its economic
> and strategic interests. It is unlikely that there will be any change in
> its policy even after the Snowden disclosures.
>
> Some representatives of Indian industry associations have been warning that
> Indian IT companies are heavily dependent on global internet majors and
> that they will suffer by India’s championing of the cause of
> democratisation of internet governance. This lie needs to be nailed. First,
> there has been no evidence of any such impact. Second, independent of
> India’s proposal, Indian IT companies have been demonstrating that they
> have more or less reached the maximum of the current models of their
> growth. Third, we need to work for the next generation of Indian IT
> companies, which can move up the value chain by creating their own branded
> services and products and leading global innovation in IT. In other words,
> we need to produce the next generation of Murthys and Premjis. This
> requires modifying the eco-system, architecture and infrastructure, both
> nationally and internationally, where such ventures can grow. This makes it
> imperative for India to become a lead player and shape the global ICT
> industry architecture that helps Indian ICT companies of the future.
>
> None of this is going to be easy, however. We need a dedicated group of
> people — within the establishment, industry, technical and scientific
> community, academia, civil society and media — who can reflect upon and
> define India’s long-term interests in advancing the cause of democratising
> global internet governance and free ourselves from the current model where
> the space for discussion is arrogated by apologists for the current model
> of unilateral control.
>
> The UN has launched a process for observing the 10th anniversary of WSIS in
> 2015. This provides an opportunity for India to work with other leading
> democratic countries like Brazil and South Africa within the IBSA platform
> and with other like-minded countries in the UN for democratising global
> internet governance to make it truly “multilateral, transparent and
> democratic”, as envisioned in the Tunis Agenda.
>
> The writer, a retired diplomat, was India’s permanent representative to the UN
>
> ***
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 26 June 2013 03:54 PM, parminder wrote:
> >
> > While building on the past is important, I think, there is also a keen
> realisation that we are passing - and mostly, missing - a series of what
> could be 'constitutional moments' for a new Internet mediated society...
> And that the global civil society should pause, and retrospect. I see this
> from emails of Gene, Andrew, Michael, Marianne and others - on diverse
> issues, ranging from the recently concluded meeting of ITU WG on Internet
> related public policy issues to PRISM plus disclosures.
> >
> > Let me try to pick what in my view are some 'big points' of the present
> moment... and then drill downwards. The biggest I think is that we need to
> get over that age of innocence, whereby most civil society took the stance
> that less rather than more global IG is better..... That was a mistake, and
> continues to be a mistake... Internet is big, it is global, it transforms
> everything. And the prescription of less rather than more - appropriate -
> governance of it can only serve dominant interests. We need to accept that
> - whether it is human rights, or it is distributional issues - we need more
> global IG. And since Internet itself is new, its global governance too will
> involve many new elements. It is, to a good measure, up to the civil
> society to be innovative and brave in this regard..... Something,
> unfortunately, we have consistently shrunk from doing...
> >
> > First of all, we urgently need an appropriate focal point - and around it
> a webbed architecture - of global IG.... And that focal point I think
> should be body like the OECD's Committee on Computers, Information and
> Communication Policy, which can be attached to the UN General Assembly, and
> should be new age in its structure, form, participation avenues etc... And
> this committee should be fed in by the IGF. Everyone who knows about the
> OECD's CCICP, knows how intensively it works, and what quality of output it
> produces, and how how consultative, multi-stakeholder etc it is.....
> >
> > We simply must create a similar focal point at the global level, right
> away..... Lets at least discuss it... I have raised this proposal several
> times, but have have no real response on why such a body at the global
> level is not appropriate, and why is it appropriate at OECD level.... This
> single step would go a long way it setting us on the right direction....
> >
> > And then, this is the second imperative, we need to go down to some real
> work.... not just the highest level principles that have been around but
> seem not to really work... For example, Andrew quotes privacy principles
> from GNI document. Well, its provisions clearly were violated what what
> Snowden tells us... So?? Nothing happens. Right. We have provisions in the
> IRP doc as well....
> >
> > What we need to do now is to move to the next serious level.... Speak
> about actual due process, guarantees for transit data. how these guarantees
> operate, and the such. We were informed recently on the IGC list that EU
> does not subject data that is merely in transit to data retention
> requirements. How this obligation can be extended to others. ... What
> disclosures can and should the telecom and application companies share
> about data hosting and transit, and applicability of different
> jursidictions over the data they carry and process.... We need to drill
> down to such real issues. And that kind of thing happens only when there
> are clear focal points for policy development that exist (See for instance
> the real work that is going on right now in Marrakesh for writing out a new
> treaty guaranteeing access to printed material for the visually
> impaired).... We have on the other hand seen the kind of joke that the IGF
> has rendered itself into as a policy dialogue forum.... We need to take
> preventive action against such motivated obfuscations....
