From joly at punkcast.com Sat Jun 1 09:43:57 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2019 09:43:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_Making_=E2=80=98The_Futur?= =?UTF-8?Q?e_of_Work=E2=80=99_Work?= Message-ID: The University of Michigan has a new institute - the Center for Ethics, Society,and Computin g (ESC) - not officially launching till late in the year, but already beating the drum.. Follow their twitter . [image: livestream] Today *Saturday June 1 2019* at *09:30 EDT* (13:30 UTC) the *University of Michigan School of Information * hosts a workshop *Making 'The Future of Work' Work * which will explore the potential for tech work inside and outside traditional capitalist structures. The workshop comprises two sessions: 1) *Labor in the Global Platform Economy* and 2) *Algorithms, Scale, Speed, and the Labor of Logistics* both of which examine the role of worker-solidarity in algorithm-ruled workspaces. *LIVESTREAM* *https://player.cloud.wowza.com/hosted/hk5cjpf7/player.html * *SIMULCAST* *https://livestream.com/internetsociety/platformeconomy * *TWITTER @umsi + #futureofwork http://bit.ly/2Xjd8md * *SPONSORS* *Center for Ethics, Society,and Computing (ESC) http://esc.umich.edu/ * *National Science Foundation* *https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1744359 * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11091/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Jun 5 05:53:57 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Nouradine Abdelkerim (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 10:53:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 to be held in Poland In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hello and mabrouk al eid the problem to link to visas it really touches us africans of an african postulate for a visas to attend a forum or training the consular service will believe that him when he issued the visa he does not want not return to your country of origin so that in strategic meetings of icann, Igf or any of its meetings you will not see many Africans attending. by how you want Africa to advance while some decisions that you unanimously decide to really concern our dear continent.Then meditate on this problem bind to visas and sea. Le mer. 5 juin 2019 à 10:35, "Michael J. Oghia" a écrit : > Hi Mawaki, all: > > No need to apologise or call it a rant. It's a very fair point, and I > appreciate your articulation. As someone who lives in Europe and > undoubtedly benefits from having the IGF hosted on the continent, I am also > frustrated that – assuming it's already been decided – the IGF would be > held yet again in Europe. > > I know that the country where it's held mainly rests on which government > is willing to host it, so I do understand if the options are limited. > > What are the solutions to this? > > Best, > -Michael > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:26 AM Mawaki Chango > wrote: > >> Good point, Abdeldjalil. Geneva, Paris, Berlin and now Poland >> (Varsovie/Warsaw, I guess?) That's four. >> The Schengen visa is such a hassle for so many people, and so time >> consuming! I'm not even talking about getting all the paperwork in order. >> One has to secure the interview appointment months and months in advance >> and that alone is sometimes enough to cause failure. >> >> And when you manage to get the visa, it only lasts the exact number of >> days planned for your meeting (or whatever the purpose of the visit.) And >> even if one knows there's another meeting (say, ICANN) coming up in the >> next few months still in the Schengen space which one needs to attend, one >> has to go through all of it again. They won't consider that even if the >> visa paperwork for the next meeting is ready. Certainly not if the two >> consecutive meetings are happening in two different Schengen countries, >> although any Schengen country visa applies to the whole of Schengen space. >> I'm not even sure they accept to issue an extended visa in the case the two >> meetings were to happen in the same country three or four months apart. The >> bureaucracy of sovereignty ! >> >> Okay, I guess that was my mid-week rant. Otherwise, I'm looking forward >> to seeing and enjoying Berlin and hopefully Warsaw. >> >> Mawaki >> >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 08:29 Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Arsene for sharing. >>> >>> Congratulation for that innovation :knowing the date early . >>> After 3 round I'm Europe we hope that after Poland will be in AFRICA . >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> >>> Cordialement >>> >>> ABDELDJALIL BACHAR BONG >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------- >>> PRESIDENT & CEO >>> >>> >>> ASSOCIATION "HOUSE OF AFRICA" >>> E-mail: bachar at houseof.africa >>> Twitter: @HOUSEOFINTERNET >>> WEBSITE : www.houseof.africa >>> Whatsapp: +23566274284 >>> Skype: Bongbour >>> >>> ------------------------------------- >>> >>> Le Secrétaire Exécutif/Executive Secretary >>> >>> Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet au Tchad (FGI Tchad) / >>> Chad Internet Governance Forum >>> ------------------------------------- >>> >>> E-mail: Bachar at igf.td >>> Website: www.igf.td >>> Twitter :@IGFCHAD >>> https://twitter.com/bacharbong >>> Tél:0023566274284 >>> N'djaména(Tchad) >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------- >>> |AFRINIC Fellow|ISOC CHAD Member|ICANN/AFRALO Member|NEXTGEN >>> Fellow|GIVE1PROJECT MEMBER|IGFSA MEMBER|ACIEDD BOARD MEMBER|UN YOUTH >>> DELEGATE - CHAD 2016-2018|ICANN60 Fellow ||Youth Peacebuilder||| >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Fri Jun 28 10:21:47 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 14:21:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF MAG Chair In-Reply-To: <6D3E1A53-FAD7-4C70-94D0-366EEDDE844F@gmail.com> References: <3971E26F-A3F4-4F9C-B210-6DC2511E510D@gmail.com> <6D3E1A53-FAD7-4C70-94D0-366EEDDE844F@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Arsene, Can you please advise what name it is that you put forward? I apologise, I must have missed the consultation with civil society here - I have been a bit behind on reading emails lately. Thanks, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, 28 June 2019 12:07, Arsène Tungali wrote: > It would have been through MAG members but it is too late at this stage as many have already made their minds on the candidate per stakeholder group. For CS, we have made our mind on one name that was communicated to the Secretariat. > > My apologies for brievity and typo, boarding a flight now > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 28 Jun 2019, at 12:04, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> Is there a particular announcement against which one can send name suggestions? >> >> Best >> >> Fouad >> >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:59 AM Arsène Tungali wrote: >> >>> MAG Chair selection has always been the responsibility of the UN, through the UNDESA as far as i know. This year, MAG members have been asked to discuss and suggest names. There is no point for this to go through any formal CS consultation >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On 28 Jun 2019, at 11:52, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Helani, Arsene, all >>>> >>>> Thanks for sharing this information. Is there any information on the process for selection? Is there a timeline in mind? We could request CSCG to run this, >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 10:27, Helani Galpaya wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Aresene and others: >>>>> Where is the discussion and nomination process taking place for the Civil Society nomination(s) for MAG chair? >>>>> I mean in which list? >>>>> Apologies if these questions were answered elsewhere and I'm just not seeing it. >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> Helani >>>>> >>>>> Helani Galpaya >>>>> LIRNEasia >>>>> www.lirneasia.net >>>>> +94 77 3600 766 (m-LK); +44 7415 865222 (m-UK) >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 7:39 PM Arsène Tungali wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> As you know, the current MAG Chair is Lynn St Amour, she is ending her term this year! >>>>>> >>>>>> There is a need to have another chair starting right after IGF Berlin. Was wondering, maybe we need to discuss the profile of a good MAG Chair? >>>>>> >>>>>> Though we will not choose on this list, but wanted to share that consultations are going on within different stakeholder groups within the MAG, each one of them being asked to suggest a name (s) to the IGF Secretariat. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just throwing this out here. >>>>>> >>>>>> Arsene >>>>>> --- >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> 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| >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa >> Public Policy Analyst >> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sat Jun 29 01:10:20 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 08:10:20 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGF MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: <3971E26F-A3F4-4F9C-B210-6DC2511E510D@gmail.com> <6D3E1A53-FAD7-4C70-94D0-366EEDDE844F@gmail.com> Message-ID: In some circumstances, it is hard to balance confidentiality and openess/transparency, especially when those involved in the process haven’t discussed and agreed upon the level of confidentiality and transparency to consider for such a process. Trying to say something that I hope comes across clearly as i am thinking about it. I am glad that finally this community is discussing this topic but as i think I said, it is too late. When i started this thread, that was the best moment and opportunity for this community to shape the process somehow. One of the things i expected was a good discussion about the ideal candidate in order to help us better carry the responsibility we were given by the Secretariat. We will always complain about CS MAG members not consulting with their group but until we are able to have one voice, in a single platform where these types of communications can happen, the same will remain. I am referring here to the other thread about merging/uniting under one label. I feel connected to this group because i feel like i belong here and it is this group that sent me to the MAG this year, that’s why i am doing my best to keep you in the loop whenever i am able to. But we should remember that not all CS MAG members belong here, that’s why you don’t read them here. Maybe they have another group/community where they feel connected to and where they consult. Many were not selected through the CSCG! Back the discussion re: MAG Chair. As i said, since the level of transparency was not discussed within the CS group on the MAG, i could not share the names of those who showed interest in being considered for the position. I posted on this list when we were tasked to select names and i am sure that’s what triggered those interested to reach out privately either to me or to other CS MAG. Many of those candidates whose profiles were discussed are on this list and i am glad Anriette disclosed herself. And I would encourage the others to say it by themselves. To Ayden’s question: I will personally be comfortable to share the outcome of our discussions and deliberations once the process has officially ended and i even tend to think i should wait until the name of the selected had been published by the UN. My colleague Helany or anyone else can decide to proceed differently, again, it will be their choice since nothing was agreed upfront on disclosure. Sorry for making it feel like MAG members are that powerful :) Thanks, Arsene Sent from my iPhone > On 28 Jun 2019, at 17:21, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > > Hi Arsene, > > Can you please advise what name it is that you put forward? > > I apologise, I must have missed the consultation with civil society here - I have been a bit behind on reading emails lately. > > Thanks, > > Ayden Férdeline > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Friday, 28 June 2019 12:07, Arsène Tungali wrote: >> >> It would have been through MAG members but it is too late at this stage as many have already made their minds on the candidate per stakeholder group. For CS, we have made our mind on one name that was communicated to the Secretariat. >> >> My apologies for brievity and typo, boarding a flight now >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 28 Jun 2019, at 12:04, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>> Is there a particular announcement against which one can send name suggestions? >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Fouad >>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:59 AM Arsène Tungali wrote: >>>> MAG Chair selection has always been the responsibility of the UN, through the UNDESA as far as i know. This year, MAG members have been asked to discuss and suggest names. There is no point for this to go through any formal CS consultation >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On 28 Jun 2019, at 11:52, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>>> Dear Helani, Arsene, all >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for sharing this information. Is there any information on the process for selection? Is there a timeline in mind? We could request CSCG to run this, >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 10:27, Helani Galpaya wrote: >>>>>> Dear Aresene and others: >>>>>> Where is the discussion and nomination process taking place for the Civil Society nomination(s) for MAG chair? >>>>>> I mean in which list? >>>>>> Apologies if these questions were answered elsewhere and I'm just not seeing it. >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> Helani >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Helani Galpaya >>>>>> LIRNEasia >>>>>> www.lirneasia.net >>>>>> +94 77 3600 766 (m-LK); +44 7415 865222 (m-UK) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 7:39 PM Arsène Tungali wrote: >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As you know, the current MAG Chair is Lynn St Amour, she is ending her term this year! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is a need to have another chair starting right after IGF Berlin. Was wondering, maybe we need to discuss the profile of a good MAG Chair? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Though we will not choose on this list, but wanted to share that consultations are going on within different stakeholder groups within the MAG, each one of them being asked to suggest a name (s) to the IGF Secretariat. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just throwing this out here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Arsene >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>> List help: >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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| >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards. >>> -------------------------- >>> Fouad Bajwa >>> Public Policy Analyst >>> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >>> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sat Jun 29 05:49:18 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (sivasubramanian muthusamy (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 10:49:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: <3971E26F-A3F4-4F9C-B210-6DC2511E510D@gmail.com> <6D3E1A53-FAD7-4C70-94D0-366EEDDE844F@gmail.com> Message-ID: Arsene, You haven't answered Ayden's question. Sivasubramanian M On Sat, Jun 29, 2019, 6:11 AM Arsène Tungali wrote: > In some circumstances, it is hard to balance confidentiality and > openess/transparency, especially when those involved in the process haven’t > discussed and agreed upon the level of confidentiality and transparency to > consider for such a process. Trying to say something that I hope comes > across clearly as i am thinking about it. > > I am glad that finally this community is discussing this topic but as i > think I said, it is too late. When i started this thread, that was the best > moment and opportunity for this community to shape the process somehow. One > of the things i expected was a good discussion about the ideal candidate in > order to help us better carry the responsibility we were given by the > Secretariat. > > We will always complain about CS MAG members not consulting with their > group but until we are able to have one voice, in a single platform where > these types of communications can happen, the same will remain. I am > referring here to the other thread about merging/uniting under one label. I > feel connected to this group because i feel like i belong here and it is > this group that sent me to the MAG this year, that’s why i am doing my best > to keep you in the loop whenever i am able to. > > But we should remember that not all CS MAG members belong here, that’s why > you don’t read them here. Maybe they have another group/community where > they feel connected to and where they consult. Many were not selected > through the CSCG! > > Back the discussion re: MAG Chair. > > As i said, since the level of transparency was not discussed within the CS > group on the MAG, i could not share the names of those who showed interest > in being considered for the position. I posted on this list when we were > tasked to select names and i am sure that’s what triggered those interested > to reach out privately either to me or to other CS MAG. > > Many of those candidates whose profiles were discussed are on this list > and i am glad Anriette disclosed herself. And I would encourage the others > to say it by themselves. > > To Ayden’s question: I will personally be comfortable to share the outcome > of our discussions and deliberations once the process has officially ended > and i even tend to think i should wait until the name of the selected had > been published by the UN. > > My colleague Helany or anyone else can decide to proceed differently, > again, it will be their choice since nothing was agreed upfront on > disclosure. Sorry for making it feel like MAG members are that powerful :) > > Thanks, > Arsene > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 28 Jun 2019, at 17:21, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > > Hi Arsene, > > Can you please advise what name it is that you put forward? > > I apologise, I must have missed the consultation with civil society here - > I have been a bit behind on reading emails lately. > > Thanks, > > Ayden Férdeline > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Friday, 28 June 2019 12:07, Arsène Tungali > wrote: > > It would have been through MAG members but it is too late at this stage as > many have already made their minds on the candidate per stakeholder group. > For CS, we have made our mind on one name that was communicated to the > Secretariat. > > My apologies for brievity and typo, boarding a flight now > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 28 Jun 2019, at 12:04, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > Is there a particular announcement against which one can send name > suggestions? > > Best > > Fouad > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:59 AM Arsène Tungali < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > >> MAG Chair selection has always been the responsibility of the UN, through >> the UNDESA as far as i know. This year, MAG members have been asked to >> discuss and suggest names. There is no point for this to go through any >> formal CS consultation >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 28 Jun 2019, at 11:52, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >> >> Dear Helani, Arsene, all >> >> Thanks for sharing this information. Is there any information on the >> process for selection? Is there a timeline in mind? We could request CSCG >> to run this, >> >> Best >> >> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 10:27, Helani Galpaya >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Aresene and others: >>> Where is the discussion and nomination process taking place for the >>> Civil Society nomination(s) for MAG chair? >>> I mean in which list? >>> Apologies if these questions were answered elsewhere and I'm just not >>> seeing it. >>> Thanks. >>> Helani >>> >>> >>> >>> Helani Galpaya >>> LIRNEasia >>> www.lirneasia.net >>> +94 77 3600 766 (m-LK); +44 7415 865222 (m-UK) >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 7:39 PM Arsène Tungali < >>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> As you know, the current MAG Chair is Lynn St Amour, she is ending her >>>> term this year! >>>> >>>> There is a need to have another chair starting right after IGF Berlin. >>>> Was wondering, maybe we need to discuss the profile of a good MAG Chair? >>>> >>>> Though we will not choose on this list, but wanted to share that >>>> consultations are going on within different stakeholder groups within the >>>> MAG, each one of them being asked to suggest a name (s) to the IGF >>>> Secretariat. >>>> >>>> Just throwing this out here. >>>> >>>> Arsene >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> *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| >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > Public Policy Analyst > Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sat Jun 29 05:56:01 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Seun Ojedeji (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 10:56:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: <3971E26F-A3F4-4F9C-B210-6DC2511E510D@gmail.com> <6D3E1A53-FAD7-4C70-94D0-366EEDDE844F@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello SM, Perhaps you didn't read the entire response - specifically towards the last paragraphs. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Sat, 29 Jun 2019, 10:49 sivasubramanian muthusamy, < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Arsene, > > You haven't answered Ayden's question. > > Sivasubramanian M > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2019, 6:11 AM Arsène Tungali > wrote: > >> In some circumstances, it is hard to balance confidentiality and >> openess/transparency, especially when those involved in the process haven’t >> discussed and agreed upon the level of confidentiality and transparency to >> consider for such a process. Trying to say something that I hope comes >> across clearly as i am thinking about it. >> >> I am glad that finally this community is discussing this topic but as i >> think I said, it is too late. When i started this thread, that was the best >> moment and opportunity for this community to shape the process somehow. One >> of the things i expected was a good discussion about the ideal candidate in >> order to help us better carry the responsibility we were given by the >> Secretariat. >> >> We will always complain about CS MAG members not consulting with their >> group but until we are able to have one voice, in a single platform where >> these types of communications can happen, the same will remain. I am >> referring here to the other thread about merging/uniting under one label. I >> feel connected to this group because i feel like i belong here and it is >> this group that sent me to the MAG this year, that’s why i am doing my best >> to keep you in the loop whenever i am able to. >> >> But we should remember that not all CS MAG members belong here, that’s >> why you don’t read them here. Maybe they have another group/community where >> they feel connected to and where they consult. Many were not selected >> through the CSCG! >> >> Back the discussion re: MAG Chair. >> >> As i said, since the level of transparency was not discussed within the >> CS group on the MAG, i could not share the names of those who showed >> interest in being considered for the position. I posted on this list when >> we were tasked to select names and i am sure that’s what triggered those >> interested to reach out privately either to me or to other CS MAG. >> >> Many of those candidates whose profiles were discussed are on this list >> and i am glad Anriette disclosed herself. And I would encourage the others >> to say it by themselves. >> >> To Ayden’s question: I will personally be comfortable to share the >> outcome of our discussions and deliberations once the process has >> officially ended and i even tend to think i should wait until the name of >> the selected had been published by the UN. >> >> My colleague Helany or anyone else can decide to proceed differently, >> again, it will be their choice since nothing was agreed upfront on >> disclosure. Sorry for making it feel like MAG members are that powerful :) >> >> Thanks, >> Arsene >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 28 Jun 2019, at 17:21, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >> >> Hi Arsene, >> >> Can you please advise what name it is that you put forward? >> >> I apologise, I must have missed the consultation with civil society here >> - I have been a bit behind on reading emails lately. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ayden Férdeline >> >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Friday, 28 June 2019 12:07, Arsène Tungali < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >> >> It would have been through MAG members but it is too late at this stage >> as many have already made their minds on the candidate per stakeholder >> group. For CS, we have made our mind on one name that was communicated to >> the Secretariat. >> >> My apologies for brievity and typo, boarding a flight now >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 28 Jun 2019, at 12:04, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> Is there a particular announcement against which one can send name >> suggestions? >> >> Best >> >> Fouad >> >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:59 AM Arsène Tungali < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >> >>> MAG Chair selection has always been the responsibility of the UN, >>> through the UNDESA as far as i know. This year, MAG members have been asked >>> to discuss and suggest names. There is no point for this to go through any >>> formal CS consultation >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On 28 Jun 2019, at 11:52, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>> >>> Dear Helani, Arsene, all >>> >>> Thanks for sharing this information. Is there any information on the >>> process for selection? Is there a timeline in mind? We could request CSCG >>> to run this, >>> >>> Best >>> >>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 10:27, Helani Galpaya >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Aresene and others: >>>> Where is the discussion and nomination process taking place for the >>>> Civil Society nomination(s) for MAG chair? >>>> I mean in which list? >>>> Apologies if these questions were answered elsewhere and I'm just not >>>> seeing it. >>>> Thanks. >>>> Helani >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Helani Galpaya >>>> LIRNEasia >>>> www.lirneasia.net >>>> +94 77 3600 766 (m-LK); +44 7415 865222 (m-UK) >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 7:39 PM Arsène Tungali < >>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> As you know, the current MAG Chair is Lynn St Amour, she is ending her >>>>> term this year! >>>>> >>>>> There is a need to have another chair starting right after IGF Berlin. >>>>> Was wondering, maybe we need to discuss the profile of a good MAG Chair? >>>>> >>>>> Though we will not choose on this list, but wanted to share that >>>>> consultations are going on within different stakeholder groups within the >>>>> MAG, each one of them being asked to suggest a name (s) to the IGF >>>>> Secretariat. >>>>> >>>>> Just throwing this out here. >>>>> >>>>> Arsene >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> *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| >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa >> Public Policy Analyst >> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sat Jun 29 06:24:05 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (sivasubramanian muthusamy (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 11:24:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: <3971E26F-A3F4-4F9C-B210-6DC2511E510D@gmail.com> <6D3E1A53-FAD7-4C70-94D0-366EEDDE844F@gmail.com> Message-ID: I am sorry. On Sat, Jun 29, 2019, 10:56 AM Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hello SM, > > Perhaps you didn't read the entire response - specifically towards the > last paragraphs. > > Regards > > Sent from my mobile > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On Sat, 29 Jun 2019, 10:49 sivasubramanian muthusamy, < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > >> Arsene, >> >> You haven't answered Ayden's question. >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019, 6:11 AM Arsène Tungali >> wrote: >> >>> In some circumstances, it is hard to balance confidentiality and >>> openess/transparency, especially when those involved in the process haven’t >>> discussed and agreed upon the level of confidentiality and transparency to >>> consider for such a process. Trying to say something that I hope comes >>> across clearly as i am thinking about it. >>> >>> I am glad that finally this community is discussing this topic but as i >>> think I said, it is too late. When i started this thread, that was the best >>> moment and opportunity for this community to shape the process somehow. One >>> of the things i expected was a good discussion about the ideal candidate in >>> order to help us better carry the responsibility we were given by the >>> Secretariat. >>> >>> We will always complain about CS MAG members not consulting with their >>> group but until we are able to have one voice, in a single platform where >>> these types of communications can happen, the same will remain. I am >>> referring here to the other thread about merging/uniting under one label. I >>> feel connected to this group because i feel like i belong here and it is >>> this group that sent me to the MAG this year, that’s why i am doing my best >>> to keep you in the loop whenever i am able to. >>> >>> But we should remember that not all CS MAG members belong here, that’s >>> why you don’t read them here. Maybe they have another group/community where >>> they feel connected to and where they consult. Many were not selected >>> through the CSCG! >>> >>> Back the discussion re: MAG Chair. >>> >>> As i said, since the level of transparency was not discussed within the >>> CS group on the MAG, i could not share the names of those who showed >>> interest in being considered for the position. I posted on this list when >>> we were tasked to select names and i am sure that’s what triggered those >>> interested to reach out privately either to me or to other CS MAG. >>> >>> Many of those candidates whose profiles were discussed are on this list >>> and i am glad Anriette disclosed herself. And I would encourage the others >>> to say it by themselves. >>> >>> To Ayden’s question: I will personally be comfortable to share the >>> outcome of our discussions and deliberations once the process has >>> officially ended and i even tend to think i should wait until the name of >>> the selected had been published by the UN. >>> >>> My colleague Helany or anyone else can decide to proceed differently, >>> again, it will be their choice since nothing was agreed upfront on >>> disclosure. Sorry for making it feel like MAG members are that powerful :) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Arsene >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On 28 Jun 2019, at 17:21, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>> >>> Hi Arsene, >>> >>> Can you please advise what name it is that you put forward? >>> >>> I apologise, I must have missed the consultation with civil society here >>> - I have been a bit behind on reading emails lately. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Ayden Férdeline >>> >>> >>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>> On Friday, 28 June 2019 12:07, Arsène Tungali < >>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>> >>> It would have been through MAG members but it is too late at this stage >>> as many have already made their minds on the candidate per stakeholder >>> group. For CS, we have made our mind on one name that was communicated to >>> the Secretariat. >>> >>> My apologies for brievity and typo, boarding a flight now >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On 28 Jun 2019, at 12:04, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>> >>> Is there a particular announcement against which one can send name >>> suggestions? >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Fouad >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:59 AM Arsène Tungali < >>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>> >>>> MAG Chair selection has always been the responsibility of the UN, >>>> through the UNDESA as far as i know. This year, MAG members have been asked >>>> to discuss and suggest names. There is no point for this to go through any >>>> formal CS consultation >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On 28 Jun 2019, at 11:52, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Helani, Arsene, all >>>> >>>> Thanks for sharing this information. Is there any information on the >>>> process for selection? Is there a timeline in mind? We could request CSCG >>>> to run this, >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 10:27, Helani Galpaya >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Aresene and others: >>>>> Where is the discussion and nomination process taking place for the >>>>> Civil Society nomination(s) for MAG chair? >>>>> I mean in which list? >>>>> Apologies if these questions were answered elsewhere and I'm just not >>>>> seeing it. >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> Helani >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Helani Galpaya >>>>> LIRNEasia >>>>> www.lirneasia.net >>>>> +94 77 3600 766 (m-LK); +44 7415 865222 (m-UK) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 7:39 PM Arsène Tungali < >>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> As you know, the current MAG Chair is Lynn St Amour, she is ending >>>>>> her term this year! >>>>>> >>>>>> There is a need to have another chair starting right after IGF >>>>>> Berlin. Was wondering, maybe we need to discuss the profile of a good MAG >>>>>> Chair? >>>>>> >>>>>> Though we will not choose on this list, but wanted to share that >>>>>> consultations are going on within different stakeholder groups within the >>>>>> MAG, each one of them being asked to suggest a name (s) to the IGF >>>>>> Secretariat. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just throwing this out here. >>>>>> >>>>>> Arsene >>>>>> --- >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> List help: >>>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *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| >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards. >>> -------------------------- >>> Fouad Bajwa >>> Public Policy Analyst >>> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >>> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >>> >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Sat Jun 29 11:02:21 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 15:02:21 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: <3971E26F-A3F4-4F9C-B210-6DC2511E510D@gmail.com> <6D3E1A53-FAD7-4C70-94D0-366EEDDE844F@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Arsene, I do appreciate the response. Thanks. I think you are right to flag the question of legitimacy, and that this mailing list is not necessarily representative of the voices of all of civil society. That was why I was wondering how it was that the civil society representatives on the MAG did engage with civil society; the consultation does not need to happen on this list necessarily, and I would certainly understand if it didn't, but I would be curious to better understand how it is that you and others obtained inputs from a diverse array of informed and relevant stakeholders. I would suggest that the civil society MAG members have a discussion, privately if necessary, to discuss whether they will be sharing with us the name of the individual(s) that they have endorsed. I do not understand why this would be kept secret. I can understand not sharing the names of all considered candidates, and the rationales for endorsing/not endorsing someone, but I see no reason not to share the name(s) of those who have received an endorsement from those who claim to represent civil society on the MAG. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, 29 June 2019 06:10, Arsène Tungali wrote: > In some circumstances, it is hard to balance confidentiality and openess/transparency, especially when those involved in the process haven’t discussed and agreed upon the level of confidentiality and transparency to consider for such a process. Trying to say something that I hope comes across clearly as i am thinking about it. > > I am glad that finally this community is discussing this topic but as i think I said, it is too late. When i started this thread, that was the best moment and opportunity for this community to shape the process somehow. One of the things i expected was a good discussion about the ideal candidate in order to help us better carry the responsibility we were given by the Secretariat. > > We will always complain about CS MAG members not consulting with their group but until we are able to have one voice, in a single platform where these types of communications can happen, the same will remain. I am referring here to the other thread about merging/uniting under one label. I feel connected to this group because i feel like i belong here and it is this group that sent me to the MAG this year, that’s why i am doing my best to keep you in the loop whenever i am able to. > > But we should remember that not all CS MAG members belong here, that’s why you don’t read them here. Maybe they have another group/community where they feel connected to and where they consult. Many were not selected through the CSCG! > > Back the discussion re: MAG Chair. > > As i said, since the level of transparency was not discussed within the CS group on the MAG, i could not share the names of those who showed interest in being considered for the position. I posted on this list when we were tasked to select names and i am sure that’s what triggered those interested to reach out privately either to me or to other CS MAG. > > Many of those candidates whose profiles were discussed are on this list and i am glad Anriette disclosed herself. And I would encourage the others to say it by themselves. > > To Ayden’s question: I will personally be comfortable to share the outcome of our discussions and deliberations once the process has officially ended and i even tend to think i should wait until the name of the selected had been published by the UN. > > My colleague Helany or anyone else can decide to proceed differently, again, it will be their choice since nothing was agreed upfront on disclosure. Sorry for making it feel like MAG members are that powerful :) > > Thanks, > Arsene > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 28 Jun 2019, at 17:21, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > >> Hi Arsene, >> >> Can you please advise what name it is that you put forward? >> >> I apologise, I must have missed the consultation with civil society here - I have been a bit behind on reading emails lately. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ayden Férdeline >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Friday, 28 June 2019 12:07, Arsène Tungali wrote: >> >>> It would have been through MAG members but it is too late at this stage as many have already made their minds on the candidate per stakeholder group. For CS, we have made our mind on one name that was communicated to the Secretariat. >>> >>> My apologies for brievity and typo, boarding a flight now >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On 28 Jun 2019, at 12:04, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>> >>>> Is there a particular announcement against which one can send name suggestions? >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Fouad >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:59 AM Arsène Tungali wrote: >>>> >>>>> MAG Chair selection has always been the responsibility of the UN, through the UNDESA as far as i know. This year, MAG members have been asked to discuss and suggest names. There is no point for this to go through any formal CS consultation >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On 28 Jun 2019, at 11:52, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Helani, Arsene, all >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for sharing this information. Is there any information on the process for selection? Is there a timeline in mind? We could request CSCG to run this, >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 10:27, Helani Galpaya wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Aresene and others: >>>>>>> Where is the discussion and nomination process taking place for the Civil Society nomination(s) for MAG chair? >>>>>>> I mean in which list? >>>>>>> Apologies if these questions were answered elsewhere and I'm just not seeing it. >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>> Helani >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Helani Galpaya >>>>>>> LIRNEasia >>>>>>> www.lirneasia.net >>>>>>> +94 77 3600 766 (m-LK); +44 7415 865222 (m-UK) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 7:39 PM Arsène Tungali wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As you know, the current MAG Chair is Lynn St Amour, she is ending her term this year! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is a need to have another chair starting right after IGF Berlin. Was wondering, maybe we need to discuss the profile of a good MAG Chair? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Though we will not choose on this list, but wanted to share that consultations are going on within different stakeholder groups within the MAG, each one of them being asked to suggest a name (s) to the IGF Secretariat. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just throwing this out here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Arsene >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>> List help: >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> 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| >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards. >>>> -------------------------- >>>> Fouad Bajwa >>>> Public Policy Analyst >>>> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >>>> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sun Jun 30 03:51:53 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (chlebrum (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 10:51:53 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGF MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: <3971E26F-A3F4-4F9C-B210-6DC2511E510D@gmail.com> <6D3E1A53-FAD7-4C70-94D0-366EEDDE844F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6B752197-1FEE-4381-965C-0C86FCF5D53A@gmail.com> +1 Chantal LEBRUMENT > Le 29 juin 2019 à 18:02, Ayden Férdeline a écrit : > > Hi Arsene, > > I do appreciate the response. Thanks. > > I think you are right to flag the question of legitimacy, and that this mailing list is not necessarily representative of the voices of all of civil society. > > That was why I was wondering how it was that the civil society representatives on the MAG did engage with civil society; the consultation does not need to happen on this list necessarily, and I would certainly understand if it didn't, but I would be curious to better understand how it is that you and others obtained inputs from a diverse array of informed and relevant stakeholders. > > I would suggest that the civil society MAG members have a discussion, privately if necessary, to discuss whether they will be sharing with us the name of the individual(s) that they have endorsed. I do not understand why this would be kept secret. I can understand not sharing the names of all considered candidates, and the rationales for endorsing/not endorsing someone, but I see no reason not to share the name(s) of those who have received an endorsement from those who claim to represent civil society on the MAG. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Saturday, 29 June 2019 06:10, Arsène Tungali wrote: >> >> In some circumstances, it is hard to balance confidentiality and openess/transparency, especially when those involved in the process haven’t discussed and agreed upon the level of confidentiality and transparency to consider for such a process. Trying to say something that I hope comes across clearly as i am thinking about it. >> >> I am glad that finally this community is discussing this topic but as i think I said, it is too late. When i started this thread, that was the best moment and opportunity for this community to shape the process somehow. One of the things i expected was a good discussion about the ideal candidate in order to help us better carry the responsibility we were given by the Secretariat. >> >> We will always complain about CS MAG members not consulting with their group but until we are able to have one voice, in a single platform where these types of communications can happen, the same will remain. I am referring here to the other thread about merging/uniting under one label. I feel connected to this group because i feel like i belong here and it is this group that sent me to the MAG this year, that’s why i am doing my best to keep you in the loop whenever i am able to. >> >> But we should remember that not all CS MAG members belong here, that’s why you don’t read them here. Maybe they have another group/community where they feel connected to and where they consult. Many were not selected through the CSCG! >> >> Back the discussion re: MAG Chair. >> >> As i said, since the level of transparency was not discussed within the CS group on the MAG, i could not share the names of those who showed interest in being considered for the position. I posted on this list when we were tasked to select names and i am sure that’s what triggered those interested to reach out privately either to me or to other CS MAG. >> >> Many of those candidates whose profiles were discussed are on this list and i am glad Anriette disclosed herself. And I would encourage the others to say it by themselves. >> >> To Ayden’s question: I will personally be comfortable to share the outcome of our discussions and deliberations once the process has officially ended and i even tend to think i should wait until the name of the selected had been published by the UN. >> >> My colleague Helany or anyone else can decide to proceed differently, again, it will be their choice since nothing was agreed upfront on disclosure. Sorry for making it feel like MAG members are that powerful :) >> >> Thanks, >> Arsene >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 28 Jun 2019, at 17:21, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>> Hi Arsene, >>> >>> Can you please advise what name it is that you put forward? >>> >>> I apologise, I must have missed the consultation with civil society here - I have been a bit behind on reading emails lately. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Ayden Férdeline >>> >>> >>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>> On Friday, 28 June 2019 12:07, Arsène Tungali wrote: >>>> >>>> It would have been through MAG members but it is too late at this stage as many have already made their minds on the candidate per stakeholder group. For CS, we have made our mind on one name that was communicated to the Secretariat. >>>> >>>> My apologies for brievity and typo, boarding a flight now >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On 28 Jun 2019, at 12:04, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>>>> Is there a particular announcement against which one can send name suggestions? >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Fouad >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:59 AM Arsène Tungali wrote: >>>>>> MAG Chair selection has always been the responsibility of the UN, through the UNDESA as far as i know. This year, MAG members have been asked to discuss and suggest names. There is no point for this to go through any formal CS consultation >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 28 Jun 2019, at 11:52, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>>>>> Dear Helani, Arsene, all >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for sharing this information. Is there any information on the process for selection? Is there a timeline in mind? We could request CSCG to run this, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 10:27, Helani Galpaya wrote: >>>>>>>> Dear Aresene and others: >>>>>>>> Where is the discussion and nomination process taking place for the Civil Society nomination(s) for MAG chair? >>>>>>>> I mean in which list? >>>>>>>> Apologies if these questions were answered elsewhere and I'm just not seeing it. >>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>> Helani >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Helani Galpaya >>>>>>>> LIRNEasia >>>>>>>> www.lirneasia.net >>>>>>>> +94 77 3600 766 (m-LK); +44 7415 865222 (m-UK) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 7:39 PM Arsène Tungali wrote: >>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As you know, the current MAG Chair is Lynn St Amour, she is ending her term this year! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is a need to have another chair starting right after IGF Berlin. Was wondering, maybe we need to discuss the profile of a good MAG Chair? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Though we will not choose on this list, but wanted to share that consultations are going on within different stakeholder groups within the MAG, each one of them being asked to suggest a name (s) to the IGF Secretariat. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Just throwing this out here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Arsene >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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| >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Regards. >>>>> -------------------------- >>>>> Fouad Bajwa >>>>> Public Policy Analyst >>>>> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >>>>> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >>> > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sun Jun 30 15:01:51 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Seth Johnson (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 15:01:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: <3971E26F-A3F4-4F9C-B210-6DC2511E510D@gmail.com> <6D3E1A53-FAD7-4C70-94D0-366EEDDE844F@gmail.com> Message-ID: There was at least an overture here, couched as a proposed discussion of process/criteria. Just nobody piped up for 19 days and just as the deadline the MAG folks would be meeting was arriving. Strikes me that there could be value in articulating something like how word the UN was entering a selection process might have been divulged to fora and communities where discussion of the selection could be approached. The point of this would be less about how this supposedly should have been done than about having recommendations to incorporate in some sort of positive statement that could be issued whenever either the candidates or the selectee are divulged, roughly of the form of "We the undersigned endorse xx, and offer our criteria for candidates going forward, as well as channels by which the civil society constituencies could be engaged." The second part of that could be even phrased not so much as a recommendation as an observation: "xx channels would be suitable for engagement in this process." Seth On 6/29/19, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Hi Arsene, > > I do appreciate the response. Thanks. > > I think you are right to flag the question of legitimacy, and that this > mailing list is not necessarily representative of the voices of all of civil > society. > > That was why I was wondering how it was that the civil society > representatives on the MAG did engage with civil society; the consultation > does not need to happen on this list necessarily, and I would certainly > understand if it didn't, but I would be curious to better understand how it > is that you and others obtained inputs from a diverse array of informed and > relevant stakeholders. > > I would suggest that the civil society MAG members have a discussion, > privately if necessary, to discuss whether they will be sharing with us the > name of the individual(s) that they have endorsed. I do not understand why > this would be kept secret. I can understand not sharing the names of all > considered candidates, and the rationales for endorsing/not endorsing > someone, but I see no reason not to share the name(s) of those who have > received an endorsement from those who claim to represent civil society on > the MAG. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Saturday, 29 June 2019 06:10, Arsène Tungali > wrote: > >> In some circumstances, it is hard to balance confidentiality and >> openess/transparency, especially when those involved in the process >> haven’t discussed and agreed upon the level of confidentiality and >> transparency to consider for such a process. Trying to say something that >> I hope comes across clearly as i am thinking about it. >> >> I am glad that finally this community is discussing this topic but as i >> think I said, it is too late. When i started this thread, that was the >> best moment and opportunity for this community to shape the process >> somehow. One of the things i expected was a good discussion about the >> ideal candidate in order to help us better carry the responsibility we >> were given by the Secretariat. >> >> We will always complain about CS MAG members not consulting with their >> group but until we are able to have one voice, in a single platform where >> these types of communications can happen, the same will remain. I am >> referring here to the other thread about merging/uniting under one label. >> I feel connected to this group because i feel like i belong here and it is >> this group that sent me to the MAG this year, that’s why i am doing my >> best to keep you in the loop whenever i am able to. >> >> But we should remember that not all CS MAG members belong here, that’s why >> you don’t read them here. Maybe they have another group/community where >> they feel connected to and where they consult. Many were not selected >> through the CSCG! >> >> Back the discussion re: MAG Chair. >> >> As i said, since the level of transparency was not discussed within the CS >> group on the MAG, i could not share the names of those who showed interest >> in being considered for the position. I posted on this list when we were >> tasked to select names and i am sure that’s what triggered those >> interested to reach out privately either to me or to other CS MAG. >> >> Many of those candidates whose profiles were discussed are on this list >> and i am glad Anriette disclosed herself. And I would encourage the others >> to say it by themselves. >> >> To Ayden’s question: I will personally be comfortable to share the outcome >> of our discussions and deliberations once the process has officially ended >> and i even tend to think i should wait until the name of the selected had >> been published by the UN. >> >> My colleague Helany or anyone else can decide to proceed differently, >> again, it will be their choice since nothing was agreed upfront on >> disclosure. Sorry for making it feel like MAG members are that powerful :) >> >> Thanks, >> Arsene >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 28 Jun 2019, at 17:21, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >> >>> Hi Arsene, >>> >>> Can you please advise what name it is that you put forward? >>> >>> I apologise, I must have missed the consultation with civil society here >>> - I have been a bit behind on reading emails lately. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Ayden Férdeline >>> >>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>> On Friday, 28 June 2019 12:07, Arsène Tungali >>> wrote: >>> >>>> It would have been through MAG members but it is too late at this stage >>>> as many have already made their minds on the candidate per stakeholder >>>> group. For CS, we have made our mind on one name that was communicated >>>> to the Secretariat. >>>> >>>> My apologies for brievity and typo, boarding a flight now >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On 28 Jun 2019, at 12:04, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>>> >>>>> Is there a particular announcement against which one can send name >>>>> suggestions? >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Fouad >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:59 AM Arsène Tungali >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> MAG Chair selection has always been the responsibility of the UN, >>>>>> through the UNDESA as far as i know. This year, MAG members have been >>>>>> asked to discuss and suggest names. There is no point for this to go >>>>>> through any formal CS consultation >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>> On 28 Jun 2019, at 11:52, Sheetal Kumar >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Helani, Arsene, all >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for sharing this information. Is there any information on the >>>>>>> process for selection? Is there a timeline in mind? We could request >>>>>>> CSCG to run this, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 10:27, Helani Galpaya >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear Aresene and others: >>>>>>>> Where is the discussion and nomination process taking place for the >>>>>>>> Civil Society nomination(s) for MAG chair? >>>>>>>> I mean in which list? >>>>>>>> Apologies if these questions were answered elsewhere and I'm just >>>>>>>> not seeing it. >>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>> Helani >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Helani Galpaya >>>>>>>> LIRNEasia >>>>>>>> www.lirneasia.net >>>>>>>> +94 77 3600 766 (m-LK); +44 7415 865222 (m-UK) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 7:39 PM Arsène Tungali >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As you know, the current MAG Chair is Lynn St Amour, she is ending >>>>>>>>> her term this year! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is a need to have another chair starting right after IGF >>>>>>>>> Berlin. Was wondering, maybe we need to discuss the profile of a >>>>>>>>> good MAG Chair? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Though we will not choose on this list, but wanted to share that >>>>>>>>> consultations are going on within different stakeholder groups >>>>>>>>> within the MAG, each one of them being asked to suggest a name (s) >>>>>>>>> to the IGF Secretariat. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Just throwing this out here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Arsene >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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| >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Regards. >>>>> -------------------------- >>>>> Fouad Bajwa >>>>> Public Policy Analyst >>>>> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >>>>> My Blog: Internet's Governance: >>>>> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Jun 5 11:27:29 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 18:27:29 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 to be held in Poland In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The rotation has been widely discussed today at the MAG meeting because so many of us were not happy to have yet another IGF happening in Europe. But the UNDESA and the IGF Secretariat mentioned that they are doing everything they can to ensure other countries are biding in but they only receive few interested countries. On a question I raised about the requirements, it was noted that there is a strong financial expectation from the host, which is supposed to cover ALL the expenses related to putting together an IGF. And this is between 2-3 millions USD (less, if the event is to be held at the UN office). So, a lot to say... But for now, people should get ready for Poland! 2019-06-05 12:53 UTC+03:00, Nouradine Abdelkerim : > hello and mabrouk al eid the problem to link to visas it really touches us > africans of an african postulate for a visas to attend a forum or training > the consular service will believe that him when he issued the visa he does > not want not return to your country of origin so that in strategic > meetings of icann, Igf or any of its meetings you will not see many > Africans attending. by how you want Africa to advance while some decisions > that you unanimously decide to really concern our dear continent.Then > meditate on this problem bind to visas and sea. > > Le mer. 5 juin 2019 à 10:35, "Michael J. Oghia" > > a écrit : > >> Hi Mawaki, all: >> >> No need to apologise or call it a rant. It's a very fair point, and I >> appreciate your articulation. As someone who lives in Europe and >> undoubtedly benefits from having the IGF hosted on the continent, I am >> also >> frustrated that – assuming it's already been decided – the IGF would be >> held yet again in Europe. >> >> I know that the country where it's held mainly rests on which government >> is willing to host it, so I do understand if the options are limited. >> >> What are the solutions to this? >> >> Best, >> -Michael >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:26 AM Mawaki Chango >> >> wrote: >> >>> Good point, Abdeldjalil. Geneva, Paris, Berlin and now Poland >>> (Varsovie/Warsaw, I guess?) That's four. >>> The Schengen visa is such a hassle for so many people, and so time >>> consuming! I'm not even talking about getting all the paperwork in >>> order. >>> One has to secure the interview appointment months and months in advance >>> and that alone is sometimes enough to cause failure. >>> >>> And when you manage to get the visa, it only lasts the exact number of >>> days planned for your meeting (or whatever the purpose of the visit.) >>> And >>> even if one knows there's another meeting (say, ICANN) coming up in the >>> next few months still in the Schengen space which one needs to attend, >>> one >>> has to go through all of it again. They won't consider that even if the >>> visa paperwork for the next meeting is ready. Certainly not if the two >>> consecutive meetings are happening in two different Schengen countries, >>> although any Schengen country visa applies to the whole of Schengen >>> space. >>> I'm not even sure they accept to issue an extended visa in the case the >>> two >>> meetings were to happen in the same country three or four months apart. >>> The >>> bureaucracy of sovereignty ! >>> >>> Okay, I guess that was my mid-week rant. Otherwise, I'm looking forward >>> to seeing and enjoying Berlin and hopefully Warsaw. >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 08:29 Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks Arsene for sharing. >>>> >>>> Congratulation for that innovation :knowing the date early . >>>> After 3 round I'm Europe we hope that after Poland will be in AFRICA . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Cordialement >>>> >>>> ABDELDJALIL BACHAR BONG >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------- >>>> PRESIDENT & CEO >>>> >>>> >>>> ASSOCIATION "HOUSE OF AFRICA" >>>> E-mail: bachar at houseof.africa >>>> Twitter: @HOUSEOFINTERNET >>>> WEBSITE : www.houseof.africa >>>> Whatsapp: +23566274284 >>>> Skype: Bongbour >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Le Secrétaire Exécutif/Executive Secretary >>>> >>>> Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet au Tchad (FGI Tchad) / >>>> Chad Internet Governance Forum >>>> ------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> E-mail: Bachar at igf.td >>>> Website: www.igf.td >>>> Twitter :@IGFCHAD >>>> https://twitter.com/bacharbong >>>> Tél:0023566274284 >>>> N'djaména(Tchad) >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------- >>>> |AFRINIC Fellow|ISOC CHAD Member|ICANN/AFRALO Member|NEXTGEN >>>> Fellow|GIVE1PROJECT MEMBER|IGFSA MEMBER|ACIEDD BOARD MEMBER|UN YOUTH >>>> DELEGATE - CHAD 2016-2018|ICANN60 Fellow ||Youth Peacebuilder||| >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > -- ------------------------ **Arsène Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) GPG: 523644A0 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow < http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member Member. UN IGF MAG Member From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Jun 5 11:32:36 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Michael J. Oghia" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 17:32:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 to be held in Poland In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the explanation Arsene, I understand. It's frustrating, but they also can't force countries to bid for it. Best, -Michael On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 5:27 PM Arsène Tungali wrote: > The rotation has been widely discussed today at the MAG meeting > because so many of us were not happy to have yet another IGF happening > in Europe. > > But the UNDESA and the IGF Secretariat mentioned that they are doing > everything they can to ensure other countries are biding in but they > only receive few interested countries. > > On a question I raised about the requirements, it was noted that there > is a strong financial expectation from the host, which is supposed to > cover ALL the expenses related to putting together an IGF. And this is > between 2-3 millions USD (less, if the event is to be held at the UN > office). > > So, a lot to say... But for now, people should get ready for Poland! > > 2019-06-05 12:53 UTC+03:00, Nouradine Abdelkerim < > governance at lists.riseup.net>: > > hello and mabrouk al eid the problem to link to visas it really touches > us > > africans of an african postulate for a visas to attend a forum or > training > > the consular service will believe that him when he issued the visa he > does > > not want not return to your country of origin so that in strategic > > meetings of icann, Igf or any of its meetings you will not see many > > Africans attending. by how you want Africa to advance while some > decisions > > that you unanimously decide to really concern our dear continent.Then > > meditate on this problem bind to visas and sea. > > > > Le mer. 5 juin 2019 à 10:35, "Michael J. Oghia" > > > > a écrit : > > > >> Hi Mawaki, all: > >> > >> No need to apologise or call it a rant. It's a very fair point, and I > >> appreciate your articulation. As someone who lives in Europe and > >> undoubtedly benefits from having the IGF hosted on the continent, I am > >> also > >> frustrated that – assuming it's already been decided – the IGF would be > >> held yet again in Europe. > >> > >> I know that the country where it's held mainly rests on which government > >> is willing to host it, so I do understand if the options are limited. > >> > >> What are the solutions to this? > >> > >> Best, > >> -Michael > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:26 AM Mawaki Chango > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Good point, Abdeldjalil. Geneva, Paris, Berlin and now Poland > >>> (Varsovie/Warsaw, I guess?) That's four. > >>> The Schengen visa is such a hassle for so many people, and so time > >>> consuming! I'm not even talking about getting all the paperwork in > >>> order. > >>> One has to secure the interview appointment months and months in > advance > >>> and that alone is sometimes enough to cause failure. > >>> > >>> And when you manage to get the visa, it only lasts the exact number of > >>> days planned for your meeting (or whatever the purpose of the visit.) > >>> And > >>> even if one knows there's another meeting (say, ICANN) coming up in the > >>> next few months still in the Schengen space which one needs to attend, > >>> one > >>> has to go through all of it again. They won't consider that even if the > >>> visa paperwork for the next meeting is ready. Certainly not if the two > >>> consecutive meetings are happening in two different Schengen countries, > >>> although any Schengen country visa applies to the whole of Schengen > >>> space. > >>> I'm not even sure they accept to issue an extended visa in the case the > >>> two > >>> meetings were to happen in the same country three or four months apart. > >>> The > >>> bureaucracy of sovereignty ! > >>> > >>> Okay, I guess that was my mid-week rant. Otherwise, I'm looking forward > >>> to seeing and enjoying Berlin and hopefully Warsaw. > >>> > >>> Mawaki > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 08:29 Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks Arsene for sharing. > >>>> > >>>> Congratulation for that innovation :knowing the date early . > >>>> After 3 round I'm Europe we hope that after Poland will be in AFRICA . > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ------------------------------- > >>>> > >>>> Cordialement > >>>> > >>>> ABDELDJALIL BACHAR BONG > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ---------------------------------- > >>>> PRESIDENT & CEO > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ASSOCIATION "HOUSE OF AFRICA" > >>>> E-mail: bachar at houseof.africa > >>>> Twitter: @HOUSEOFINTERNET > >>>> WEBSITE : www.houseof.africa > >>>> Whatsapp: +23566274284 > >>>> Skype: Bongbour > >>>> > >>>> ------------------------------------- > >>>> > >>>> Le Secrétaire Exécutif/Executive Secretary > >>>> > >>>> Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet au Tchad (FGI Tchad) / > >>>> Chad Internet Governance Forum > >>>> ------------------------------------- > >>>> > >>>> E-mail: Bachar at igf.td > >>>> Website: www.igf.td > >>>> Twitter :@IGFCHAD > >>>> https://twitter.com/bacharbong > >>>> Tél:0023566274284 > >>>> N'djaména(Tchad) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> --------------------------------------------- > >>>> |AFRINIC Fellow|ISOC CHAD Member|ICANN/AFRALO Member|NEXTGEN > >>>> Fellow|GIVE1PROJECT MEMBER|IGFSA MEMBER|ACIEDD BOARD MEMBER|UN YOUTH > >>>> DELEGATE - CHAD 2016-2018|ICANN60 Fellow ||Youth Peacebuilder||| > >>>> --- > >>>> To unsubscribe: > >>>> List help: > >>>> > >>> --- > >>> To unsubscribe: > >>> List help: > >>> > >> --- > >> To unsubscribe: > >> List help: > >> > > > > > -- > ------------------------ > **Arsène Tungali* * > Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international > *, > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, > Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) > GPG: 523644A0 > > 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow > < > > http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html > > > > (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member > Member. UN IGF MAG > Member > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Jun 5 11:48:07 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Capda Capda (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 17:48:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 to be held in Poland In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone and thank you very much Arsène for this update. I would just like to remind you to remind UNDESA and the IGF Secretariat that the principle of equity lies in the foundations of the IGF. It is also their role to accompany the countries in order to balance, otherwise we would lead to exclusion. The problem of VISA is a reality, before, one of the conditions for being a host country should be to facilitate this in order to allow the participants to come without discrimination, I would like us to refer to the example of Egypt in 2009 and Kenya in 2011, it was fantastic. For funding, it is desirable to remember the spirit that founded the IGF, it was digital solidarity, a pity for this situation. Best Regards, Le mer. 5 juin 2019 à 17:33, "Michael J. Oghia" a écrit : > Thanks for the explanation Arsene, I understand. It's frustrating, but > they also can't force countries to bid for it. > > Best, > -Michael > > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 5:27 PM Arsène Tungali > wrote: > >> The rotation has been widely discussed today at the MAG meeting >> because so many of us were not happy to have yet another IGF happening >> in Europe. >> >> But the UNDESA and the IGF Secretariat mentioned that they are doing >> everything they can to ensure other countries are biding in but they >> only receive few interested countries. >> >> On a question I raised about the requirements, it was noted that there >> is a strong financial expectation from the host, which is supposed to >> cover ALL the expenses related to putting together an IGF. And this is >> between 2-3 millions USD (less, if the event is to be held at the UN >> office). >> >> So, a lot to say... But for now, people should get ready for Poland! >> >> 2019-06-05 12:53 UTC+03:00, Nouradine Abdelkerim < >> governance at lists.riseup.net>: >> > hello and mabrouk al eid the problem to link to visas it really touches >> us >> > africans of an african postulate for a visas to attend a forum or >> training >> > the consular service will believe that him when he issued the visa he >> does >> > not want not return to your country of origin so that in strategic >> > meetings of icann, Igf or any of its meetings you will not see many >> > Africans attending. by how you want Africa to advance while some >> decisions >> > that you unanimously decide to really concern our dear continent.Then >> > meditate on this problem bind to visas and sea. >> > >> > Le mer. 5 juin 2019 à 10:35, "Michael J. Oghia" >> > >> > a écrit : >> > >> >> Hi Mawaki, all: >> >> >> >> No need to apologise or call it a rant. It's a very fair point, and I >> >> appreciate your articulation. As someone who lives in Europe and >> >> undoubtedly benefits from having the IGF hosted on the continent, I am >> >> also >> >> frustrated that – assuming it's already been decided – the IGF would be >> >> held yet again in Europe. >> >> >> >> I know that the country where it's held mainly rests on which >> government >> >> is willing to host it, so I do understand if the options are limited. >> >> >> >> What are the solutions to this? >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> -Michael >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:26 AM Mawaki Chango >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Good point, Abdeldjalil. Geneva, Paris, Berlin and now Poland >> >>> (Varsovie/Warsaw, I guess?) That's four. >> >>> The Schengen visa is such a hassle for so many people, and so time >> >>> consuming! I'm not even talking about getting all the paperwork in >> >>> order. >> >>> One has to secure the interview appointment months and months in >> advance >> >>> and that alone is sometimes enough to cause failure. >> >>> >> >>> And when you manage to get the visa, it only lasts the exact number of >> >>> days planned for your meeting (or whatever the purpose of the visit.) >> >>> And >> >>> even if one knows there's another meeting (say, ICANN) coming up in >> the >> >>> next few months still in the Schengen space which one needs to attend, >> >>> one >> >>> has to go through all of it again. They won't consider that even if >> the >> >>> visa paperwork for the next meeting is ready. Certainly not if the two >> >>> consecutive meetings are happening in two different Schengen >> countries, >> >>> although any Schengen country visa applies to the whole of Schengen >> >>> space. >> >>> I'm not even sure they accept to issue an extended visa in the case >> the >> >>> two >> >>> meetings were to happen in the same country three or four months >> apart. >> >>> The >> >>> bureaucracy of sovereignty ! >> >>> >> >>> Okay, I guess that was my mid-week rant. Otherwise, I'm looking >> forward >> >>> to seeing and enjoying Berlin and hopefully Warsaw. >> >>> >> >>> Mawaki >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 08:29 Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks Arsene for sharing. >> >>>> >> >>>> Congratulation for that innovation :knowing the date early . >> >>>> After 3 round I'm Europe we hope that after Poland will be in AFRICA >> . >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ------------------------------- >> >>>> >> >>>> Cordialement >> >>>> >> >>>> ABDELDJALIL BACHAR BONG >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ---------------------------------- >> >>>> PRESIDENT & CEO >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ASSOCIATION "HOUSE OF AFRICA" >> >>>> E-mail: bachar at houseof.africa >> >>>> Twitter: @HOUSEOFINTERNET >> >>>> WEBSITE : www.houseof.africa >> >>>> Whatsapp: +23566274284 >> >>>> Skype: Bongbour >> >>>> >> >>>> ------------------------------------- >> >>>> >> >>>> Le Secrétaire Exécutif/Executive Secretary >> >>>> >> >>>> Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet au Tchad (FGI Tchad) / >> >>>> Chad Internet Governance Forum >> >>>> ------------------------------------- >> >>>> >> >>>> E-mail: Bachar at igf.td >> >>>> Website: www.igf.td >> >>>> Twitter :@IGFCHAD >> >>>> https://twitter.com/bacharbong >> >>>> Tél:0023566274284 >> >>>> N'djaména(Tchad) >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> --------------------------------------------- >> >>>> |AFRINIC Fellow|ISOC CHAD Member|ICANN/AFRALO Member|NEXTGEN >> >>>> Fellow|GIVE1PROJECT MEMBER|IGFSA MEMBER|ACIEDD BOARD MEMBER|UN YOUTH >> >>>> DELEGATE - CHAD 2016-2018|ICANN60 Fellow ||Youth Peacebuilder||| >> >>>> --- >> >>>> To unsubscribe: >> >>>> List help: >> >>>> >> >>> --- >> >>> To unsubscribe: >> >>> List help: >> >>> >> >> --- >> >> To unsubscribe: >> >> List help: >> >> >> > >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------ >> **Arsène Tungali* * >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >> *, >> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, >> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) >> GPG: 523644A0 >> >> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow >> < >> >> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html >> > >> >> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member >> Member. UN IGF MAG >> Member >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- *Michel TCHONANG LINZE* *Coordinateur Général* *ÉVÈNEMENTS SUR LES TIC :* Þ *Sommet africain de l’Internet (AIS) du 09 juin - 21 juin 2019 à Kampala en Ouganda* Þ *ICANN65 du 24 au 27 Juin 2019 à Marrakech au Maroc* Þ *ICANN65 du 24 au 27 Juin 2019 à Marrakech - Maroc* Þ *Symposium TIC Afrique du 09 au 12 juillet 2019 à Yaoundé-Cameroun* Þ *ITU Telecom World du 09 au 12 septembre 2019 à Budapest - Hongrie* Þ *FGI global à Berlin du 25 au 29 Novembre 2019.* *C**APDA (Consortium d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et le Développement de l'Afrique)* *BP : 15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN Tél. : (237) 67775-39-63 / 24212-9493 Email : capdasiege at gmail.com Site : www.capda.ong* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Wed Jun 5 12:02:56 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 12:02:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_Speech_Police_=E2=80=93_T?= =?UTF-8?Q?he_Global_Struggle_to_Govern_the_Internet?= Message-ID: Just started. I am also running this out on our periscope - https://twitter.com/ISOC_Live/status/1136300107479932928 Today, *Wedneday June 5 2019* at *Noon EDT* (14:00 UTC) New America’s *Open Technology Institute * hosts a book launch event - *Speech Police - The Global Struggle to Govern the Internet *. Author *David Kaye*, UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion & expression, will be in conversation with *Rebecca Mackinnon* Director, Ranking Digital Rights. Moderator: *Anne-Marie Slaughter*, CEO, New America. The event will be webcast live via the *New America YouTube Channel *. *VIEW ON YOU TUBE: https://youtu.be/uC3KzD71wdU * *TWITTER: #speechpolice * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11116/ - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng Wed Jun 5 15:01:44 2019 From: udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng (Chris Prince Udochukwu Njoku) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 20:01:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 to be held in Poland In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is really interesting. Do we see that crucial point subtly surfacing? The point I always have been stressing about a holistic approach to getting everyone onto the digital train. How can UN or anybody achieve digital inclusion, or specifically inclusion in Internet governance itself or its discussions, when economic inequality persits (at national, regional and international levels) and the rich continue to have it all? In the case at hand: Is it out of place if a poor country is nominated and supported (either by UN or by some rich countries) to host IGF? While developing and least develeoped countries strive to expand their economic fronts, is it impossible to build a global fund for supporting them to fit into a rotation in hosting such events of important global bodies that advocate and require inclusiveness? Or is all we're doing lip service? In any case, I appreciate the release of 2020 venue in very good time. I hope regional IGF secretariats will borrow a leaf from this. On Wednesday, June 5, 2019, Capda Capda wrote: > Hi everyone and thank you very much Arsène for this update. I would just like to remind you to remind UNDESA and the IGF Secretariat that the principle of equity lies in the foundations of the IGF. It is also their role to accompany the countries in order to balance, otherwise we would lead to exclusion. > > The problem of VISA is a reality, before, one of the conditions for being a host country should be to facilitate this in order to allow the participants to come without discrimination, I would like us to refer to the example of Egypt in 2009 and Kenya in 2011, it was fantastic. > > For funding, it is desirable to remember the spirit that founded the IGF, it was digital solidarity, a pity for this situation. > > Best Regards, > > Le mer. 5 juin 2019 à 17:33, "Michael J. Oghia" < governance at lists.riseup.net> a écrit : >> >> Thanks for the explanation Arsene, I understand. It's frustrating, but they also can't force countries to bid for it. >> Best, >> -Michael >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 5:27 PM Arsène Tungali wrote: >>> >>> The rotation has been widely discussed today at the MAG meeting >>> because so many of us were not happy to have yet another IGF happening >>> in Europe. >>> >>> But the UNDESA and the IGF Secretariat mentioned that they are doing >>> everything they can to ensure other countries are biding in but they >>> only receive few interested countries. >>> >>> On a question I raised about the requirements, it was noted that there >>> is a strong financial expectation from the host, which is supposed to >>> cover ALL the expenses related to putting together an IGF. And this is >>> between 2-3 millions USD (less, if the event is to be held at the UN >>> office). >>> >>> So, a lot to say... But for now, people should get ready for Poland! >>> >>> 2019-06-05 12:53 UTC+03:00, Nouradine Abdelkerim < governance at lists.riseup.net>: >>> > hello and mabrouk al eid the problem to link to visas it really touches us >>> > africans of an african postulate for a visas to attend a forum or training >>> > the consular service will believe that him when he issued the visa he does >>> > not want not return to your country of origin so that in strategic >>> > meetings of icann, Igf or any of its meetings you will not see many >>> > Africans attending. by how you want Africa to advance while some decisions >>> > that you unanimously decide to really concern our dear continent.Then >>> > meditate on this problem bind to visas and sea. >>> > >>> > Le mer. 5 juin 2019 à 10:35, "Michael J. Oghia" >>> > >>> > a écrit : >>> > >>> >> Hi Mawaki, all: >>> >> >>> >> No need to apologise or call it a rant. It's a very fair point, and I >>> >> appreciate your articulation. As someone who lives in Europe and >>> >> undoubtedly benefits from having the IGF hosted on the continent, I am >>> >> also >>> >> frustrated that – assuming it's already been decided – the IGF would be >>> >> held yet again in Europe. >>> >> >>> >> I know that the country where it's held mainly rests on which government >>> >> is willing to host it, so I do understand if the options are limited. >>> >> >>> >> What are the solutions to this? >>> >> >>> >> Best, >>> >> -Michael >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:26 AM Mawaki Chango >>> >> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Good point, Abdeldjalil. Geneva, Paris, Berlin and now Poland >>> >>> (Varsovie/Warsaw, I guess?) That's four. >>> >>> The Schengen visa is such a hassle for so many people, and so time >>> >>> consuming! I'm not even talking about getting all the paperwork in >>> >>> order. >>> >>> One has to secure the interview appointment months and months in advance >>> >>> and that alone is sometimes enough to cause failure. >>> >>> >>> >>> And when you manage to get the visa, it only lasts the exact number of >>> >>> days planned for your meeting (or whatever the purpose of the visit.) >>> >>> And >>> >>> even if one knows there's another meeting (say, ICANN) coming up in the >>> >>> next few months still in the Schengen space which one needs to attend, >>> >>> one >>> >>> has to go through all of it again. They won't consider that even if the >>> >>> visa paperwork for the next meeting is ready. Certainly not if the two >>> >>> consecutive meetings are happening in two different Schengen countries, >>> >>> although any Schengen country visa applies to the whole of Schengen >>> >>> space. >>> >>> I'm not even sure they accept to issue an extended visa in the case the >>> >>> two >>> >>> meetings were to happen in the same country three or four months apart. >>> >>> The >>> >>> bureaucracy of sovereignty ! >>> >>> >>> >>> Okay, I guess that was my mid-week rant. Otherwise, I'm looking forward >>> >>> to seeing and enjoying Berlin and hopefully Warsaw. >>> >>> >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 08:29 Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Thanks Arsene for sharing. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Congratulation for that innovation :knowing the date early . >>> >>>> After 3 round I'm Europe we hope that after Poland will be in AFRICA . >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> ------------------------------- >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Cordialement >>> >>>> >>> >>>> ABDELDJALIL BACHAR BONG >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> ---------------------------------- >>> >>>> PRESIDENT & CEO >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> ASSOCIATION "HOUSE OF AFRICA" >>> >>>> E-mail: bachar at houseof.africa >>> >>>> Twitter: @HOUSEOFINTERNET >>> >>>> WEBSITE : www.houseof.africa >>> >>>> Whatsapp: +23566274284 >>> >>>> Skype: Bongbour >>> >>>> >>> >>>> ------------------------------------- >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Le Secrétaire Exécutif/Executive Secretary >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet au Tchad (FGI Tchad) / >>> >>>> Chad Internet Governance Forum >>> >>>> ------------------------------------- >>> >>>> >>> >>>> E-mail: Bachar at igf.td >>> >>>> Website: www.igf.td >>> >>>> Twitter :@IGFCHAD >>> >>>> https://twitter.com/bacharbong >>> >>>> Tél:0023566274284 >>> >>>> N'djaména(Tchad) >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> --------------------------------------------- >>> >>>> |AFRINIC Fellow|ISOC CHAD Member|ICANN/AFRALO Member|NEXTGEN >>> >>>> Fellow|GIVE1PROJECT MEMBER|IGFSA MEMBER|ACIEDD BOARD MEMBER|UN YOUTH >>> >>>> DELEGATE - CHAD 2016-2018|ICANN60 Fellow ||Youth Peacebuilder||| >>> >>>> --- >>> >>>> To unsubscribe: >>> >>>> List help: >>> >>>> >>> >>> --- >>> >>> To unsubscribe: >>> >>> List help: >>> >>> >>> >> --- >>> >> To unsubscribe: >>> >> List help: >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------ >>> **Arsène Tungali* * >>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >>> *, >>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, >>> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) >>> GPG: 523644A0 >>> >>> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow >>> < >>> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html > >>> >>> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member >>> Member. UN IGF MAG >>> Member >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: > > > -- > > Michel TCHONANG LINZE > > Coordinateur Général > > ÉVÈNEMENTS SUR LES TIC : > > Þ Sommet africain de l’Internet (AIS) du 09 juin - 21 juin 2019 à Kampala en Ouganda > > Þ ICANN65 du 24 au 27 Juin 2019 à Marrakech au Maroc > > Þ ICANN65 du 24 au 27 Juin 2019 à Marrakech - Maroc > > Þ Symposium TIC Afrique du 09 au 12 juillet 2019 à Yaoundé-Cameroun > > Þ ITU Telecom World du 09 au 12 septembre 2019 à Budapest - Hongrie > > Þ FGI global à Berlin du 25 au 29 Novembre 2019. > > CAPDA (Consortium d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et le Développement de l'Afrique) > > BP : 15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN Tél. : (237) 67775-39-63 / 24212-9493 Email : capdasiege at gmail.com Site : www.capda.ong > -- Chris Prince Udochukwu *Njọkụ*, Ph.D. Computer Communications Centre University of Nigeria, Nsukka 410001 @DrCPUNjoku We mustn't remain with old ways of doing things, especially if they're not yielding optimum results. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Jun 5 15:26:58 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (farzaneh badii (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 15:26:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] Documenting our Feedback on implementation process for Christchurch call Message-ID: All, As I mentioned the NZ government is in need of feedback on how to include the stakeholders in Christchurch Call implementation. In specific, we need to offer some overarching principles for the rules and procedures that should be in place to include stakeholders. The text itself is problematic too, so I suggest we gather tomorrow (6/6/2019) at 12 PM UTC to discuss these issues and agree on a document we can separately submit about the process. We have time until the end of the week, it’s not much but I think it would be crucial to send a separate more detailed document on the process. It won’t be as detailed as the collective input but we can provide concrete suggestions and perhaps avoid Christchurch call from becoming pledge text implemented through a multilateral process. Here is the information about Blujeans Meeting Room which we will use tomorrow. Meeting URL https://bluejeans.com/208201193?src=join_info Meeting ID 208 201 193 Want to dial in from a phone? Dial one of the following numbers: +1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose)) +1.408.317.9253 (US (Primary, San Jose)) (see all numbers - https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers) Enter the meeting ID and passcode followed by # Connecting from a room system? Dial: bjn.vc or 199.48.152.152 and enter your meeting ID & passcode Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Jun 5 17:09:07 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 21:09:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 to be held in Poland In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Michael, all: What are the solutions to this? I feel there's still room for the convening entity to do more with the host country in order to facilitate visa issuance (and this does not apply only to Schengen but to any country for which it might be challenging to get a visa from the peripheries of the world.) As the saying goes about images, I'd say a story is worth a thousand arguments. So here you go. ICANN meeting, Panama City. Panama has only up to 3 ambassies in the whole of Africa which, you might remember, is as large as several other continents put together: those are at the southern end (South Africa) and the northern end (Egypt and possibly Morocco, if my memory is correct) of the continent. Those 3 countries are far away for someone living in the middle part of the continent -- I'd say about 5 hour flight average from Lome for instance. And the visa application takes generally a week to be processed and that waiting time away from one's home country would have to a substantial cost. With such configuration, one might as well head to a Schengen capital where it's easier both to have access to a Panama consulate for the visa and to proceed with a direct flight to Panama City in this case. The two scenari are sub-optimal, to say the least, although the latter seems the least costly. So I tried to see whether ICANN could help in any way. I was a bit shocked to discover that ICANN made arrangements with the host country to grant visa on arrival only for their staff; nobody else could benefit from that. I tried to argue with the management that ICANN is a community-based organization and that they should very much care about facilitating participation from the community (people, stakeholders, etc.) not just the staff. But there was nothing I could say to make them change, of course; they already had an agreement with the host country. Finally what happened is I got in touch with the Panama's consul in Paris and he was nice enough to commit to issuing my visa the same day should I have all the documents required. I had already an appointment with the consulate of France, which you get after paying a fee (that procedure was the first thing I did by reflex as soon as I knew I was going to be invited to the Panama meeting and that country has no consulate anywhere near.) Yet, the earliest available slot fell after the ICANN meeting dates. In such cases the prospective applicant is invited to call in every other day to find out whether a slot has been surrendered in the mean time. In sum, it went some way like this: I got informed on a Friday that there was a newly available slot on Monday. The latest I could catch the flight to Paris would be on Thursday that week (for a chance to be at the Panama consulate in Paris on Friday, and then catch the flight from Paris to Panama city on Saturday, etc.) When I dropped the first visa application on Monday, I explained to them the time constraints (again, it requires normally one full week to process these visa applications.) They said they will try but they can't promise, because they need clearance from their central administration after security screening, etc. Facing such uncertain prospects, the sponsor decided to cancel flights and hotel reservations before they lose all their money with possibly a late cancelation. Thursday came, I got the first visa that opens the doors for the rest, but I couldn't go anywhere because all the subsequent travel and accommodation arrangements were canceled, as the schedule was too tight while the outcome was uncertain up to the last minute. The whole process took so much time and energy (which on top of that prove to be useless) that when I received the invitation letter to the next ICANN meeting, I didn't even give it a thought; I declined. Countries or nations-states have their sovereignty and no one can demand they change, wholesale, their policies or their bureaucratic culture (for instance, issuing a visa to cover only the specific dates of a meeting despite a heavy procedure and the likelihood of repeats within a single year vs. being opened to granting long term visas depending on the precedents or profile of the applicant.) But UNDESA/IGF, ICANN, etc. should assign themselves the goal of getting from the chanceries of the host countries the maximum visa facilitating measures possible for ALL prospective participants in their meetings - from visa on arrival to setting up a fast track in the consulates for visa interview appointments and application processing (maybe the latter is a new idea? In any case, it just occurred to me.) Certainly, just issuing an invitation letter and a proof of registration to the meeting is not enough. Best, Mawaki On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 09:35 "Michael J. Oghia" wrote: > Hi Mawaki, all: > > No need to apologise or call it a rant. It's a very fair point, and I > appreciate your articulation. As someone who lives in Europe and > undoubtedly benefits from having the IGF hosted on the continent, I am also > frustrated that – assuming it's already been decided – the IGF would be > held yet again in Europe. > > I know that the country where it's held mainly rests on which government > is willing to host it, so I do understand if the options are limited. > > What are the solutions to this? > > Best, > -Michael > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:26 AM Mawaki Chango > wrote: > >> Good point, Abdeldjalil. Geneva, Paris, Berlin and now Poland >> (Varsovie/Warsaw, I guess?) That's four. >> The Schengen visa is such a hassle for so many people, and so time >> consuming! I'm not even talking about getting all the paperwork in order. >> One has to secure the interview appointment months and months in advance >> and that alone is sometimes enough to cause failure. >> >> And when you manage to get the visa, it only lasts the exact number of >> days planned for your meeting (or whatever the purpose of the visit.) And >> even if one knows there's another meeting (say, ICANN) coming up in the >> next few months still in the Schengen space which one needs to attend, one >> has to go through all of it again. They won't consider that even if the >> visa paperwork for the next meeting is ready. Certainly not if the two >> consecutive meetings are happening in two different Schengen countries, >> although any Schengen country visa applies to the whole of Schengen space. >> I'm not even sure they accept to issue an extended visa in the case the two >> meetings were to happen in the same country three or four months apart. The >> bureaucracy of sovereignty ! >> >> Okay, I guess that was my mid-week rant. Otherwise, I'm looking forward >> to seeing and enjoying Berlin and hopefully Warsaw. >> >> Mawaki >> >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 08:29 Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks Arsene for sharing. >>> >>> Congratulation for that innovation :knowing the date early . >>> After 3 round I'm Europe we hope that after Poland will be in AFRICA . >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> >>> Cordialement >>> >>> ABDELDJALIL BACHAR BONG >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------- >>> PRESIDENT & CEO >>> >>> >>> ASSOCIATION "HOUSE OF AFRICA" >>> E-mail: bachar at houseof.africa >>> Twitter: @HOUSEOFINTERNET >>> WEBSITE : www.houseof.africa >>> Whatsapp: +23566274284 >>> Skype: Bongbour >>> >>> ------------------------------------- >>> >>> Le Secrétaire Exécutif/Executive Secretary >>> >>> Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet au Tchad (FGI Tchad) / >>> Chad Internet Governance Forum >>> ------------------------------------- >>> >>> E-mail: Bachar at igf.td >>> Website: www.igf.td >>> Twitter :@IGFCHAD >>> https://twitter.com/bacharbong >>> Tél:0023566274284 >>> N'djaména(Tchad) >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------- >>> |AFRINIC Fellow|ISOC CHAD Member|ICANN/AFRALO Member|NEXTGEN >>> Fellow|GIVE1PROJECT MEMBER|IGFSA MEMBER|ACIEDD BOARD MEMBER|UN YOUTH >>> DELEGATE - CHAD 2016-2018|ICANN60 Fellow ||Youth Peacebuilder||| >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Jun 6 03:02:37 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Michael J. Oghia" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 09:02:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 to be held in Poland In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wow Mawaki, thank you for sharing this. I'm sorry you had to deal with all that. You make good points, though. Forgive the brevity of this reply in light of your own, but I just don't have much more to say. Best, -Michael On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:09 PM Mawaki Chango wrote: > Hi Michael, all: > > What are the solutions to this? I feel there's still room for the > convening entity to do more with the host country in order to facilitate > visa issuance (and this does not apply only to Schengen but to any country > for which it might be challenging to get a visa from the peripheries of the > world.) As the saying goes about images, I'd say a story is worth a > thousand arguments. So here you go. > > ICANN meeting, Panama City. Panama has only up to 3 ambassies in the whole > of Africa which, you might remember, is as large as several other > continents put together: those are at the southern end (South Africa) and > the northern end (Egypt and possibly Morocco, if my memory is correct) of > the continent. Those 3 countries are far away for someone living in the > middle part of the continent -- I'd say about 5 hour flight average from > Lome for instance. And the visa application takes generally a week to be > processed and that waiting time away from one's home country would have to > a substantial cost. With such configuration, one might as well head to a > Schengen capital where it's easier both to have access to a Panama > consulate for the visa and to proceed with a direct flight to Panama City > in this case. The two scenari are sub-optimal, to say the least, although > the latter seems the least costly. > > So I tried to see whether ICANN could help in any way. I was a bit shocked > to discover that ICANN made arrangements with the host country to grant > visa on arrival only for their staff; nobody else could benefit from that. > I tried to argue with the management that ICANN is a community-based > organization and that they should very much care about facilitating > participation from the community (people, stakeholders, etc.) not just the > staff. But there was nothing I could say to make them change, of course; > they already had an agreement with the host country. > > Finally what happened is I got in touch with the Panama's consul in Paris > and he was nice enough to commit to issuing my visa the same day should I > have all the documents required. I had already an appointment with the > consulate of France, which you get after paying a fee (that procedure was > the first thing I did by reflex as soon as I knew I was going to be invited > to the Panama meeting and that country has no consulate anywhere near.) > Yet, the earliest available slot fell after the ICANN meeting dates. In > such cases the prospective applicant is invited to call in every other day > to find out whether a slot has been surrendered in the mean time. In sum, > it went some way like this: I got informed on a Friday that there was a > newly available slot on Monday. The latest I could catch the flight to > Paris would be on Thursday that week (for a chance to be at the Panama > consulate in Paris on Friday, and then catch the flight from Paris to > Panama city on Saturday, etc.) When I dropped the first visa application on > Monday, I explained to them the time constraints (again, it requires > normally one full week to process these visa applications.) They said they > will try but they can't promise, because they need clearance from their > central administration after security screening, etc. Facing such uncertain > prospects, the sponsor decided to cancel flights and hotel reservations > before they lose all their money with possibly a late cancelation. Thursday > came, I got the first visa that opens the doors for the rest, but I > couldn't go anywhere because all the subsequent travel and accommodation > arrangements were canceled, as the schedule was too tight while the outcome > was uncertain up to the last minute. > > The whole process took so much time and energy (which on top of that prove > to be useless) that when I received the invitation letter to the next ICANN > meeting, I didn't even give it a thought; I declined. > > Countries or nations-states have their sovereignty and no one can demand > they change, wholesale, their policies or their bureaucratic culture (for > instance, issuing a visa to cover only the specific dates of a meeting > despite a heavy procedure and the likelihood of repeats within a single > year vs. being opened to granting long term visas depending on the > precedents or profile of the applicant.) But UNDESA/IGF, ICANN, etc. should > assign themselves the goal of getting from the chanceries of the host > countries the maximum visa facilitating measures possible for ALL > prospective participants in their meetings - from visa on arrival to > setting up a fast track in the consulates for visa interview appointments > and application processing (maybe the latter is a new idea? In any case, it > just occurred to me.) Certainly, just issuing an invitation letter and a > proof of registration to the meeting is not enough. > > Best, > Mawaki > > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 09:35 "Michael J. Oghia" > wrote: > >> Hi Mawaki, all: >> >> No need to apologise or call it a rant. It's a very fair point, and I >> appreciate your articulation. As someone who lives in Europe and >> undoubtedly benefits from having the IGF hosted on the continent, I am also >> frustrated that – assuming it's already been decided – the IGF would be >> held yet again in Europe. >> >> I know that the country where it's held mainly rests on which government >> is willing to host it, so I do understand if the options are limited. >> >> What are the solutions to this? >> >> Best, >> -Michael >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:26 AM Mawaki Chango < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >> >>> Good point, Abdeldjalil. Geneva, Paris, Berlin and now Poland >>> (Varsovie/Warsaw, I guess?) That's four. >>> The Schengen visa is such a hassle for so many people, and so time >>> consuming! I'm not even talking about getting all the paperwork in order. >>> One has to secure the interview appointment months and months in advance >>> and that alone is sometimes enough to cause failure. >>> >>> And when you manage to get the visa, it only lasts the exact number of >>> days planned for your meeting (or whatever the purpose of the visit.) And >>> even if one knows there's another meeting (say, ICANN) coming up in the >>> next few months still in the Schengen space which one needs to attend, one >>> has to go through all of it again. They won't consider that even if the >>> visa paperwork for the next meeting is ready. Certainly not if the two >>> consecutive meetings are happening in two different Schengen countries, >>> although any Schengen country visa applies to the whole of Schengen space. >>> I'm not even sure they accept to issue an extended visa in the case the two >>> meetings were to happen in the same country three or four months apart. The >>> bureaucracy of sovereignty ! >>> >>> Okay, I guess that was my mid-week rant. Otherwise, I'm looking forward >>> to seeing and enjoying Berlin and hopefully Warsaw. >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 08:29 Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks Arsene for sharing. >>>> >>>> Congratulation for that innovation :knowing the date early . >>>> After 3 round I'm Europe we hope that after Poland will be in AFRICA . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Cordialement >>>> >>>> ABDELDJALIL BACHAR BONG >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------- >>>> PRESIDENT & CEO >>>> >>>> >>>> ASSOCIATION "HOUSE OF AFRICA" >>>> E-mail: bachar at houseof.africa >>>> Twitter: @HOUSEOFINTERNET >>>> WEBSITE : www.houseof.africa >>>> Whatsapp: +23566274284 >>>> Skype: Bongbour >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Le Secrétaire Exécutif/Executive Secretary >>>> >>>> Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet au Tchad (FGI Tchad) / >>>> Chad Internet Governance Forum >>>> ------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> E-mail: Bachar at igf.td >>>> Website: www.igf.td >>>> Twitter :@IGFCHAD >>>> https://twitter.com/bacharbong >>>> Tél:0023566274284 >>>> N'djaména(Tchad) >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------- >>>> |AFRINIC Fellow|ISOC CHAD Member|ICANN/AFRALO Member|NEXTGEN >>>> Fellow|GIVE1PROJECT MEMBER|IGFSA MEMBER|ACIEDD BOARD MEMBER|UN YOUTH >>>> DELEGATE - CHAD 2016-2018|ICANN60 Fellow ||Youth Peacebuilder||| >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Thu Jun 6 03:29:44 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 03:29:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Finnish Internet Forum 2019 in Helsinki #fiforum Message-ID: Finland has a new government which may well influence their thinking on Internet Governance matters. Tune in to find out! [image: livestream] Today, *Thursday June 6 2019*, the *Finnish Internet Forum * is taking place in Helsinki. The Finnish Internet Forum is an annual multistakeholder event, set up in 2010 to discuss internet-related issues from a Finnish perspective. Proceedings are in Finnish and English. Internet Society President & CEO *Andrew Sullivan* will deliver keynote remarks. The event is being *webcast live * with a simulcast on the *Internet Society Livestream Channel *. *View on DCTV: https://dclive.fi/Eduskunta/FIF06062019 * *View on Livestream: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/fiforum2019 * *Agenda: http://internetforum.fi/etusivu * *Twitter: #fiforum * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11120/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Sun Jun 2 00:15:17 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 00:15:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_Making_=E2=80=98The_F?= =?UTF-8?Q?uture_of_Work=E2=80=99_Work?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I did screw up the simulcast link below. If you missed it videos are available. Labor in the Global Platform Economy https://livestream.com/internetsociety/futureofwork/videos/191928007 Algorithms, Scale, Speed, and the Labor of Logistics https://livestream.com/internetsociety/futureofwork/videos/191938250 On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 9:43 AM Joly MacFie wrote: > The University of Michigan has a new institute - the Center for Ethics, > Society,and Computin > g (ESC) > - not officially launching till late in the year, but already beating the > drum.. Follow their twitter . > > [image: livestream] > Today *Saturday > June 1 2019* at *09:30 EDT* (13:30 UTC) the *University of Michigan > School of Information * hosts a workshop *Making > 'The Future of Work' Work > * which > will explore the potential for tech work inside and outside traditional > capitalist structures. The workshop comprises two sessions: 1) *Labor in > the Global Platform Economy* and 2) *Algorithms, Scale, Speed, and the > Labor of Logistics* both of which examine the role of worker-solidarity > in algorithm-ruled workspaces. > > *LIVESTREAM* > *https://player.cloud.wowza.com/hosted/hk5cjpf7/player.html > * > > *SIMULCAST* > *https://livestream.com/internetsociety/platformeconomy > * > > *TWITTER @umsi + #futureofwork http://bit.ly/2Xjd8md > * > > *SPONSORS* > *Center for Ethics, Society,and Computing (ESC) http://esc.umich.edu/ > * > *National Science Foundation* > *https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1744359 > * > > *Permalink* > https://isoc.live/11091/ > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Jun 6 03:38:36 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 07:38:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 to be held in Poland In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Michael, that's okay :) My story in this instance was just offered as a testimony echoing the experience of many others. But please don't let that eclipse my last paragraph in that message, which specifically address the question : What can be done? I hope anyone here who may be concerned take note. The country chosen for the venue and the level of measures the convening organization is willing to secure in order to facilitate access to that country/venue for all members of the community should be taken seriously as indicative of the openness and inclusiveness of that organization regarding the community engagement with its very subject matter and in its processes. In my view ICANN failed on that in this (and probably not the only) instance. IGF/UNDESA, too, have more work to do. Thank you all for your attention. Now, I am ready to get back to discussing Internet governance in substance. Mawaki On Thu, Jun 6, 2019, 07:03 Michael J. Oghia wrote: > Wow Mawaki, thank you for sharing this. I'm sorry you had to deal with all > that. You make good points, though. Forgive the brevity of this reply in > light of your own, but I just don't have much more to say. > > Best, > -Michael > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:09 PM Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> Hi Michael, all: >> >> What are the solutions to this? I feel there's still room for the >> convening entity to do more with the host country in order to facilitate >> visa issuance (and this does not apply only to Schengen but to any country >> for which it might be challenging to get a visa from the peripheries of the >> world.) As the saying goes about images, I'd say a story is worth a >> thousand arguments. So here you go. >> >> ICANN meeting, Panama City. Panama has only up to 3 ambassies in the >> whole of Africa which, you might remember, is as large as several other >> continents put together: those are at the southern end (South Africa) and >> the northern end (Egypt and possibly Morocco, if my memory is correct) of >> the continent. Those 3 countries are far away for someone living in the >> middle part of the continent -- I'd say about 5 hour flight average from >> Lome for instance. And the visa application takes generally a week to be >> processed and that waiting time away from one's home country would have to >> a substantial cost. With such configuration, one might as well head to a >> Schengen capital where it's easier both to have access to a Panama >> consulate for the visa and to proceed with a direct flight to Panama City >> in this case. The two scenari are sub-optimal, to say the least, although >> the latter seems the least costly. >> >> So I tried to see whether ICANN could help in any way. I was a bit >> shocked to discover that ICANN made arrangements with the host country to >> grant visa on arrival only for their staff; nobody else could benefit from >> that. I tried to argue with the management that ICANN is a community-based >> organization and that they should very much care about facilitating >> participation from the community (people, stakeholders, etc.) not just the >> staff. But there was nothing I could say to make them change, of course; >> they already had an agreement with the host country. >> >> Finally what happened is I got in touch with the Panama's consul in Paris >> and he was nice enough to commit to issuing my visa the same day should I >> have all the documents required. I had already an appointment with the >> consulate of France, which you get after paying a fee (that procedure was >> the first thing I did by reflex as soon as I knew I was going to be invited >> to the Panama meeting and that country has no consulate anywhere near.) >> Yet, the earliest available slot fell after the ICANN meeting dates. In >> such cases the prospective applicant is invited to call in every other day >> to find out whether a slot has been surrendered in the mean time. In sum, >> it went some way like this: I got informed on a Friday that there was a >> newly available slot on Monday. The latest I could catch the flight to >> Paris would be on Thursday that week (for a chance to be at the Panama >> consulate in Paris on Friday, and then catch the flight from Paris to >> Panama city on Saturday, etc.) When I dropped the first visa application on >> Monday, I explained to them the time constraints (again, it requires >> normally one full week to process these visa applications.) They said they >> will try but they can't promise, because they need clearance from their >> central administration after security screening, etc. Facing such uncertain >> prospects, the sponsor decided to cancel flights and hotel reservations >> before they lose all their money with possibly a late cancelation. Thursday >> came, I got the first visa that opens the doors for the rest, but I >> couldn't go anywhere because all the subsequent travel and accommodation >> arrangements were canceled, as the schedule was too tight while the outcome >> was uncertain up to the last minute. >> >> The whole process took so much time and energy (which on top of that >> prove to be useless) that when I received the invitation letter to the next >> ICANN meeting, I didn't even give it a thought; I declined. >> >> Countries or nations-states have their sovereignty and no one can demand >> they change, wholesale, their policies or their bureaucratic culture >> (for instance, issuing a visa to cover only the specific dates of a meeting >> despite a heavy procedure and the likelihood of repeats within a single >> year vs. being opened to granting long term visas depending on the >> precedents or profile of the applicant.) But UNDESA/IGF, ICANN, etc. should >> assign themselves the goal of getting from the chanceries of the host >> countries the maximum visa facilitating measures possible for ALL >> prospective participants in their meetings - from visa on arrival to >> setting up a fast track in the consulates for visa interview appointments >> and application processing (maybe the latter is a new idea? In any case, it >> just occurred to me.) Certainly, just issuing an invitation letter and a >> proof of registration to the meeting is not enough. >> >> Best, >> Mawaki >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 09:35 "Michael J. Oghia" < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >> >>> Hi Mawaki, all: >>> >>> No need to apologise or call it a rant. It's a very fair point, and I >>> appreciate your articulation. As someone who lives in Europe and >>> undoubtedly benefits from having the IGF hosted on the continent, I am also >>> frustrated that – assuming it's already been decided – the IGF would be >>> held yet again in Europe. >>> >>> I know that the country where it's held mainly rests on which government >>> is willing to host it, so I do understand if the options are limited. >>> >>> What are the solutions to this? >>> >>> Best, >>> -Michael >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:26 AM Mawaki Chango < >>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Good point, Abdeldjalil. Geneva, Paris, Berlin and now Poland >>>> (Varsovie/Warsaw, I guess?) That's four. >>>> The Schengen visa is such a hassle for so many people, and so time >>>> consuming! I'm not even talking about getting all the paperwork in order. >>>> One has to secure the interview appointment months and months in advance >>>> and that alone is sometimes enough to cause failure. >>>> >>>> And when you manage to get the visa, it only lasts the exact number of >>>> days planned for your meeting (or whatever the purpose of the visit.) And >>>> even if one knows there's another meeting (say, ICANN) coming up in >>>> the next few months still in the Schengen space which one needs to attend, >>>> one has to go through all of it again. They won't consider that even if the >>>> visa paperwork for the next meeting is ready. Certainly not if the two >>>> consecutive meetings are happening in two different Schengen countries, >>>> although any Schengen country visa applies to the whole of Schengen space. >>>> I'm not even sure they accept to issue an extended visa in the case the two >>>> meetings were to happen in the same country three or four months apart. The >>>> bureaucracy of sovereignty ! >>>> >>>> Okay, I guess that was my mid-week rant. Otherwise, I'm looking forward >>>> to seeing and enjoying Berlin and hopefully Warsaw. >>>> >>>> Mawaki >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 08:29 Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Arsene for sharing. >>>>> >>>>> Congratulation for that innovation :knowing the date early . >>>>> After 3 round I'm Europe we hope that after Poland will be in AFRICA . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Cordialement >>>>> >>>>> ABDELDJALIL BACHAR BONG >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------- >>>>> PRESIDENT & CEO >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ASSOCIATION "HOUSE OF AFRICA" >>>>> E-mail: bachar at houseof.africa >>>>> Twitter: @HOUSEOFINTERNET >>>>> WEBSITE : www.houseof.africa >>>>> Whatsapp: +23566274284 >>>>> Skype: Bongbour >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Le Secrétaire Exécutif/Executive Secretary >>>>> >>>>> Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet au Tchad (FGI Tchad) / >>>>> Chad Internet Governance Forum >>>>> ------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> E-mail: Bachar at igf.td >>>>> Website: www.igf.td >>>>> Twitter :@IGFCHAD >>>>> https://twitter.com/bacharbong >>>>> Tél:0023566274284 >>>>> N'djaména(Tchad) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------- >>>>> |AFRINIC Fellow|ISOC CHAD Member|ICANN/AFRALO Member|NEXTGEN >>>>> Fellow|GIVE1PROJECT MEMBER|IGFSA MEMBER|ACIEDD BOARD MEMBER|UN YOUTH >>>>> DELEGATE - CHAD 2016-2018|ICANN60 Fellow ||Youth Peacebuilder||| >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Thu Jun 6 03:52:47 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 03:52:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Finnish Internet Forum 2019 in Helsinki #fiforum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I mangled the twitter link in my post, it should be https://bit.ly/fiforum On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 3:29 AM Joly MacFie wrote: > Finland has a new government > which > may well influence their thinking on Internet Governance matters. Tune in > to find out! > > > [image: livestream] > Today, *Thursday June 6 2019*, the *Finnish Internet Forum > * is taking place in Helsinki. The Finnish > Internet Forum is an annual multistakeholder event, set up in 2010 to > discuss internet-related issues from a Finnish perspective. Proceedings are > in Finnish and English. Internet Society President & CEO *Andrew Sullivan* will > deliver keynote remarks. The event is being *webcast live > * with a simulcast on the *Internet > Society Livestream Channel *. > > *View on DCTV: https://dclive.fi/Eduskunta/FIF06062019 > * > > *View on Livestream: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/fiforum2019 > * > > *Agenda: http://internetforum.fi/etusivu * > > *Twitter: #fiforum * > > *Permalink* > https://isoc.live/11120/ > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Jun 6 06:13:32 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 10:13:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 to be held in Poland In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wow that is quite a story. I think it is particularly objectionable that ICANN facilitated visas for their staff but not the community in the Panama City case. They are supposed to be working for us. Stephanie Perrin On 2019-06-06 03:38, Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List) wrote: Michael, that's okay :) My story in this instance was just offered as a testimony echoing the experience of many others. But please don't let that eclipse my last paragraph in that message, which specifically address the question : What can be done? I hope anyone here who may be concerned take note. The country chosen for the venue and the level of measures the convening organization is willing to secure in order to facilitate access to that country/venue for all members of the community should be taken seriously as indicative of the openness and inclusiveness of that organization regarding the community engagement with its very subject matter and in its processes. In my view ICANN failed on that in this (and probably not the only) instance. IGF/UNDESA, too, have more work to do. Thank you all for your attention. Now, I am ready to get back to discussing Internet governance in substance. Mawaki On Thu, Jun 6, 2019, 07:03 Michael J. Oghia > wrote: Wow Mawaki, thank you for sharing this. I'm sorry you had to deal with all that. You make good points, though. Forgive the brevity of this reply in light of your own, but I just don't have much more to say. Best, -Michael On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:09 PM Mawaki Chango > wrote: Hi Michael, all: What are the solutions to this? I feel there's still room for the convening entity to do more with the host country in order to facilitate visa issuance (and this does not apply only to Schengen but to any country for which it might be challenging to get a visa from the peripheries of the world.) As the saying goes about images, I'd say a story is worth a thousand arguments. So here you go. ICANN meeting, Panama City. Panama has only up to 3 ambassies in the whole of Africa which, you might remember, is as large as several other continents put together: those are at the southern end (South Africa) and the northern end (Egypt and possibly Morocco, if my memory is correct) of the continent. Those 3 countries are far away for someone living in the middle part of the continent -- I'd say about 5 hour flight average from Lome for instance. And the visa application takes generally a week to be processed and that waiting time away from one's home country would have to a substantial cost. With such configuration, one might as well head to a Schengen capital where it's easier both to have access to a Panama consulate for the visa and to proceed with a direct flight to Panama City in this case. The two scenari are sub-optimal, to say the least, although the latter seems the least costly. So I tried to see whether ICANN could help in any way. I was a bit shocked to discover that ICANN made arrangements with the host country to grant visa on arrival only for their staff; nobody else could benefit from that. I tried to argue with the management that ICANN is a community-based organization and that they should very much care about facilitating participation from the community (people, stakeholders, etc.) not just the staff. But there was nothing I could say to make them change, of course; they already had an agreement with the host country. Finally what happened is I got in touch with the Panama's consul in Paris and he was nice enough to commit to issuing my visa the same day should I have all the documents required. I had already an appointment with the consulate of France, which you get after paying a fee (that procedure was the first thing I did by reflex as soon as I knew I was going to be invited to the Panama meeting and that country has no consulate anywhere near.) Yet, the earliest available slot fell after the ICANN meeting dates. In such cases the prospective applicant is invited to call in every other day to find out whether a slot has been surrendered in the mean time. In sum, it went some way like this: I got informed on a Friday that there was a newly available slot on Monday. The latest I could catch the flight to Paris would be on Thursday that week (for a chance to be at the Panama consulate in Paris on Friday, and then catch the flight from Paris to Panama city on Saturday, etc.) When I dropped the first visa application on Monday, I explained to them the time constraints (again, it requires normally one full week to process these visa applications.) They said they will try but they can't promise, because they need clearance from their central administration after security screening, etc. Facing such uncertain prospects, the sponsor decided to cancel flights and hotel reservations before they lose all their money with possibly a late cancelation. Thursday came, I got the first visa that opens the doors for the rest, but I couldn't go anywhere because all the subsequent travel and accommodation arrangements were canceled, as the schedule was too tight while the outcome was uncertain up to the last minute. The whole process took so much time and energy (which on top of that prove to be useless) that when I received the invitation letter to the next ICANN meeting, I didn't even give it a thought; I declined. Countries or nations-states have their sovereignty and no one can demand they change, wholesale, their policies or their bureaucratic culture (for instance, issuing a visa to cover only the specific dates of a meeting despite a heavy procedure and the likelihood of repeats within a single year vs. being opened to granting long term visas depending on the precedents or profile of the applicant.) But UNDESA/IGF, ICANN, etc. should assign themselves the goal of getting from the chanceries of the host countries the maximum visa facilitating measures possible for ALL prospective participants in their meetings - from visa on arrival to setting up a fast track in the consulates for visa interview appointments and application processing (maybe the latter is a new idea? In any case, it just occurred to me.) Certainly, just issuing an invitation letter and a proof of registration to the meeting is not enough. Best, Mawaki On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 09:35 "Michael J. Oghia" > wrote: Hi Mawaki, all: No need to apologise or call it a rant. It's a very fair point, and I appreciate your articulation. As someone who lives in Europe and undoubtedly benefits from having the IGF hosted on the continent, I am also frustrated that – assuming it's already been decided – the IGF would be held yet again in Europe. I know that the country where it's held mainly rests on which government is willing to host it, so I do understand if the options are limited. What are the solutions to this? Best, -Michael On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:26 AM Mawaki Chango > wrote: Good point, Abdeldjalil. Geneva, Paris, Berlin and now Poland (Varsovie/Warsaw, I guess?) That's four. The Schengen visa is such a hassle for so many people, and so time consuming! I'm not even talking about getting all the paperwork in order. One has to secure the interview appointment months and months in advance and that alone is sometimes enough to cause failure. And when you manage to get the visa, it only lasts the exact number of days planned for your meeting (or whatever the purpose of the visit.) And even if one knows there's another meeting (say, ICANN) coming up in the next few months still in the Schengen space which one needs to attend, one has to go through all of it again. They won't consider that even if the visa paperwork for the next meeting is ready. Certainly not if the two consecutive meetings are happening in two different Schengen countries, although any Schengen country visa applies to the whole of Schengen space. I'm not even sure they accept to issue an extended visa in the case the two meetings were to happen in the same country three or four months apart. The bureaucracy of sovereignty ! Okay, I guess that was my mid-week rant. Otherwise, I'm looking forward to seeing and enjoying Berlin and hopefully Warsaw. Mawaki On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 08:29 Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong > wrote: Thanks Arsene for sharing. Congratulation for that innovation :knowing the date early . After 3 round I'm Europe we hope that after Poland will be in AFRICA . ------------------------------- Cordialement ABDELDJALIL BACHAR BONG ---------------------------------- PRESIDENT & CEO ASSOCIATION "HOUSE OF AFRICA" E-mail: bachar at houseof.africa Twitter: @HOUSEOFINTERNET WEBSITE : www.houseof.africa Whatsapp: +23566274284 Skype: Bongbour ------------------------------------- Le Secrétaire Exécutif/Executive Secretary Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet au Tchad (FGI Tchad) / Chad Internet Governance Forum ------------------------------------- E-mail: Bachar at igf.td Website: www.igf.td Twitter :@IGFCHAD https://twitter.com/bacharbong Tél:0023566274284 N'djaména(Tchad) --------------------------------------------- |AFRINIC Fellow|ISOC CHAD Member|ICANN/AFRALO Member|NEXTGEN Fellow|GIVE1PROJECT MEMBER|IGFSA MEMBER|ACIEDD BOARD MEMBER|UN YOUTH DELEGATE - CHAD 2016-2018|ICANN60 Fellow ||Youth Peacebuilder||| --- To unsubscribe: > List help: --- To unsubscribe: > List help: --- To unsubscribe: > List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Jun 6 06:19:35 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Michael J. Oghia" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 12:19:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 to be held in Poland In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Agreed Stephanie! On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 12:13 PM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > Wow that is quite a story. I think it is particularly objectionable that > ICANN facilitated visas for their staff but not the community in the Panama > City case. They are supposed to be working for us. > > Stephanie Perrin > On 2019-06-06 03:38, Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > > Michael, that's okay :) > My story in this instance was just offered as a testimony echoing the > experience of many others. But please don't let that eclipse my last > paragraph in that message, which specifically address the question : What > can be done? I hope anyone here who may be concerned take note. The country > chosen for the venue and the level of measures the convening organization > is willing to secure in order to facilitate access to that country/venue > for all members of the community should be taken seriously as indicative of > the openness and inclusiveness of that organization regarding the community > engagement with its very subject matter and in its processes. In my view > ICANN failed on that in this (and probably not the only) instance. > IGF/UNDESA, too, have more work to do. > > Thank you all for your attention. Now, I am ready to get back to > discussing Internet governance in substance. > > Mawaki > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019, 07:03 Michael J. Oghia wrote: > >> Wow Mawaki, thank you for sharing this. I'm sorry you had to deal with >> all that. You make good points, though. Forgive the brevity of this reply >> in light of your own, but I just don't have much more to say. >> >> Best, >> -Michael >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:09 PM Mawaki Chango wrote: >> >>> Hi Michael, all: >>> >>> What are the solutions to this? I feel there's still room for the >>> convening entity to do more with the host country in order to facilitate >>> visa issuance (and this does not apply only to Schengen but to any country >>> for which it might be challenging to get a visa from the peripheries of the >>> world.) As the saying goes about images, I'd say a story is worth a >>> thousand arguments. So here you go. >>> >>> ICANN meeting, Panama City. Panama has only up to 3 ambassies in the >>> whole of Africa which, you might remember, is as large as several other >>> continents put together: those are at the southern end (South Africa) and >>> the northern end (Egypt and possibly Morocco, if my memory is correct) of >>> the continent. Those 3 countries are far away for someone living in the >>> middle part of the continent -- I'd say about 5 hour flight average from >>> Lome for instance. And the visa application takes generally a week to be >>> processed and that waiting time away from one's home country would have to >>> a substantial cost. With such configuration, one might as well head to >>> a Schengen capital where it's easier both to have access to a Panama >>> consulate for the visa and to proceed with a direct flight to Panama City >>> in this case. The two scenari are sub-optimal, to say the least, although >>> the latter seems the least costly. >>> >>> So I tried to see whether ICANN could help in any way. I was a bit >>> shocked to discover that ICANN made arrangements with the host country to >>> grant visa on arrival only for their staff; nobody else could benefit from >>> that. I tried to argue with the management that ICANN is a community-based >>> organization and that they should very much care about facilitating >>> participation from the community (people, stakeholders, etc.) not just the >>> staff. But there was nothing I could say to make them change, of course; >>> they already had an agreement with the host country. >>> >>> Finally what happened is I got in touch with the Panama's consul in >>> Paris and he was nice enough to commit to issuing my visa the same day >>> should I have all the documents required. I had already an appointment with >>> the consulate of France, which you get after paying a fee (that procedure >>> was the first thing I did by reflex as soon as I knew I was going to be >>> invited to the Panama meeting and that country has no consulate anywhere >>> near.) Yet, the earliest available slot fell after the ICANN meeting dates. >>> In such cases the prospective applicant is invited to call in every other >>> day to find out whether a slot has been surrendered in the mean time. In >>> sum, it went some way like this: I got informed on a Friday that there was >>> a newly available slot on Monday. The latest I could catch the flight to >>> Paris would be on Thursday that week (for a chance to be at the Panama >>> consulate in Paris on Friday, and then catch the flight from Paris to >>> Panama city on Saturday, etc.) When I dropped the first visa application on >>> Monday, I explained to them the time constraints (again, it requires >>> normally one full week to process these visa applications.) They said they >>> will try but they can't promise, because they need clearance from their >>> central administration after security screening, etc. Facing such uncertain >>> prospects, the sponsor decided to cancel flights and hotel reservations >>> before they lose all their money with possibly a late cancelation. Thursday >>> came, I got the first visa that opens the doors for the rest, but I >>> couldn't go anywhere because all the subsequent travel and accommodation >>> arrangements were canceled, as the schedule was too tight while the outcome >>> was uncertain up to the last minute. >>> >>> The whole process took so much time and energy (which on top of that >>> prove to be useless) that when I received the invitation letter to the next >>> ICANN meeting, I didn't even give it a thought; I declined. >>> >>> Countries or nations-states have their sovereignty and no one can demand >>> they change, wholesale, their policies or their bureaucratic culture >>> (for instance, issuing a visa to cover only the specific dates of a meeting >>> despite a heavy procedure and the likelihood of repeats within a single >>> year vs. being opened to granting long term visas depending on the >>> precedents or profile of the applicant.) But UNDESA/IGF, ICANN, etc. should >>> assign themselves the goal of getting from the chanceries of the host >>> countries the maximum visa facilitating measures possible for ALL >>> prospective participants in their meetings - from visa on arrival to >>> setting up a fast track in the consulates for visa interview appointments >>> and application processing (maybe the latter is a new idea? In any case, it >>> just occurred to me.) Certainly, just issuing an invitation letter and a >>> proof of registration to the meeting is not enough. >>> >>> Best, >>> Mawaki >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 09:35 "Michael J. Oghia" < >>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Mawaki, all: >>>> >>>> No need to apologise or call it a rant. It's a very fair point, and I >>>> appreciate your articulation. As someone who lives in Europe and >>>> undoubtedly benefits from having the IGF hosted on the continent, I am also >>>> frustrated that – assuming it's already been decided – the IGF would be >>>> held yet again in Europe. >>>> >>>> I know that the country where it's held mainly rests on which >>>> government is willing to host it, so I do understand if the options are >>>> limited. >>>> >>>> What are the solutions to this? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> -Michael >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:26 AM Mawaki Chango < >>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Good point, Abdeldjalil. Geneva, Paris, Berlin and now Poland >>>>> (Varsovie/Warsaw, I guess?) That's four. >>>>> The Schengen visa is such a hassle for so many people, and so time >>>>> consuming! I'm not even talking about getting all the paperwork in order. >>>>> One has to secure the interview appointment months and months in advance >>>>> and that alone is sometimes enough to cause failure. >>>>> >>>>> And when you manage to get the visa, it only lasts the exact number of >>>>> days planned for your meeting (or whatever the purpose of the visit.) And >>>>> even if one knows there's another meeting (say, ICANN) coming up in >>>>> the next few months still in the Schengen space which one needs to attend, >>>>> one has to go through all of it again. They won't consider that even if the >>>>> visa paperwork for the next meeting is ready. Certainly not if the two >>>>> consecutive meetings are happening in two different Schengen countries, >>>>> although any Schengen country visa applies to the whole of Schengen space. >>>>> I'm not even sure they accept to issue an extended visa in the case the two >>>>> meetings were to happen in the same country three or four months apart. The >>>>> bureaucracy of sovereignty ! >>>>> >>>>> Okay, I guess that was my mid-week rant. Otherwise, I'm looking >>>>> forward to seeing and enjoying Berlin and hopefully Warsaw. >>>>> >>>>> Mawaki >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 08:29 Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Arsene for sharing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Congratulation for that innovation :knowing the date early . >>>>>> After 3 round I'm Europe we hope that after Poland will be in AFRICA >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> Cordialement >>>>>> >>>>>> ABDELDJALIL BACHAR BONG >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------------------------------- >>>>>> PRESIDENT & CEO >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ASSOCIATION "HOUSE OF AFRICA" >>>>>> E-mail: bachar at houseof.africa >>>>>> Twitter: @HOUSEOFINTERNET >>>>>> WEBSITE : www.houseof.africa >>>>>> Whatsapp: +23566274284 >>>>>> Skype: Bongbour >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> Le Secrétaire Exécutif/Executive Secretary >>>>>> >>>>>> Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet au Tchad (FGI Tchad) / >>>>>> Chad Internet Governance Forum >>>>>> ------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> E-mail: Bachar at igf.td >>>>>> Website: www.igf.td >>>>>> Twitter :@IGFCHAD >>>>>> https://twitter.com/bacharbong >>>>>> Tél:0023566274284 >>>>>> N'djaména(Tchad) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------- >>>>>> |AFRINIC Fellow|ISOC CHAD Member|ICANN/AFRALO Member|NEXTGEN >>>>>> Fellow|GIVE1PROJECT MEMBER|IGFSA MEMBER|ACIEDD BOARD MEMBER|UN YOUTH >>>>>> DELEGATE - CHAD 2016-2018|ICANN60 Fellow ||Youth Peacebuilder||| >>>>>> --- >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> List help: >>>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Jun 6 08:57:17 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 12:57:17 +0000 Subject: [governance] PRIDA Questionnaire Message-ID: [Version française située plus bas.] Dear All, I am reaching out to you in reference to the Policy and Regulation Initiative for Digital Africa, a.k.a the PRIDA Project, launched thanks to a partnership between the African Union Commission and the European Union Commission. The overall objective of the Project is to foster universally accessible, affordable and effective wireless broadband across the continent to unlock possible future benefits of Internet-based services. Its specific objectives are a) to facilitate efficient and harmonized spectrum utilization, b) to harmonize measurable ICT/Telecommunications policy as well as legal and regulatory frameworks, and c) to strengthen the ability of African stakeholders to actively participate in the global Internet governance processes. It is in the context of the specific objective c) above that I would like to invite anyone who has been involved in the IGF processes at the national, the regional (North, West, Central, East, Southern) and the continental level in Africa to participate in the related, ongoing study by responding to the questionnaire at the following link. https://forms.gle/w5entdDA33udRrtk7 Please read carefully the introductory note of the questionnaire and that of the section 1. Furthermore, you may consider this exercise more as a written interview targeting key potential informants than as a survey properly speaking targeting a sample of a given demography. Some of the questions allow you to answer from the standpoint of your experience and to the best of your ability and knowledge. If you find that some questions are not relevant to your situation, you may skip them. I would appreciate receiving your responses by this Tuesday 11 June the latest. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and for your contribution to this project. Please do not hesitate to revert back to me should you have any concern or question about this request. Best regards, Mawaki ====== Chers Tous, Je vous contacte à propos de l'Initiative de Politique et de Réglementation pour l'Afrique numérique, connue sous le nom du projet PRIDA, lancée grâce à un partenariat entre la Commission de l'Union africaine et la Commission de l'Union européenne. L’objectif général du projet est de promouvoir le haut débit sans fil accessible à tous, abordable et efficace sur l’ensemble du continent, afin de tirer parti des avantages futurs des services Internet. Ses objectifs spécifiques consistent à (a) faciliter une utilisation efficace et harmonisée du spectre radio, (b) harmoniser une politique mesurable en matière de TIC / télécommunications ainsi que les cadres juridiques et réglementaires, et (c) renforcer la capacité des parties prenantes africaines à participer activement aux processus mondiaux de gouvernance de l'Internet. . C’est dans le contexte de l’objectif spécifique c) ci-dessus que je souhaiterais inviter tous ceux qui sont impliqués d'une façon ou d'une autre dans les processus du Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet (FGI) aux niveaux national, régional (Nord, Ouest, Centre, Est, Sud/Austral) et continental en Afrique, à participer à l’étude connexe en cours en répondant au questionnaire en cliquant sur le lien suivant. https://forms.gle/CRdaEAGnAqN5sTMv9 Veuillez lire attentivement la note d’introduction du questionnaire et surtout celle de la section 1. En outre, vous pouvez considérer cet exercice davantage comme un entretien écrit avec de potentiels informateurs clés plutôt que comme une enquête à proprement parler visant un échantillonage d'une démographie donnée. Certaines des questions vous permettent de répondre du point de vue de votre expérience et au mieux de vos capacités et de vos connaissances. Si vous trouvez que certaines questions ne concernent pas votre situation, vous pouvez les sauter. J'apprecierais recevoir vos réponses au plus tard ce Mardi 11 juin. Merci d’avance de votre coopération et de votre contribution à ce projet. S'il vous plaît n'hésitez pas à revenir à moi si vous avez une préoccupation ou une question à propos de cette requête. Cordiales salutations, Mawaki ==================================== Mawaki Chango, PhD Founder & Managing Director DigiLexis Consulting Skype: digilexis | Slack: @digilexis Twitter: @digilexis & @ki_chango Mob. +228 92 14 22 22 | +233 264 070 555 ==================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at palage.com Thu Jun 6 15:01:31 2019 From: mike at palage.com (Michael Palage) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 15:01:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 to be held in Poland In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <012201d51c9a$4161fde0$c425f9a0$@palage.com> Stephanie, While I am no ICANN.org (Staff) cheerleader by any means, I actually think ICANN legal made the right call. For example in connection with the recent Bangkok GDD as part of the visa process I had to show proof of funds to visit and more importantly leave the country. While I see ICANN being able to make that representation, and legally commit to it on behalf of ICANN employees, I do not see how ICANN could make that representation for community members. Best regards, Michael From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 6:14 AM To: governance at lists.riseup.net Subject: Re: [governance] IGF 2020 to be held in Poland Wow that is quite a story. I think it is particularly objectionable that ICANN facilitated visas for their staff but not the community in the Panama City case. They are supposed to be working for us. Stephanie Perrin On 2019-06-06 03:38, Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List) wrote: Michael, that's okay :) My story in this instance was just offered as a testimony echoing the experience of many others. But please don't let that eclipse my last paragraph in that message, which specifically address the question : What can be done? I hope anyone here who may be concerned take note. The country chosen for the venue and the level of measures the convening organization is willing to secure in order to facilitate access to that country/venue for all members of the community should be taken seriously as indicative of the openness and inclusiveness of that organization regarding the community engagement with its very subject matter and in its processes. In my view ICANN failed on that in this (and probably not the only) instance. IGF/UNDESA, too, have more work to do. Thank you all for your attention. Now, I am ready to get back to discussing Internet governance in substance. Mawaki On Thu, Jun 6, 2019, 07:03 Michael J. Oghia > wrote: Wow Mawaki, thank you for sharing this. I'm sorry you had to deal with all that. You make good points, though. Forgive the brevity of this reply in light of your own, but I just don't have much more to say. Best, -Michael On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:09 PM Mawaki Chango > wrote: Hi Michael, all: What are the solutions to this? I feel there's still room for the convening entity to do more with the host country in order to facilitate visa issuance (and this does not apply only to Schengen but to any country for which it might be challenging to get a visa from the peripheries of the world.) As the saying goes about images, I'd say a story is worth a thousand arguments. So here you go. ICANN meeting, Panama City. Panama has only up to 3 ambassies in the whole of Africa which, you might remember, is as large as several other continents put together: those are at the southern end (South Africa) and the northern end (Egypt and possibly Morocco, if my memory is correct) of the continent. Those 3 countries are far away for someone living in the middle part of the continent -- I'd say about 5 hour flight average from Lome for instance. And the visa application takes generally a week to be processed and that waiting time away from one's home country would have to a substantial cost. With such configuration, one might as well head to a Schengen capital where it's easier both to have access to a Panama consulate for the visa and to proceed with a direct flight to Panama City in this case. The two scenari are sub-optimal, to say the least, although the latter seems the least costly. So I tried to see whether ICANN could help in any way. I was a bit shocked to discover that ICANN made arrangements with the host country to grant visa on arrival only for their staff; nobody else could benefit from that. I tried to argue with the management that ICANN is a community-based organization and that they should very much care about facilitating participation from the community (people, stakeholders, etc.) not just the staff. But there was nothing I could say to make them change, of course; they already had an agreement with the host country. Finally what happened is I got in touch with the Panama's consul in Paris and he was nice enough to commit to issuing my visa the same day should I have all the documents required. I had already an appointment with the consulate of France, which you get after paying a fee (that procedure was the first thing I did by reflex as soon as I knew I was going to be invited to the Panama meeting and that country has no consulate anywhere near.) Yet, the earliest available slot fell after the ICANN meeting dates. In such cases the prospective applicant is invited to call in every other day to find out whether a slot has been surrendered in the mean time. In sum, it went some way like this: I got informed on a Friday that there was a newly available slot on Monday. The latest I could catch the flight to Paris would be on Thursday that week (for a chance to be at the Panama consulate in Paris on Friday, and then catch the flight from Paris to Panama city on Saturday, etc.) When I dropped the first visa application on Monday, I explained to them the time constraints (again, it requires normally one full week to process these visa applications.) They said they will try but they can't promise, because they need clearance from their central administration after security screening, etc. Facing such uncertain prospects, the sponsor decided to cancel flights and hotel reservations before they lose all their money with possibly a late cancelation. Thursday came, I got the first visa that opens the doors for the rest, but I couldn't go anywhere because all the subsequent travel and accommodation arrangements were canceled, as the schedule was too tight while the outcome was uncertain up to the last minute. The whole process took so much time and energy (which on top of that prove to be useless) that when I received the invitation letter to the next ICANN meeting, I didn't even give it a thought; I declined. Countries or nations-states have their sovereignty and no one can demand they change, wholesale, their policies or their bureaucratic culture (for instance, issuing a visa to cover only the specific dates of a meeting despite a heavy procedure and the likelihood of repeats within a single year vs. being opened to granting long term visas depending on the precedents or profile of the applicant.) But UNDESA/IGF, ICANN, etc. should assign themselves the goal of getting from the chanceries of the host countries the maximum visa facilitating measures possible for ALL prospective participants in their meetings - from visa on arrival to setting up a fast track in the consulates for visa interview appointments and application processing (maybe the latter is a new idea? In any case, it just occurred to me.) Certainly, just issuing an invitation letter and a proof of registration to the meeting is not enough. Best, Mawaki On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 09:35 "Michael J. Oghia" > wrote: Hi Mawaki, all: No need to apologise or call it a rant. It's a very fair point, and I appreciate your articulation. As someone who lives in Europe and undoubtedly benefits from having the IGF hosted on the continent, I am also frustrated that – assuming it's already been decided – the IGF would be held yet again in Europe. I know that the country where it's held mainly rests on which government is willing to host it, so I do understand if the options are limited. What are the solutions to this? Best, -Michael On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:26 AM Mawaki Chango > wrote: Good point, Abdeldjalil. Geneva, Paris, Berlin and now Poland (Varsovie/Warsaw, I guess?) That's four. The Schengen visa is such a hassle for so many people, and so time consuming! I'm not even talking about getting all the paperwork in order. One has to secure the interview appointment months and months in advance and that alone is sometimes enough to cause failure. And when you manage to get the visa, it only lasts the exact number of days planned for your meeting (or whatever the purpose of the visit.) And even if one knows there's another meeting (say, ICANN) coming up in the next few months still in the Schengen space which one needs to attend, one has to go through all of it again. They won't consider that even if the visa paperwork for the next meeting is ready. Certainly not if the two consecutive meetings are happening in two different Schengen countries, although any Schengen country visa applies to the whole of Schengen space. I'm not even sure they accept to issue an extended visa in the case the two meetings were to happen in the same country three or four months apart. The bureaucracy of sovereignty ! Okay, I guess that was my mid-week rant. Otherwise, I'm looking forward to seeing and enjoying Berlin and hopefully Warsaw. Mawaki On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 08:29 Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong > wrote: Thanks Arsene for sharing. Congratulation for that innovation :knowing the date early . After 3 round I'm Europe we hope that after Poland will be in AFRICA . ------------------------------- Cordialement ABDELDJALIL BACHAR BONG ---------------------------------- PRESIDENT & CEO ASSOCIATION "HOUSE OF AFRICA" E-mail: bachar at houseof.africa Twitter: @HOUSEOFINTERNET WEBSITE : www.houseof.africa Whatsapp: +23566274284 Skype: Bongbour ------------------------------------- Le Secrétaire Exécutif/Executive Secretary Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet au Tchad (FGI Tchad) / Chad Internet Governance Forum ------------------------------------- E-mail: Bachar at igf.td Website: www.igf.td Twitter :@IGFCHAD https://twitter.com/bacharbong Tél:0023566274284 N'djaména(Tchad) --------------------------------------------- |AFRINIC Fellow|ISOC CHAD Member|ICANN/AFRALO Member|NEXTGEN Fellow|GIVE1PROJECT MEMBER|IGFSA MEMBER|ACIEDD BOARD MEMBER|UN YOUTH DELEGATE - CHAD 2016-2018|ICANN60 Fellow ||Youth Peacebuilder||| --- To unsubscribe: > List help: --- To unsubscribe: > List help: --- To unsubscribe: > List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Jun 6 17:26:13 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (farzaneh badii (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 17:26:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Update on Christchruch call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, We had a meeting today with around six attendees about how to add a page on processes and future appropriate steps on Christchurch call. Here is the recording: https://bluejeans.com/s/ck9uO/ We decided to write up an addendum on the process so that the NZ government can have feedback on the process to work with. The rough version is in the google doc page 13 and 14. If you want to comment on the addendum, you can do so within the next 24 hours. https://docs.google.com/document/d/10RadyVQUNu1H5D7x6IJVKbqmaeDeXre0Mk-FFNkIVxs/edit?usp=sharing (please send your comments to me I will insert them) The NZ government has decided to create 4 work streams: Global Internet Forum Counter Terrorism reforms, Algorithm, Crisis and Crisis response. The following points were raised during our meeting today: - There is a danger that Christchurch call is going to be advanced through multilateral process if discussed in multilateral events and its mandate might go beyond "terrorist content". we need to be mindful of that and encourage the NZ government to work with the rest of the Internet community and also if possible prevent the process to become multilateral. - We don't have the time or resources to have a standalone process for Christchurchcall but we can have use InternetNZ Christchurch forum as the coordination space. - There will be a UGA meeting in September and Christchurchcall will be discussed there. (just raising awareness not for the UN to adopt) - The civil society and other stakeholder groups should be able to participate on equal footing in the processes for moving CC call forward. - some aspects of the text of the pledge is not acceptable and should be discussed during implementation. Best Farzaneh -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jun 6 19:42:46 2019 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 23:42:46 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 to be held in Poland In-Reply-To: <012201d51c9a$4161fde0$c425f9a0$@palage.com> References: <012201d51c9a$4161fde0$c425f9a0$@palage.com> Message-ID: <25F457B8D0530B29.7858F358-71B5-4E10-A1B8-80BD673E0DC6@mail.outlook.com> What has traditionally been done is that a simplified visa process is put in place which for example reduces the problem about appointment slots at the various African consulates that was mentioned earlier.   --srs On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:31 AM +0530, "Michael Palage" wrote: Stephanie,   While I am no ICANN.org (Staff) cheerleader by any means, I actually think ICANN legal made the right call.   For example in connection with the recent Bangkok GDD as part of the visa process I had to show proof of funds to visit and more importantly leave the country.   While I see ICANN being able to make that representation, and legally commit to it on behalf of ICANN employees, I do not see how ICANN could make that representation for community members.   Best regards,   Michael   From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 6:14 AM To: governance at lists.riseup.net Subject: Re: [governance] IGF 2020 to be held in Poland   Wow that is quite a story.  I think it is particularly objectionable that ICANN facilitated visas for their staff but not the community in the Panama City case.  They are supposed to be working for us. Stephanie Perrin On 2019-06-06 03:38, Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List) wrote: Michael, that's okay :) My story in this instance was just offered as a testimony echoing the experience of many others. But please don't let that eclipse my last paragraph in that message, which specifically address the question : What can be done? I hope anyone here who may be concerned take note. The country chosen for the venue and the level of measures the convening organization is willing to secure in order to facilitate access to that country/venue for all members of the community should be taken seriously as indicative of the openness and inclusiveness of that organization regarding the community engagement with its very subject matter and in its processes. In my view ICANN failed on that in this (and probably not the only) instance. IGF/UNDESA, too, have more work to do.   Thank you all for your attention. Now, I am ready to get back to discussing Internet governance in substance.    Mawaki    On Thu, Jun 6, 2019, 07:03 Michael J. Oghia wrote: Wow Mawaki, thank you for sharing this. I'm sorry you had to deal with all that. You make good points, though. Forgive the brevity of this reply in light of your own, but I just don't have much more to say. Best, -Michael     On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:09 PM Mawaki Chango wrote: Hi Michael, all:   What are the solutions to this? I feel there's still room for the convening entity to do more with the host country in order to facilitate visa issuance (and this does not apply only to Schengen but to any country for which it might be challenging to get a visa from the peripheries of the world.) As the saying goes about images, I'd say a story is worth a thousand arguments. So here you go.    ICANN meeting, Panama City. Panama has only up to 3 ambassies in the whole of Africa which, you might remember, is as large as several other continents put together: those are at the southern end (South Africa) and the northern end (Egypt and possibly Morocco, if my memory is correct) of the continent. Those 3 countries are far away for someone living in the middle part of the continent -- I'd say about 5 hour flight average from Lome for instance. And the visa application takes generally a week to be processed and that waiting time away from one's home country would have to a substantial cost. With such configuration, one might as well head to a Schengen capital where it's easier both to have access to a Panama consulate for the visa and to proceed with a direct flight to Panama City in this case. The two scenari are sub-optimal, to say the least, although the latter seems the least costly.    So I tried to see whether ICANN could help in any way. I was a bit shocked to discover that ICANN made arrangements with the host country to grant visa on arrival only for their staff; nobody else could benefit from that. I tried to argue with the management that ICANN is a community-based organization and that they should very much care about facilitating participation from the community (people, stakeholders, etc.) not just the staff. But there was nothing I could say to make them change, of course; they already had an agreement with the host country.   Finally what happened is I got in touch with the Panama's consul in Paris and he was nice enough to commit to issuing my visa the same day should I have all the documents required. I had already an appointment with the consulate of France, which you get after paying a fee (that procedure was the first thing I did by reflex as soon as I knew I was going to be invited to the Panama meeting and that country has no consulate anywhere near.) Yet, the earliest available slot fell after the ICANN meeting dates. In such cases the prospective applicant is invited to call in every other day to find out whether a slot has been surrendered in the mean time. In sum, it went some way like this: I got informed on a Friday that there was a newly available slot on Monday. The latest I could catch the flight to Paris would be on Thursday that week (for a chance to be at the Panama consulate in Paris on Friday, and then catch the flight from Paris to Panama city on Saturday, etc.) When I dropped the first visa application on Monday, I explained to them the time constraints (again, it requires normally one full week to process these visa applications.) They said they will try but they can't promise, because they need clearance from their central administration after security screening, etc. Facing such uncertain prospects, the sponsor decided to cancel flights and hotel reservations before they lose all their money with possibly a late cancelation. Thursday came, I got the first visa that opens the doors for the rest, but I couldn't go anywhere because all the subsequent travel and accommodation arrangements were canceled, as the schedule was too tight while the outcome was uncertain up to the last minute.   The whole process took so much time and energy (which on top of that prove to be useless) that when I received the invitation letter to the next ICANN meeting, I didn't even give it a thought; I declined.   Countries or nations-states have their sovereignty and no one can demand they change, wholesale, their policies or their bureaucratic culture (for instance, issuing a visa to cover only the specific dates of a meeting despite a heavy procedure and the likelihood of repeats within a single year vs. being opened to granting long term visas depending on the precedents or profile of the applicant.) But UNDESA/IGF, ICANN, etc. should assign themselves the goal of getting from the chanceries of the host countries the maximum visa facilitating measures possible for ALL prospective participants in their meetings - from visa on arrival to setting up a fast track in the consulates for visa interview appointments and application processing (maybe the latter is a new idea? In any case, it just occurred to me.) Certainly, just issuing an invitation letter and a proof of registration to the meeting is not enough.   Best,  Mawaki        On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 09:35 "Michael J. Oghia" wrote: Hi Mawaki, all:   No need to apologise or call it a rant. It's a very fair point, and I appreciate your articulation. As someone who lives in Europe and undoubtedly benefits from having the IGF hosted on the continent, I am also frustrated that – assuming it's already been decided – the IGF would be held yet again in Europe.   I know that the country where it's held mainly rests on which government is willing to host it, so I do understand if the options are limited.   What are the solutions to this? Best, -Michael     On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:26 AM Mawaki Chango wrote: Good point, Abdeldjalil. Geneva, Paris, Berlin and now Poland (Varsovie/Warsaw, I guess?) That's four. The Schengen visa is such a hassle for so many people, and so time consuming! I'm not even talking about getting all the paperwork in order. One has to secure the interview appointment months and months in advance and that alone is sometimes enough to cause failure.    And when you manage to get the visa, it only lasts the exact number of days planned for your meeting (or whatever the purpose of the visit.) And even if one knows there's another meeting (say, ICANN) coming up in the next few months still in the Schengen space which one needs to attend, one has to go through all of it again. They won't consider that even if the visa paperwork for the next meeting is ready. Certainly not if the two consecutive meetings are happening in two different Schengen countries, although any Schengen country visa applies to the whole of Schengen space. I'm not even sure they accept to issue an extended visa in the case the two meetings were to happen in the same country three or four months apart. The bureaucracy of sovereignty !   Okay, I guess that was my mid-week rant. Otherwise, I'm looking forward to seeing and enjoying Berlin and hopefully Warsaw.    Mawaki    On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 08:29 Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong wrote:   Thanks Arsene for sharing.    Congratulation for that innovation :knowing the date early .  After 3 round I'm Europe we hope that after Poland will be in AFRICA .      ------------------------------- Cordialement ABDELDJALIL BACHAR BONG ---------------------------------- PRESIDENT & CEO  ASSOCIATION "HOUSE OF AFRICA" E-mail: bachar at houseof.africa Twitter: @HOUSEOFINTERNET WEBSITE : www.houseof.africa  Whatsapp: +23566274284 Skype: Bongbour  ------------------------------------- Le Secrétaire Exécutif/Executive Secretary  Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet au Tchad (FGI Tchad) / Chad Internet Governance Forum  ------------------------------------- E-mail: Bachar at igf.td Website: www.igf.td Twitter :@IGFCHAD  https://twitter.com/bacharbong Tél:0023566274284 N'djaména(Tchad) --------------------------------------------- |AFRINIC Fellow|ISOC CHAD Member|ICANN/AFRALO Member|NEXTGEN Fellow|GIVE1PROJECT MEMBER|IGFSA MEMBER|ACIEDD BOARD MEMBER|UN YOUTH DELEGATE - CHAD 2016-2018|ICANN60 Fellow ||Youth Peacebuilder||| --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: ---To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Jun 7 07:42:11 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 11:42:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 to be held in Poland In-Reply-To: <012201d51c9a$4161fde0$c425f9a0$@palage.com> References: <012201d51c9a$4161fde0$c425f9a0$@palage.com> Message-ID: Michael, Your point is well taken and well understood. But there is still a legitimate concern. Those requirements you're referring to may be asked to be ascertained by the organizations sponsoring the participation of concerned individuals, at least in some cases. For instance in the case at hand, the sponsoring entity was an intergovernmental organization (not a regional one, geographically speaking, but one with a membership cutting across regions albeit not a universal one such the UN type.) As such, they are reputable and can be reasonably trusted not to vouch for individuals who may just be looking for the first opportunity to run away from their country. On the other hand, as an intergovernmental organization their rules and operating procedures do not allow the staff to enter into any kind of official talks with a government that is not a member (that can only happen at a political level.) In sum, they cannot directly negotiate special conditions of entry with such government for their invitees, whereas ICANN, as the convening organization, can. I am just wondering whether there is not enough room here for some institutional creativity? Could ICANN involve a number of organizations early in the process so that the arrangements it secures with the host country in order to facilitate access are inclusive enough? In any case, no organization is obliged to go hold a meeting in a country where the accessibility conditions (or barriers to entry) may exclude a notable portion of the community which it is supposed to serve and bring together during those meetings. Best regards, Mawaki On Thu, Jun 6, 2019, 19:01 Michael Palage wrote: > Stephanie, > > > > While I am no ICANN.org (Staff) cheerleader by any means, I actually think > ICANN legal made the right call. > > > > For example in connection with the recent Bangkok GDD as part of the visa > process I had to show proof of funds to visit and more importantly leave > the country. > > > > While I see ICANN being able to make that representation, and legally > commit to it on behalf of ICANN employees, I do not see how ICANN could > make that representation for community members. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Michael > > > > *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net < > governance-request at lists.riseup.net> *On Behalf Of *Stephanie Perrin > *Sent:* Thursday, June 6, 2019 6:14 AM > *To:* governance at lists.riseup.net > *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF 2020 to be held in Poland > > > > Wow that is quite a story. I think it is particularly objectionable that > ICANN facilitated visas for their staff but not the community in the Panama > City case. They are supposed to be working for us. > > Stephanie Perrin > > On 2019-06-06 03:38, Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > > Michael, that's okay :) > > My story in this instance was just offered as a testimony echoing the > experience of many others. But please don't let that eclipse my last > paragraph in that message, which specifically address the question : What > can be done? I hope anyone here who may be concerned take note. The country > chosen for the venue and the level of measures the convening organization > is willing to secure in order to facilitate access to that country/venue > for all members of the community should be taken seriously as indicative of > the openness and inclusiveness of that organization regarding the community > engagement with its very subject matter and in its processes. In my view > ICANN failed on that in this (and probably not the only) instance. > IGF/UNDESA, too, have more work to do. > > > > Thank you all for your attention. Now, I am ready to get back to > discussing Internet governance in substance. > > > > Mawaki > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019, 07:03 Michael J. Oghia wrote: > > Wow Mawaki, thank you for sharing this. I'm sorry you had to deal with all > that. You make good points, though. Forgive the brevity of this reply in > light of your own, but I just don't have much more to say. > > > Best, > -Michael > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:09 PM Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Hi Michael, all: > > > > What are the solutions to this? I feel there's still room for the > convening entity to do more with the host country in order to facilitate > visa issuance (and this does not apply only to Schengen but to any country > for which it might be challenging to get a visa from the peripheries of the > world.) As the saying goes about images, I'd say a story is worth a > thousand arguments. So here you go. > > > > ICANN meeting, Panama City. Panama has only up to 3 ambassies in the whole > of Africa which, you might remember, is as large as several other > continents put together: those are at the southern end (South Africa) and > the northern end (Egypt and possibly Morocco, if my memory is correct) of > the continent. Those 3 countries are far away for someone living in the > middle part of the continent -- I'd say about 5 hour flight average from > Lome for instance. And the visa application takes generally a week to be > processed and that waiting time away from one's home country would have to > a substantial cost. With such configuration, one might as well head to a > Schengen capital where it's easier both to have access to a Panama > consulate for the visa and to proceed with a direct flight to Panama City > in this case. The two scenari are sub-optimal, to say the least, although > the latter seems the least costly. > > > > So I tried to see whether ICANN could help in any way. I was a bit shocked > to discover that ICANN made arrangements with the host country to grant > visa on arrival only for their staff; nobody else could benefit from that. > I tried to argue with the management that ICANN is a community-based > organization and that they should very much care about facilitating > participation from the community (people, stakeholders, etc.) not just the > staff. But there was nothing I could say to make them change, of course; > they already had an agreement with the host country. > > > > Finally what happened is I got in touch with the Panama's consul in Paris > and he was nice enough to commit to issuing my visa the same day should I > have all the documents required. I had already an appointment with the > consulate of France, which you get after paying a fee (that procedure was > the first thing I did by reflex as soon as I knew I was going to be invited > to the Panama meeting and that country has no consulate anywhere near.) > Yet, the earliest available slot fell after the ICANN meeting dates. In > such cases the prospective applicant is invited to call in every other day > to find out whether a slot has been surrendered in the mean time. In sum, > it went some way like this: I got informed on a Friday that there was a > newly available slot on Monday. The latest I could catch the flight to > Paris would be on Thursday that week (for a chance to be at the Panama > consulate in Paris on Friday, and then catch the flight from Paris to > Panama city on Saturday, etc.) When I dropped the first visa application on > Monday, I explained to them the time constraints (again, it requires > normally one full week to process these visa applications.) They said they > will try but they can't promise, because they need clearance from their > central administration after security screening, etc. Facing such uncertain > prospects, the sponsor decided to cancel flights and hotel reservations > before they lose all their money with possibly a late cancelation. Thursday > came, I got the first visa that opens the doors for the rest, but I > couldn't go anywhere because all the subsequent travel and accommodation > arrangements were canceled, as the schedule was too tight while the outcome > was uncertain up to the last minute. > > > > The whole process took so much time and energy (which on top of that prove > to be useless) that when I received the invitation letter to the next ICANN > meeting, I didn't even give it a thought; I declined. > > > > Countries or nations-states have their sovereignty and no one can demand > they change, wholesale, their policies or their bureaucratic culture (for > instance, issuing a visa to cover only the specific dates of a meeting > despite a heavy procedure and the likelihood of repeats within a single > year vs. being opened to granting long term visas depending on the > precedents or profile of the applicant.) But UNDESA/IGF, ICANN, etc. should > assign themselves the goal of getting from the chanceries of the host > countries the maximum visa facilitating measures possible for ALL > prospective participants in their meetings - from visa on arrival to > setting up a fast track in the consulates for visa interview appointments > and application processing (maybe the latter is a new idea? In any case, it > just occurred to me.) Certainly, just issuing an invitation letter and a > proof of registration to the meeting is not enough. > > > > Best, > > Mawaki > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 09:35 "Michael J. Oghia" > wrote: > > Hi Mawaki, all: > > > > No need to apologise or call it a rant. It's a very fair point, and I > appreciate your articulation. As someone who lives in Europe and > undoubtedly benefits from having the IGF hosted on the continent, I am also > frustrated that – assuming it's already been decided – the IGF would be > held yet again in Europe. > > > > I know that the country where it's held mainly rests on which government > is willing to host it, so I do understand if the options are limited. > > > > What are the solutions to this? > > > Best, > -Michael > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:26 AM Mawaki Chango > wrote: > > Good point, Abdeldjalil. Geneva, Paris, Berlin and now Poland > (Varsovie/Warsaw, I guess?) That's four. > > The Schengen visa is such a hassle for so many people, and so time > consuming! I'm not even talking about getting all the paperwork in order. > One has to secure the interview appointment months and months in advance > and that alone is sometimes enough to cause failure. > > > > And when you manage to get the visa, it only lasts the exact number of > days planned for your meeting (or whatever the purpose of the visit.) And > even if one knows there's another meeting (say, ICANN) coming up in the > next few months still in the Schengen space which one needs to attend, one > has to go through all of it again. They won't consider that even if the > visa paperwork for the next meeting is ready. Certainly not if the two > consecutive meetings are happening in two different Schengen countries, > although any Schengen country visa applies to the whole of Schengen space. > I'm not even sure they accept to issue an extended visa in the case the two > meetings were to happen in the same country three or four months apart. The > bureaucracy of sovereignty ! > > > > Okay, I guess that was my mid-week rant. Otherwise, I'm looking forward to > seeing and enjoying Berlin and hopefully Warsaw. > > > > Mawaki > > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 08:29 Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong wrote: > > > > Thanks Arsene for sharing. > > > > Congratulation for that innovation :knowing the date early . > > After 3 round I'm Europe we hope that after Poland will be in AFRICA . > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > Cordialement > > ABDELDJALIL BACHAR BONG > > > ---------------------------------- > PRESIDENT & CEO > > > ASSOCIATION "HOUSE OF AFRICA" > E-mail: bachar at houseof.africa > Twitter: @HOUSEOFINTERNET > WEBSITE : www.houseof.africa > Whatsapp: +23566274284 > Skype: Bongbour > > ------------------------------------- > > Le Secrétaire Exécutif/Executive Secretary > > Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet au Tchad (FGI Tchad) / > Chad Internet Governance Forum > ------------------------------------- > > E-mail: Bachar at igf.td > Website: www.igf.td > Twitter :@IGFCHAD > https://twitter.com/bacharbong > Tél:0023566274284 > N'djaména(Tchad) > > > --------------------------------------------- > |AFRINIC Fellow|ISOC CHAD Member|ICANN/AFRALO Member|NEXTGEN > Fellow|GIVE1PROJECT MEMBER|IGFSA MEMBER|ACIEDD BOARD MEMBER|UN YOUTH > DELEGATE - CHAD 2016-2018|ICANN60 Fellow ||Youth Peacebuilder||| > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > > --- > > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dvbirve at yandex.ru Fri Jun 7 16:11:23 2019 From: dvbirve at yandex.ru (Shcherbovich Andrey) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2019 17:11:23 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 to be held in Poland In-Reply-To: References: <012201d51c9a$4161fde0$c425f9a0$@palage.com> Message-ID: <311201559938283@iva5-be053096037b.qloud-c.yandex.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Sun Jun 2 09:19:28 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 09:19:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Digital Access Day in Ottawa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Digital Access Day (with fixed audio, no drop outs, and AI captions) will be restreamed today Sunday June 2 2019 starting at 10am ET (14:00 UTC) The restream program may be found at https://livestream.com/internetsociety/dad/statuses/191948265 On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:10 AM Joly MacFie wrote: > It appears that one of the connectivity-underserved communities in Canada > is Ottawa City Council, as we are struggling to get a stream out of City > Hall. Please excuse the occasional drop - we are recording and will repost. > Be sure to tune in for the Accessibility panel after lunch. > > > [image: livestream] Today, *Tuesday > May 28 2019*, the *Internet Society Canada Chapter > * hosts the *2nd Annual Digital Access Day > * in > Ottawa. This full-day event will convene thought-leaders from NGOs, the > tech sector, government, universities, and those most affected by the > digital divide, to talk about good work already underway, identify what > else can be done, and measure progress. Keynote speaker is *Andrew > Sullivan*, President & CEO, Internet Society. The event will be webcast > live on the *Internet Society Livestream Channel > *. > > *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/dad > * > > *AGENDA: https://internetsociety.ca/event/2nd-annual-digital-access-day/ > * > > *TWITTER: #digitalaccessday http://bit.ly/digitalaccessday > * > > *Permalink* > https://isoc.live/11087/ > > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Jun 7 16:34:34 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (farzaneh badii (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 16:34:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 to be held in Poland In-Reply-To: <311201559938283@iva5-be053096037b.qloud-c.yandex.net> References: <012201d51c9a$4161fde0$c425f9a0$@palage.com> <311201559938283@iva5-be053096037b.qloud-c.yandex.net> Message-ID: Isn't Lithuania an Eastern European country? IGF was held there in 2010. Farzaneh On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 4:11 PM Shcherbovich Andrey wrote: > I am completely in favor > > IGF never before taken place in the Eastern Europe. > > 07.06.2019, 08:43, "Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List)" < > governance at lists.riseup.net>: > > Michael, > > Your point is well taken and well understood. But there is still a > legitimate concern. Those requirements you're referring to may be asked to > be ascertained by the organizations sponsoring the participation of > concerned individuals, at least in some cases. For instance in the case > at hand, the sponsoring entity was an intergovernmental organization (not > a regional one, geographically speaking, but one with a membership cutting > across regions albeit not a universal one such the UN type.) As such, > they are reputable and can be reasonably trusted not to vouch for > individuals who may just be looking for the first opportunity to run away > from their country. On the other hand, as an intergovernmental > organization their rules and operating procedures do not allow the staff > to enter into any kind of official talks with a government that is not a > member (that can only happen at a political level.) In sum, they cannot directly > negotiate special conditions of entry with such government for their > invitees, whereas ICANN, as the convening organization, can. > > I am just wondering whether there is not enough room here for some > institutional creativity? Could ICANN involve a number of organizations > early in the process so that the arrangements it secures with the host > country in order to facilitate access are inclusive enough? In any case, > no organization is obliged to go hold a meeting in a country where the > accessibility conditions (or barriers to entry) may exclude a notable > portion of the community which it is supposed to serve and bring together > during those meetings. > > Best regards, > Mawaki > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019, 19:01 Michael Palage wrote: > > Stephanie, > > > > While I am no ICANN.org (Staff) cheerleader by any means, I actually think > ICANN legal made the right call. > > > > For example in connection with the recent Bangkok GDD as part of the visa > process I had to show proof of funds to visit and more importantly leave > the country. > > > > While I see ICANN being able to make that representation, and legally > commit to it on behalf of ICANN employees, I do not see how ICANN could > make that representation for community members. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Michael > > > > *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net < > governance-request at lists.riseup.net> *On Behalf Of *Stephanie Perrin > *Sent:* Thursday, June 6, 2019 6:14 AM > *To:* governance at lists.riseup.net > *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF 2020 to be held in Poland > > > > Wow that is quite a story. I think it is particularly objectionable that > ICANN facilitated visas for their staff but not the community in the Panama > City case. They are supposed to be working for us. > > Stephanie Perrin > > On 2019-06-06 03:38, Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > > Michael, that's okay :) > > My story in this instance was just offered as a testimony echoing the > experience of many others. But please don't let that eclipse my last > paragraph in that message, which specifically address the question : What > can be done? I hope anyone here who may be concerned take note. The country > chosen for the venue and the level of measures the convening organization > is willing to secure in order to facilitate access to that country/venue > for all members of the community should be taken seriously as indicative of > the openness and inclusiveness of that organization regarding the community > engagement with its very subject matter and in its processes. In my view > ICANN failed on that in this (and probably not the only) instance. > IGF/UNDESA, too, have more work to do. > > > > Thank you all for your attention. Now, I am ready to get back to > discussing Internet governance in substance. > > > > Mawaki > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019, 07:03 Michael J. Oghia wrote: > > Wow Mawaki, thank you for sharing this. I'm sorry you had to deal with all > that. You make good points, though. Forgive the brevity of this reply in > light of your own, but I just don't have much more to say. > > > > Best, > -Michael > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:09 PM Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Hi Michael, all: > > > > What are the solutions to this? I feel there's still room for the > convening entity to do more with the host country in order to facilitate > visa issuance (and this does not apply only to Schengen but to any country > for which it might be challenging to get a visa from the peripheries of the > world.) As the saying goes about images, I'd say a story is worth a > thousand arguments. So here you go. > > > > ICANN meeting, Panama City. Panama has only up to 3 ambassies in the whole > of Africa which, you might remember, is as large as several other > continents put together: those are at the southern end (South Africa) and > the northern end (Egypt and possibly Morocco, if my memory is correct) of > the continent. Those 3 countries are far away for someone living in the > middle part of the continent -- I'd say about 5 hour flight average from > Lome for instance. And the visa application takes generally a week to be > processed and that waiting time away from one's home country would have to > a substantial cost. With such configuration, one might as well head to a > Schengen capital where it's easier both to have access to a Panama > consulate for the visa and to proceed with a direct flight to Panama City > in this case. The two scenari are sub-optimal, to say the least, although > the latter seems the least costly. > > > > So I tried to see whether ICANN could help in any way. I was a bit shocked > to discover that ICANN made arrangements with the host country to grant > visa on arrival only for their staff; nobody else could benefit from that. > I tried to argue with the management that ICANN is a community-based > organization and that they should very much care about facilitating > participation from the community (people, stakeholders, etc.) not just the > staff. But there was nothing I could say to make them change, of course; > they already had an agreement with the host country. > > > > Finally what happened is I got in touch with the Panama's consul in Paris > and he was nice enough to commit to issuing my visa the same day should I > have all the documents required. I had already an appointment with the > consulate of France, which you get after paying a fee (that procedure was > the first thing I did by reflex as soon as I knew I was going to be invited > to the Panama meeting and that country has no consulate anywhere near.) > Yet, the earliest available slot fell after the ICANN meeting dates. In > such cases the prospective applicant is invited to call in every other day > to find out whether a slot has been surrendered in the mean time. In sum, > it went some way like this: I got informed on a Friday that there was a > newly available slot on Monday. The latest I could catch the flight to > Paris would be on Thursday that week (for a chance to be at the Panama > consulate in Paris on Friday, and then catch the flight from Paris to > Panama city on Saturday, etc.) When I dropped the first visa application on > Monday, I explained to them the time constraints (again, it requires > normally one full week to process these visa applications.) They said they > will try but they can't promise, because they need clearance from their > central administration after security screening, etc. Facing such uncertain > prospects, the sponsor decided to cancel flights and hotel reservations > before they lose all their money with possibly a late cancelation. Thursday > came, I got the first visa that opens the doors for the rest, but I > couldn't go anywhere because all the subsequent travel and accommodation > arrangements were canceled, as the schedule was too tight while the outcome > was uncertain up to the last minute. > > > > The whole process took so much time and energy (which on top of that prove > to be useless) that when I received the invitation letter to the next ICANN > meeting, I didn't even give it a thought; I declined. > > > > Countries or nations-states have their sovereignty and no one can demand > they change, wholesale, their policies or their bureaucratic culture (for > instance, issuing a visa to cover only the specific dates of a meeting > despite a heavy procedure and the likelihood of repeats within a single > year vs. being opened to granting long term visas depending on the > precedents or profile of the applicant.) But UNDESA/IGF, ICANN, etc. should > assign themselves the goal of getting from the chanceries of the host > countries the maximum visa facilitating measures possible for ALL > prospective participants in their meetings - from visa on arrival to > setting up a fast track in the consulates for visa interview appointments > and application processing (maybe the latter is a new idea? In any case, it > just occurred to me.) Certainly, just issuing an invitation letter and a > proof of registration to the meeting is not enough. > > > > Best, > > Mawaki > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 09:35 "Michael J. Oghia" > wrote: > > Hi Mawaki, all: > > > > No need to apologise or call it a rant. It's a very fair point, and I > appreciate your articulation. As someone who lives in Europe and > undoubtedly benefits from having the IGF hosted on the continent, I am also > frustrated that – assuming it's already been decided – the IGF would be > held yet again in Europe. > > > > I know that the country where it's held mainly rests on which government > is willing to host it, so I do understand if the options are limited. > > > > What are the solutions to this? > > > > Best, > -Michael > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:26 AM Mawaki Chango > wrote: > > Good point, Abdeldjalil. Geneva, Paris, Berlin and now Poland > (Varsovie/Warsaw, I guess?) That's four. > > The Schengen visa is such a hassle for so many people, and so time > consuming! I'm not even talking about getting all the paperwork in order. > One has to secure the interview appointment months and months in advance > and that alone is sometimes enough to cause failure. > > > > And when you manage to get the visa, it only lasts the exact number of > days planned for your meeting (or whatever the purpose of the visit.) And > even if one knows there's another meeting (say, ICANN) coming up in the > next few months still in the Schengen space which one needs to attend, one > has to go through all of it again. They won't consider that even if the > visa paperwork for the next meeting is ready. Certainly not if the two > consecutive meetings are happening in two different Schengen countries, > although any Schengen country visa applies to the whole of Schengen space. > I'm not even sure they accept to issue an extended visa in the case the two > meetings were to happen in the same country three or four months apart. The > bureaucracy of sovereignty ! > > > > Okay, I guess that was my mid-week rant. Otherwise, I'm looking forward to > seeing and enjoying Berlin and hopefully Warsaw. > > > > Mawaki > > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 08:29 Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong wrote: > > > > Thanks Arsene for sharing. > > > > Congratulation for that innovation :knowing the date early . > > After 3 round I'm Europe we hope that after Poland will be in AFRICA . > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > Cordialement > > ABDELDJALIL BACHAR BONG > > > ---------------------------------- > PRESIDENT & CEO > > > ASSOCIATION "HOUSE OF AFRICA" > E-mail: bachar at houseof.africa > Twitter: @HOUSEOFINTERNET > WEBSITE : www.houseof.africa > Whatsapp: +23566274284 > Skype: Bongbour > > ------------------------------------- > > Le Secrétaire Exécutif/Executive Secretary > > Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet au Tchad (FGI Tchad) / > Chad Internet Governance Forum > ------------------------------------- > > E-mail: Bachar at igf.td > Website: www.igf.td > Twitter :@IGFCHAD > https://twitter.com/bacharbong > Tél:0023566274284 > N'djaména(Tchad) > > > --------------------------------------------- > |AFRINIC Fellow|ISOC CHAD Member|ICANN/AFRALO Member|NEXTGEN > Fellow|GIVE1PROJECT MEMBER|IGFSA MEMBER|ACIEDD BOARD MEMBER|UN YOUTH > DELEGATE - CHAD 2016-2018|ICANN60 Fellow ||Youth Peacebuilder||| > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > > > --- > > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > , > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > > Sincerely, > Dr. Andrey A. Shcherbovich > Associate Professor, > Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law, > National Research University > Higher School of Economics > > > С уважением, > Щербович Андрей Андреевич, > к.ю.н., доцент кафедры конституционного > и административного права > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sat Jun 8 16:47:37 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (farzaneh badii (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2019 16:47:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Collective input on Christchurch call submitted Message-ID: The collective input on Christchurch call was submitted today. I sincerely thank all those who attended the calls, participated in drafting the input and endorsed it. This was an exemplary collective action and I hope to see future collaborations like this. We are going to use InternetNZ Christchurchcall coordination space as the primary space for discussions regarding the Christchurchcall. https://christchurchcallcoord.internetnz.nz/ In the future we might also create a mailing list if that is more convenient. You can find related tweets at #christchurchcallvoices Best regards, Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Community Input on Christchurch Call-June-2019.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 178314 bytes Desc: not available URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sat Jun 8 20:37:06 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (farzaneh badii (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2019 20:37:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Who governs AI globally In-Reply-To: References: <5e0ce6a5-4b6f-81d7-48c7-7bc40945c4ab@gmail.com> Message-ID: Parminder, In my opinion AI governance has nothing to do with Internet governance. AI can be used on the Internet and against the Internet (censoring content etc) but its governance is separate. This is something we are not clear about in our discussions on AI and have derailed Internet governance discussions with unrelated AI governance issues. But I have an answer to your point. Many of us here from undemocratic countries could not have participated effectively in multilateral processes of the UN. Many countries have governments that do not represent them effectively. UN is not an accountable organization. While any stakeholder can participate at IG institutions, this is not the case for the UN processes. Those who oppress us will represent us in the UN processes. Their purpose is to protect their own existence and political institutions rather than representing people. Sometimes they are not even aware of the issues that affect their people. And we cannot fight for inclusion. UN is for the nation states. They are the decisionmakers there even if they claim they have also established multistakeholder processes. I believe the mis-contribution to the civil society advocacy was, unfortunately, the unnatural divide that was created by civil society activists among the civil society itself. We were quite effective in WSIS and other processes and to some extent still are at some IG processes. But we are becoming more and more microfragmented. The more fragmented our efforts are, the more we lack collective action, the easier it is for the more powerful to pick us up one by one and make us ineffective. We can have as many stand alone and similiarly themed workshops at IGF because we don't agree with each other on some issues and don't cooperate to draft proposals, we can have parallel and competing civil society meetings and not get together. The ability is surely there but is it to the benefit of civil society, the Internet community and globally connected people? I think the answer is no! Farzaneh On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 8:58 AM parminder wrote: > > > OECD's digital economy committee has developed these AI governance > principles http://www.oecd.org/going-digital/ai/principles/ > > And now the World Economic Forum has stepped in to do global governance of > AI > > > https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613589/the-world-economic-forum-wants-to-develop-global-rules-for-ai/?utm_campaign=the_download.unpaid.engagement&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=73093912&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9gRdOMFU_P4B7Q-HO5n-3dCwcrtYZbneXewQ5B6cKP8_2SWOESFXhaycLcYQwgtWjcbbicSXA3ZsZpMZt9KPEUNYH5Dw&_hsmi=73093912 > > Maybe, at least at this stage the IG civil society would want to re-assess > why they fought so bitterly against any such thing potentially being done > at a UN body.... Where at least all countries are equally represented, and > big business does not dictate terms openly. . (And had at the same time > supported the WEF based NetMundial Initiative.) > > Interestingly enough, we were then told that the UN can have no role > because there are countries like China over there. Really! The WEF > initiative is headed by a USian and a Chinese... Going beyond the OECD > initiative, it is an attempt to find common ground between the two digital > biggies, and the emerging two poles of the digital world... > > So, we have what many of us have been warning all this multistakeholderism > is about ...It is a way to subvert democratic institutions and thinking and > make it more acceptable to have those who are politically and economically > the strongest to dictate rules to everyone... From democratic governance to > a market of governance, where what you can do depends on what power you > bring to the table. > > We see this happening right in front of our eyes.. > > And how bitterly did the civil society reps, and also tech community, > oppose at the UN working group on enhanced cooperation for international > public policies (and other forums), in the end, even to just have a day or > two of annual dedicated meeting at the most innocuous Commission for > Science and Technology for Development, where developing countries could > bring up their Internet/ digital governance problems , and could maybe have > just that small role in shaping global digital governance, including AI > governance... > > But, no, multistakeholderism checks for your political and economic heft > not your democratic legitimacy. > > Now, the developing countries can sit on the outside and wait for the > richest countries (OECD) and the biggest global businesses (WEF) to develop > global digital/ AI rules and convey it to them! > > Does the Internet governance civil society plan to introspect on this all > important mis-contribution that it made? Or at least the developing country > participants here? > > parminder > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sun Jun 9 14:39:10 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2019 19:39:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF MAG Chair Message-ID: Dear all, As you know, the current MAG Chair is Lynn St Amour, she is ending her term this year! There is a need to have another chair starting right after IGF Berlin. Was wondering, maybe we need to discuss the profile of a good MAG Chair? Though we will not choose on this list, but wanted to share that consultations are going on within different stakeholder groups within the MAG, each one of them being asked to suggest a name (s) to the IGF Secretariat. Just throwing this out here. Arsene From joly at punkcast.com Mon Jun 10 03:09:58 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 03:09:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Blockchain for Social Impact Conference 2019 #BSIC19 @ethereum4impact Message-ID: Notwithstanding Vint Cerf's scepticism , blockchain continues to grow, and some efforts appear to cresting the slope of enlightenment . The BSIC group of beneficent application