> >
> > So, as I said, two things - (1) look for a real institutional focal point
> for global IG, where all can participate, and (2), work on real norms,
> policy frameworks, in the manner OECD's CCICP does.... I see no other
> option... but as always wiling, to hear about them, if they exist....
> >
> > parminder
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday 26 June 2013 02:45 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> >>
> >> Entirely agree Marianne – this seems a sensible way of proceeding
> >>
> >> *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL
> >>
> >> Executive Director
> >>
> >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> >>
> >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> >> *gp-digital.org*
> >>
> >> *From:*Marianne Franklin [mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk]
> >> *Sent:* 26 June 2013 08:30
> >> *To:* Andrew Puddephatt
> >> *Cc:* 'parminder'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net;
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location
> of data or its legal ownership
> >>
> >> Dear Andrew
> >>
> >> Have been following the conversation with interest. The point Parminder
> raises about the responsibilities of companies in ensuring that human
> rights in the fullest sense of the term are not jeopardised at the deepest
> levels of the internet's architecture is one that indeed needs attention.
> However, the conversation so far is proceeding as if no work at all has
> been done around human rights norms and principles for the internet. This
> is not the case. A lot of work has been done, indeed stretching back many
> year into the WSIS period. If we choose to forget or ignore what came
> before we are all doomed to repeat past mistakes (as a great sage once
> remarked)!
> >>
> >> With the Bali IGF as a venue for meeting and moving forward I do think
> it is important to note that the Charter of Human Rights and Principles
> already goes a *long* way in defining these 'global' (I use the term
> advisedly) norms and principles carefully. The reason for the cautious
> approach in 2010-2011 when the IRP Coalition was drafting this current
> version was precisely in order to be precise and coherent. Many people on
> all these lists were involved in this process and can share the credit for
> what has been achieved. The cautiousness then, criticised at the time, has
> paid off in retrospect.
> >>
> >> As a wide-ranging Charter of human rights and principles focusing on the
> online environment, then picked up by Frank La Rue thanks to the work of
> the then IRP Coalition Chairs, Lisa Horner and Dixie Hawtin in turn, based
> on the UDHR and its successors it was, and is not intended to be a
> prescriptive, or one-size-fits-all document. What was intended and to my
> mind has been achieved is rather a baseline, inspirational framing for the
> work that is now emerging around specific cases and situations such as
> privacy, freedom of expression and so on that have been thrown into relief
> by the events around PRISM. The IRP Charter is also careful to include the
> responsibility of companies as integral to these emerging norms. Events
> have underscored that the IRP Charter was a project worth engaging in and
> for that the 'we' on these lists did achieve something quite remarkable.
> >>
> >> Moving the IRP Charter up a level is a focus for two workshops at least
> in Bali, and the IRP Meeting there I would like to propose that these are
> very suitable places to continue these discussions, online and of course in
> person. The Best Bits meeting prior to the IGF is in this respect a great
> way to get started as the next stage of the IRP Charter in substantive
> terms gets underway i.e. addressing the weaker parts of the current Beta
> version (http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/charter/) and widen
> awareness amongst the human rights community and inter-govn organizations.
> A huge step in the latter has already been achieved in recent weeks and I
> would like to add these moves to the work being done through Best Bits.
> >>
> >> Finally, on principles seeing as this focus is also on the IGF agenda,
> here too the IRP Charter developed precursor models (such as the APC Bill
> of Rights, the Marco Civil principles too) the IRP Ten Principles are
> intended as an educational, outreach version of the actual Charter. So here
> the work being initiated around Internet Goverance Principles (however
> defined) is something the IRP coalition supports implicitly.
> >>
> >> The only question I am getting from members is about how better to work
> together, which is why the current Charter goes quite some way in
> establishing the sort of framework that is being advocated here. No need to
> reinvent the wheel in other words!
> >>
> >> best
> >> MF
> >>
> >> On 25/06/2013 17:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> >>
> >> Just welcoming Parminder’s focus on companies here. I feel that
> >> the current situation is an opportunity to push the companies a
> >> lot more rigorously than we have been able to do so far. I like
> >> the idea of global norms and principles and I wonder if anyone
> >> has done any detailed work on this in relation to
> >> security/surveillance and jurisdictional questions – specifically
> >> the role of global companies rooted in one jurisdiction
> >> (principally the US I would guess?). I note that some German
> >> MPs are calling for US companies to establish a German cloud
> >> distinct and separate from US jurisdiction..
> >>
> >> I think we can strategically link the two issues that Parminder
> >> has flagged up – we can reinforce the push for norms and
> >> principles pointing out this is a way for country’s to escape the
> >> US orbit – as long as we can avoid the danger of breaking the
> >> internet into separate national infrastructures – which is where
> >> the norms and principles need to be carefully defined. Is this
> >> something we can discuss online and then discuss in person at Bali?
> >>
> >> Looking at the GNI principle on privacy it says:
> >>
> >> Privacy is a human right and guarantor of human dignity. Privacy
> >> is important to maintaining personal security, protecting
> >> identity and promoting freedom of expression in the digital age.
> >>
> >> Everyone should be free from illegal or arbitrary interference
> >> with the right to privacy and should have the right to the
> >> protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
> >>
> >> The right to privacy should not be restricted by governments,
> >> except in narrowly defined circumstances based on internationally
> >> recognized laws and standards. These restrictions should be
> >> consistent with international human rights laws and standards,
> >> the rule of law and be necessary and proportionate for the
> >> relevant purpose.
> >>
> >> Participating companies will employ protections with respect to
> >> personal information in all countries where they operate in order
> >> to protect the privacy rights of users.
> >>
> >> Participating companies will respect and protect the privacy
> >> rights of users when confronted with government demands, laws or
> >> regulations that compromise privacy in a manner inconsistent with
> >> internationally recognized laws and standards.
> >>
> >> Is this something to build upon? The final clause is
> >> interesting – it implies that signatory companies will respect
> >> privacy even when asked to comply with laws that breach
> >> internationally recognized laws and standards which I assume
> >> everyone thinks that FISA does?
> >>
> >> *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL
> >>
> >> Executive Director
> >>
> >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> >>
> >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype:
> >> andrewpuddephatt
> >> *gp-digital.org*
> >>
> >> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> >> <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
> >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder
> >> *Sent:* 25 June 2013 09:25
> >> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> >> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>;
> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial
> >> location of data or its legal ownership
> >>
> >>
> >> This is how I think it works overall - the digital imperialist
> >> system..... Global Internet companies - mostly US based - know
> >> that much of their operations worldwide legally are on slippery
> >> grounds.... They find it safest to hang on to the apron strings
> >> of the one superpower in the world today, the US... They know
> >> that the US establishement is their best political and legal
> >> cover. The US of course finds so much military, political,
> >> economic, social and cultural capital in being the team leader...
> >> It is an absolutely win win... That is what PRISM plus has been
> >> about. And this is what most global (non) Internet governance has
> >> been about - with the due role of the civil society often spoken
> >> of here.
> >>
> >> Incidentally, it was only a few days before these disclosures
> >> that Julian Assange spoke of "technocratic imperialism
> >>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/opinion/sunday/the-banality-of-googles-dont-be-evil.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>"
> >> led by the US-Google combine... How quite to the point he was...
> >> Although so many of us are so eager to let the big companies off
> >> the hook with respect to the recent episodes.
> >>
> >> What got to be done now? If we indeed are eager to do something,
> >> two things (1) do everything to decentralise the global
> >> Internet's architecture, and (2) get on with putting in place
> >> global norms, principles, rules and where needed treaties that
> >> will govern our collective Internet behaviour, and provide us
> >> with our rights and responsibilities vis a vis the global Internet.
> >>
> >> But if there are other possible prescriptions, one is all ears.
> >>
> >> parminder
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tuesday 25 June 2013 01:04 PM, parminder wrote:
> >>
> >> On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> >>
> >> Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional
> >> issues: The answer is somewhat complex
> >>
> >> if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in
> >> the US by companies based overseas), the government has
> >> taken the position that it is subject to U.S. legal
> >> processes, including National Security Letters, 2703(d)
> >> Orders, Orders under section 215 of the Patriot Act and
> >> regular warrants and subpoenas, regardless of where the
> >> user is located.
> >>
> >> The legal standard for production of information by a
> >> third party, including cloud computing services under US
> >> civil (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and
> >> criminal (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law
> >> is whether the information is under the "possession,
> >> custody or control" of a party that is subject to US
> >> jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter where the information is
> >> physically stored, where the company is headquartered or,
> >> importantly, where the person whose information is sought
> >> is located. The issue for users is whether the US has
> >> jurisdiction over the cloud computing service they use,
> >> and whether the cloud computing service has “possession,
> >> custody or control” of their data, wherever it rests
> >> physically. For example, one could imagine a situation in
> >> which a large US-based company was loosely related to a
> >> subsidiary overseas, but did not have “possession,
> >> custody, or control” of the data held by the subsidiary
> >> and thus the data wasn’t subject to US jurisdiction.
> >>
> >>
> >> Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an
> >> European sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the
> >> transit and storage of the content never in fact reaches US
> >> borders, Google would still be obliged to hand over the
> >> contents to US officials under PRISM...... Can a country
> >> claim that Google broke its law in the process, a law perhaps
> >> as serious as espionage, whereby the hypothesized European to
> >> European email could have carried classified information!
> >> Here, Google, on instructions of US authorities would have
> >> actually transported a piece of classified - or otherwise
> >> illegal to access - information from beyond US borders into
> >> US borders.
> >>
> >> What about US telcos working in other countries, say in
> >> India. AT&T (through a majority held JV) claims to be the
> >> largest enterprise service provider in India. And we know AT
> >> & T has been a somewhat over enthusiastic partner in US's
> >> global espionage (for instance see here
> >> <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100121/1418107862.shtml>
> >> )... Would all the information that AT & T has the
> >> "possession. custody and control" of in India in this matter
> >> not be considered fair game to access by the US...... All
> >> this looks like a sliding progression to me. Where are the
> >> limits, who lays the rules in this global space....
> >>
> >> parminder
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi All
> >>
> >> There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still
> >> need to ask a lot of questions from the involved
> >> companies in terms of the recent PRISM plus disclosures.
> >> We are being too soft on them. I refuse to believe that
> >> everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from
> >> the fact that there are news reports
> >>
> <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-14/u-s-agencies-said-to-swap-data-with-thousands-of-firms.html>
> >> that US based tech companies regularly share data with US
> >> gov for different kinds of favours in return, or even
> >> simply motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not
> >> forget that many of these companies have strong political
> >> agenda which are closely associated with that of the US
> >> gov. You must all know about 'Google Ideas
> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Ideas>', its
> >> revolving doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its
> >> own aggressive regime change ideas
> >> <http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34535.htm>.
> >> Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA
> >> region, and not other things in the same region.....
> >>
> >> Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations
> >> to share data with US government extended only to such
> >> data that is actually located in, or flows, through, the
> >> US. Or, does it extend to all data within the legal
> >> control/ ownership of these companies wherever it may
> >> reside. (I think, certainly hope, it must be the former,
> >> but still I want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly
> >> from these companies.)
> >>
> >> Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that
> >> actually resided in servers inside the US, why did these
> >> companies, in face of what was obviously very broad and
> >> intrusive demands for sharing data about non US citizens,
> >> not simply locate much of such data outside the US. For
> >> instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data
> >> of whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US
> >> authorities, and shift all their data to servers in other
> >> countries that made no such demand? Now, we know that
> >> many of the involved companies have set up near
> >> fictitious companies headquartered in strange places for
> >> the purpose of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not
> >> do for the sake of protecting human rights, well, lets
> >> only say, the trust, of non US citizens/ consumers, what
> >> they so very efficiently did for enhancing their
> >> bottom-lines?
> >>
> >> Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand
> >> that there can be some laws to force a company to hold
> >> the data of citizens of a country within its border,
> >> there isnt any law which can force these companies to
> >> hold foreign data within a country's borders... Or would
> >> any such act perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the
> >> US gov?
> >>
> >>
> >> I am sure others may have other questions to ask these
> >> companies.....
> >>
> >> parminder
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -- >>
> >> Katitza Rodriguez
> >>
> >> International Rights Director
> >>
> >> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> >>
> >> katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>
> >>
> >> katitza at datos-personales.org
> <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org> (personal email)
> >>
> >> >>
> >> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and
> freedom of speech since 1990
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -- Dr Marianne Franklin
> >> Reader
> >> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
> >> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
> >> Goldsmiths, University of London
> >> Dept. of Media & Communications
> >> New Cross, London SE14 6NW
> >> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
> >> <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> <mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
> >> @GloComm
> >> https://twitter.com/GloComm
> >> http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
> >> https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
> >> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> <http://www.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
> >> @netrights
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130627/9cca77da/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list