proponents now have a powerful corporate ally in the form of Microsoft. [image: livestream] On *June 10-11 2019* the annual *Blockchain for Social Impact Coalition Conference * (BSIC19) will bne held at the *Microsoft Tech Center* in *NYC*. BSIC19 brings together government officials, leading NGOs, charities, think tanks, impact investors, technologists, and innovators to strategize about and develop blockchain-based solutions to pressing global challenges in the following areas: identity management, refugee resettlement, supply chain, energy, financial inclusion, human rights, democracy, and voting. Both tracks of Day 1 of the 2019 Conference will be webcast live on the the* Internet Society Livestream Channels * LIVESTREAM: https://isoc.live/bsic2019 *SCHEDULE: https://conference.blockchainforsocialimpact.com/schedule-2019/ * *TWITTER: #BSIC19 @ethereum4impact http://bit.ly/2KBENeB * *ABOUT BSIC:* The Blockchain for Social Impact Coalition (BSIC) is a 501(c)(6) not-for-profit organization that incubates, develops, and collaborates on blockchain products and solutions that can address social and environmental challenges across the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals. *https://blockchainforsocialimpact.com/* - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Jun 10 04:30:07 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Michael J. Oghia" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:30:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Collective input on Christchurch call submitted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Farzaneh, all: Thank you for submitting it, and to everyone who participated in this. I was impressed and encouraged by how quickly we as civil society responded to it, drafted an extensive and robust response, and the collaborative spirit and collegiality shown. More of this going forward! Best, -Michael On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 10:48 PM farzaneh badii wrote: > The collective input on Christchurch call was submitted today. > > I sincerely thank all those who attended the calls, participated in > drafting the input and endorsed it. This was an exemplary collective action > and I hope to see future collaborations like this. > > We are going to use InternetNZ Christchurchcall coordination space as the > primary space for discussions regarding the Christchurchcall. > https://christchurchcallcoord.internetnz.nz/ > > In the future we might also create a mailing list if that is more > convenient. You can find related tweets at #christchurchcallvoices > > Best regards, > > > Farzaneh > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Jun 10 04:34:15 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Michael J. Oghia" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:34:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [DC3] UNHCR Innovation Service | Connectivity for Refugees | Call for Interest In-Reply-To: <4B6296ABAE1FC944984F6C9FE996FE1901FB0D5CCD@DC6010.fgv.br> References: <4B6296ABAE1FC944984F6C9FE996FE1901FB0D5CCD@DC6010.fgv.br> Message-ID: In case anyone knows of people working on connectivity for refugees, this could be a good opportunity: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NCYLMHxIYhjQZAK_mozIx0U9Ya3q7ZFhXIg99uDaND4/edit Best, -Michael ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Luca Belli Date: Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 10:38 PM Subject: [DC3] UNHCR Innovation Service | Connectivity for Refugees | Call for Interest To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity I don’t know if this has already been circulated here but I think it may be of interest: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NCYLMHxIYhjQZAK_mozIx0U9Ya3q7ZFhXIg99uDaND4/edit All the best Luca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Jun 10 06:42:09 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Michael J. Oghia" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 12:42:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [bestbits] RightsCon. Closed meeting MSFT + Civil Society In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Javier Pallero Date: Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 4:31 PM Subject: [bestbits] RightsCon. Closed meeting MSFT + Civil Society To: como , bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Hi everyone if you happen to be at RightsCon, Microsoft has called for a closed meeting on Wednesday June 12 between them and Civil Society organizations at the event. The idea is to discuss the implementation of the Christchurch Call. If you're interested in attending please let me know and I will pass on the details for the meeting. Cheers! Javier Pallero Latam Policy Lead - Access Now Sent from mobile, pardon my brevity ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jun 10 08:23:58 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:53:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] RightsCon satellite event- What do social movements need to do in the age of data? Towards a digital justice manifesto In-Reply-To: <6fd97454ef6c0671ea92b5cb4.2c98cb64db.20190610110530.b0a0fa4939.0f781cac@mail248.sea81.mcsv.net> References: <6fd97454ef6c0671ea92b5cb4.2c98cb64db.20190610110530.b0a0fa4939.0f781cac@mail248.sea81.mcsv.net> Message-ID: RightsCon satellite event- What do social movements need to do in the age of data? Towards a digital justice manifesto Are you planning to be at RightsCon this year? Join us at Tunis, and be part of shaping a future agenda for digital equity and social justice.    Are you planning to be at RightsCon  this year? Join us at Tunis, and be part of shaping a future agenda for digital equity and social justice.    JNC invites you to our workshop *What do social movements need to do in the age of data? Towards a digital justice manifesto* Venue: Hôtel LAICO Tunis (RightsCon Venue), CARTHAGE 2 Date: June 11, 2:00-4:15 pm   In 2018, the Just Net Coalition (JNC) convened its first satellite event at RightsCon, Toronto, ‘Contending with the digital frontier – What next for social movements?’ The event aimed at brokering a dialogue between actors from social movements and members of the digital rights community and explore common pathways for data and digital justice. Over the year, we have kept the conversation going at different venues and platforms. In March 2019, JNC organized a three day international workshop on Equity and Social Justice in a Digital World in Bangkok which brought together a global network of actors working on digital rights, the digital economy, and in sectors like agriculture, trade, education, gender rights and labor. At Tunis, we plan to take forward one of the critical agendas that came out of the Bangkok meeting - the need for a digital justice manifesto. Drawing from the building blocks that came out of our Bangkok meeting, our RightsCon satellite event, *What do social movements need to do in the age of data? Towards a digital justice manifesto*, will be aimed at further developing key categories and the framework of a Digital Justice Manifesto creating a reframed mandate for social movements from the standpoint of various rights in the digital age, and enrich it through the learnings from a structured inter-movement dialogue. We invite you to be part of this exciting and enriching process. Whether you're from a traditional social movement, a digital rights activist, or simply interested in these issues, we would love to hear from you. Registrations for the event are open now. Sign up and spread the word. *Yes, I am interested in attending!* Sign me up *Hmm, tell me more  ...* This email was sent to forum at justnetcoalition.org /why did I get this?/     unsubscribe from this list     update subscription preferences IT for Change · #393, 17th Main, Jaynagar 4th T block, · Bangalore 560001 · India Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Forum mailing list Forum at justnetcoalition.org http://mail.justnetcoalition.org/listinfo/forum From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Jun 10 11:20:31 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:20:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] HLPDC report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If you wanna follow. Cannot attach the report as it is too heavy :) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Chengetai Masango Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:16:45 +0000 Subject: [IGFmaglist] HLPDC report To: MAG-public Dear All, Please find attached the HLPDC report. The launch event is on going : The High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation will launch its report on Monday 10 June 2019 To mark the occasion, join a live conversation on digital cooperation with: UN Secretary-General António Guterres Melinda Gates Jack Ma Moderated by international broadcast journalist, Femi Oke The live event will begin at 10:45am EST and will be streaming on: UN Web TV: http://webtv.un.org YouTube: http://youtube.com/unitednations Facebook: http://facebook.com/UNWebTV Twitter: http://twitter.com/UNWebTV This global online event is an opportunity to discuss how the public sector, private sector and civil society can work together to realize the potential of digital technologies for advancing human well-being, while mitigating the risks. Communities, organizations and individuals working on issues ranging from digital inclusion, digital rights & security, governance and more are encouraged to tune in and join the online conversation during the webcast. To send in your questions for the UN Secretary-General, Jack Ma and Melinda Gates, post on social media with the hashtag #digitalcooperation, or email contributions at digitalcooperation.org with the subject line "Webcast Question." -- ------------------------ **Arsène Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) GPG: 523644A0 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow < http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member Member. UN IGF MAG Member From governance at lists.riseup.net Sun Jun 2 18:37:09 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (farzaneh badii (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 18:37:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Last Call to sign up to the Christchurch Call collective input Message-ID: If you would like to be an endorsing organization to the collective input on Christchurch call please let me know. The final deadline is Wednesday 5 June, but it might be better to submit a little bit earlier, preferably by Tuesday. Here is the link to the Input https://docs.google.com/document/d/10RadyVQUNu1H5D7x6IJVKbqmaeDeXre0Mk-FFNkIVxs/edit?usp=sharing Best Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Jun 10 11:48:48 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Deirdre Williams (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 11:48:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps In-Reply-To: References: <20190410131012.GA17542@auk.tarvainen.info> <9fd097236d0c42d5a6a54f768bd0b2d8@adcu.columbia.edu> Message-ID: Good luck with the meeting! Looking forward to hearing about it afterwards (I'm assuming that remote participation isn't possible) Best wishes to all De On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 11:37, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > Looking forward to seeing those of you who can make it to our meeting in > Tunis tomorrow. > > If you're attending to come but haven't yet let me know, please drop me a > line if you can. > > Please find the details below: > > *Where:* Room DOUGGA on Tuesday, June 11th from 9am-12:30pm > > *Why/Aims/intended outcome:* > > - > *Agreed next steps for organising a day 0 event * > > > *What/the agenda: * > > *1) Introductions (15 minutes)* > > *2) Context/background: bringing everyone up to speed (15 minutes)* > > *3) Organising a day 0 event: what would we want to get out of it? Why > organise the event? Can we set outcomes? How ambitious do we want to be? > (1-1.5 hours)* > *4) Practicalities of organising the event: steering committee? Agreement > on roles and responsibilities, further outreach, next steps (45 minutes) * > > Do let me know if you have any questions! > > Best > > *Best* > > *Sheetal.* > > > On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 10:24, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Following on from my previous email, we will have our meeting to plan the >> IGF day 0 event on Day 0 of RightsCon. See the details below: >> >> - Room Dougga >> - June 11, *9am-12:30pm * >> - Hôtel LAICO, Ave Mohamed V, Tunis, Tunisia >> >> If you can't make it but will be at RightsCon and would like to be part >> of the discussions, let me know as I we can find time to meet before/after >> the event. I've set up a thread for those who expressed interest in this >> effort so I can add you to that too. >> >> Hope to see many of you soon! >> >> Best >> Sheetal. >> -- >> >> On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 11:30, Sheetal Kumar >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Thank you for your replies. I've also received a few replies off-thread >>> expressing interest in the effort. >>> >>> @Bach - thank you for the kind offer! We've secured a space at the >>> RightsCon venue but that would have been very helpful if not! Will you be >>> at RightsCon? >>> >>> On the way forward: >>> >>> - Please let me know if you are at RightsCon and would like to >>> attend that first meeting as there is limited space but of course we'd like >>> to accommodate everyone who can attend >>> - If you are not at RightsCon and still interested then please do >>> get in touch anyway, as we will be keeping everyone updated and you can >>> input into the meeting agenda (and maybe even the discussions if we have >>> good wifi) >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal. >>> >>> On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 20:19, Bakhtiyor Avezdjanov >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Columbia University has a center in Tunis, and I could inquire if we >>>> could use it for a Day 0 meeting, if it takes place. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please let me know. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Bach Avezdjanov >>>> >>>> Program Officer, Columbia Global Freedom of Expression >>>> >>>> Email: ba2482 at columbia.edu >>>> >>>> Phone: 212 854 1591 >>>> >>>> Twitter: @ColumbiaGFOE >>>> >>>> Columbia Global Freedom of Expression >>>> >>>> >>>> *Subscribe to our Weekly News Letter! >>>> * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: >>>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Lee W McKnight >>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2019 3:07 PM >>>> *To:* Tapani Tarvainen; sivasubramanian muthusamy; Akinremi Peter >>>> Taiwo; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; governance; Sheetal Kumar >>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Follow-on from survey on the >>>> future of Bestbits: next steps >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for this. I agree with the Day 0 meeting idea. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> For me this feels quite deja vu-ish of the (2nd?) IGF in Hyderabad >>>> where the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and the DC on Internet >>>> Principles had a joint meeting to discuss overlaps; we left with a Dynamic >>>> Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles. Which eventually led to the >>>> creation and translation of the Charter on Internet Rights and Principles >>>> among other positive outcomes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So, I am optimistic an IGC-CSCG (sp?) can move forward out of this; ie >>>> among IGC's tasks going forward is to help energize also the cross-CS >>>> coordination right? >>>> >>>> Which has to be done with BestBits 'Get it done' mindset and methods >>>> embedded; vs IGC's at its worst eternal faculty meeting feel (at times to >>>> this prof). >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net < >>>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> on behalf of Sheetal Kumar < >>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> >>>> *Sent:* Monday, May 13, 2019 12:40:53 PM >>>> *To:* Tapani Tarvainen; Sheetal Kumar; sivasubramanian muthusamy; >>>> Akinremi Peter Taiwo; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; governance >>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Follow-on from survey on the >>>> future of Bestbits: next steps >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Following our discussions, and some discussions among some of those of >>>> us who attended the last call four weeks ago (notes & participants here: >>>> https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture), see below what >>>> some of us propose as a hopefully straightforward plan going forward. >>>> >>>> - IGC and Bestbits list members work together to organise a day 0 >>>> event at IGF >>>> - Volunteers from both lists come together in an informal steering >>>> committee to organise the event - you don't have to identify as >>>> 'Bestbits'/IGC necessarily and can agree how to approach the organisation >>>> of the event however they see fit >>>> - Members of other lists are invited to join once an informal >>>> agenda has been put together >>>> - Those who are present at RightsCon and interested in this effort >>>> come together to discuss preliminary ideas - to include the idea of >>>> focusing the day 0 event on reviving IGC (and many others that have already >>>> been proposed) >>>> >>>> Although after all this to-ing and fro-ing it may sound like we've now >>>> decided to just organise a meeting again I hope you will agree that the >>>> discussions had so far, the interest and commitment to global level >>>> coordination, would be usefully served by collectively putting together an >>>> agenda that responds to the interests of those committed to these efforts. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please provide your views on this. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Sheetal. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 17:30, Sheetal Kumar >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for those who joined the call yesterday. Once I have the >>>> recording I'll send it around. In the meantime, you can see a short summary >>>> at the top of the etherpad. Apologies for its staccato nature but it should >>>> provide an overview of what we discussed: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In essence, we discussed the reasons that these discussions about civil >>>> society coordination have recently re-surfaced and those on the call >>>> reiterated the commitment to global-level coordination and the need to work >>>> together in a less fragmented way. We looked at the survey results and >>>> discussed the fact that although about half of the respondents supported >>>> exploring a 'merger' with IGC, around half also thought expanding the >>>> mandate of the CSCG could be an option. However, those on the call >>>> mentioned that the historical standing of the IGC is important to leverage >>>> and there is complementary between Bestbits and IGCs mandates. Therefore, >>>> we shouldn't lose that in whatever we choose to do going forward. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We discussed that proposing something more concrete to the IGC would be >>>> helpful in terms of how a 'merger' could work. We were cognizant of the >>>> limited number of the people on the call, so we agreed to put something >>>> short together and then to share it with you for your feedback before >>>> sharing it with IGC. At the moment, we're working on that simple proposal >>>> to share with you. I'll share it shortly. If anyone else on the call wants >>>> to chime in with more information please do. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If you have any questions, please do let us know! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Sheetal. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 14:10, Tapani Tarvainen < >>>> tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> I couldn't get bluejeans to work for me. I trust someone will >>>> report on the meeting. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Tapani Tarvainen >>>> >>>> On huhti 10 13:11, Sheetal Kumar (sheetal at gp-digital.org) wrote: >>>> >>>> > Dear all, >>>> > >>>> > This is just a quick reminder that we'll be meeting in under an hour >>>> at 1 >>>> > PM UTC (see the link below). >>>> > >>>> > Looking forward to speaking to you then! >>>> > >>>> > Best >>>> > Sheetal. >>>> > >>>> > Meeting room details >>>> > >>>> > *Meeting URL* >>>> > https://bluejeans.com/524189381?src=join_info >>>> > >>>> > Meeting ID >>>> > 524 189 381 >>>> > Want to dial in from a phone? >>>> > >>>> > Dial one of the following numbers: >>>> > +1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose)) >>>> > +1.408.317.9253 (US (Primary, San Jose)) >>>> > (see all numbers - https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers) >>>> > >>>> > Enter the meeting ID and passcode followed by # >>>> > >>>> > Connecting from a room system? >>>> > Dial: bjn.vc or 199.48.152.152 and enter your meeting ID & passcode >>>> > >>>> > On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 at 13:39, Sheetal Kumar >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > Dear all >>>> > > >>>> > > As promised, please find below the details for meeting us on >>>> *Wednesday, >>>> > > April 10 at 1 PM UTC*. I've included the agenda further below too. >>>> > > >>>> > > Looking forward to speaking to you then! >>>> > > >>>> > > Best >>>> > > Sheetal. >>>> > > >>>> > > Meeting room details >>>> > > >>>> > > *Meeting URL* >>>> > > https://bluejeans.com/524189381?src=join_info >>>> > > >>>> > > Meeting ID >>>> > > 524 189 381 >>>> > > Want to dial in from a phone? >>>> > > >>>> > > Dial one of the following numbers: >>>> > > +1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose)) >>>> > > +1.408.317.9253 (US (Primary, San Jose)) >>>> > > (see all numbers - https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers) >>>> > > >>>> > > Enter the meeting ID and passcode followed by # >>>> > > >>>> > > Connecting from a room system? >>>> > > Dial: bjn.vc or 199.48.152.152 and enter your meeting ID & passcode >>>> > > >>>> > > Any civil society stakeholders interested in the discussion around >>>> > > improving coordination are welcome so please share with anyone >>>> relevant. >>>> > > >>>> > > Suggested agenda >>>> > > 1) Grounding: why are we having this discussion/a recap of what's >>>> happened >>>> > > so far >>>> > > 1) Responses to the survey: a discussion >>>> > > 2) Suggestion of concrete ways forward >>>> > > 3) Meeting at RightsCon? >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 at 08:55, sivasubramanian muthusamy < >>>> > > 6.internet at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Dear Akinremi, >>>> > >> >>>> > >> I was wondering if the discussion so far has reached the >>>> participants of >>>> > >> the Governance list, especially the thinking that "discussion about >>>> > >> merging should be limited to each group". If riseup.net is >>>> working, >>>> > >> then I do not have concerns. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Thank you. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Sivasubramanian M < >>>> https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> >>>> > >> twitter.com/shivaindia >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 1:05 PM Akinremi Peter Taiwo < >>>> > >> compsoftnet at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >>> Hi Sivasubramanian, >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> I don't understand what you mean by saying igcaucus.org mailbox >>>> is not >>>> > >>> receiving messages. IGC is currently hosted on riseup.net >>>> mailing-list. >>>> > >>> Please can you help me understand what you are trying to do so as >>>> to be >>>> > >>> able to help. >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> Regards. >>>> > >>> Peter >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 4:12 AM sivasubramanian muthusamy < >>>> > >>> 6.internet at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> I wasn't aware that it was formally decided by the Bestbits list >>>> to >>>> > >>>> discuss this list-wise. Posting a note here on a different >>>> problem. The >>>> > >>>> igcaucus. org mailbox is NOT receiving messages, who is managing >>>> the >>>> > >>>> Governance lists please? >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> Sivasubramanian M < >>>> https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> >>>> > >>>> twitter.com/shivaindia >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 8:03 PM Akinremi Peter Taiwo < >>>> > >>>> compsoftnet at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>>> Hi Sivasubramanian, >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> I think what was agreed was that the survey should be limited to >>>> > >>>>> Bestbit only and that the discussion about merging should be >>>> limited to >>>> > >>>>> each group. This would enable each group to do a kind of an >>>> independent >>>> > >>>>> assessment that would inform the decision of whether the group >>>> should cease >>>> > >>>>> or merge. Also, I could remember that some folks on the IGC >>>> group wants IGC >>>> > >>>>> to remain as it is. >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> @Deirdre Williams I remembered I openly shared some contacts on >>>> the >>>> > >>>>> IGC list back then, which might be the privacy issue you are >>>> referring to. >>>> > >>>>> Aside of that, I don't think I was in the picture of any >>>> privacy issue that >>>> > >>>>> affected the group. Maybe Jeremy could throw more light on this. >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> I could also remembered during the review of CSCG, part of our >>>> > >>>>> discussion was to accommodate regional civil society >>>> organization in the >>>> > >>>>> sphere of IG but the challenge of the individual wearing many >>>> hat remains. >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> Regards. >>>> > >>>>> Peter >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 9:41 PM Sivasubramanian M < >>>> > >>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> With apologies for cross-posting, I see a limited response, >>>> only >>>> > >>>>>> about 8 respondents. >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> Is there a corresponding message on the IGC list? Possibly >>>> the poll >>>> > >>>>>> announcement hasn't reached those who are subscribed only to >>>> the IGC list. >>>> > >>>>>> (or because the title of the message says "future of Bestbits" >>>> rather than >>>> > >>>>>> say "future of IG Civil Society". >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> Sivasubramanian M >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:41 PM Sheetal Kumar < >>>> > >>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> It's been really great to see the level of engagement in these >>>> > >>>>>>> conversations about strengthening civil society coordination, >>>> and I know >>>> > >>>>>>> there's a lot of interest in not losing motivation. The >>>> conversations have >>>> > >>>>>>> been premised on a general interest in changing the current >>>> situation >>>> > >>>>>>> (namely Bestbits being inactive as a coordination network), >>>> and >>>> > >>>>>>> collectively finding ways to strengthen global civil society >>>> coordination >>>> > >>>>>>> on the issues we work on. >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> Hopefully the conversations so far, and the survey which >>>> gathered a >>>> > >>>>>>> broader array of views, have been helpful. I attached a >>>> summary report of >>>> > >>>>>>> the survey in my last email. At the last IGF in Paris there >>>> was discussion >>>> > >>>>>>> of holding a meeting at RightsCon this year. Before we do >>>> that however, it >>>> > >>>>>>> would be good to discuss the responses to the survey and >>>> agree a way >>>> > >>>>>>> forward. >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> I'm including a doodle below, with a suggested agenda. It >>>> would be >>>> > >>>>>>> great if you could fill it out by 29 March so I can confirm >>>> the date and >>>> > >>>>>>> set up a room. >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> https://doodle.com/poll/vyfn2zdxzt8wqzis >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> *Suggested agenda* >>>> > >>>>>>> 1) Responses to the survey: a discussion >>>> > >>>>>>> 2) Suggestion of concrete ways forward >>>> > >>>>>>> 3) Meeting at RightsCon? >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> Looking forward to building on your energy and contributions >>>> so far! >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> Best >>>> > >>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 13:43, Sheetal Kumar < >>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> >>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> Thank you very much to those who completed the survey. I have >>>> > >>>>>>>> attached the anonymised results as a text document, with a >>>> summary included >>>> > >>>>>>>> at the top in case useful. >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> As a next step I would suggest a split call, with the first >>>> half >>>> > >>>>>>>> spent discussing the results and suggesting a way forward >>>> (45 minutes-1 >>>> > >>>>>>>> hour) and the second half, if deemed necessary, with IGC >>>> founders and other >>>> > >>>>>>>> key members of IGC. We could arrange that as a separate call >>>> too. >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> The aim of the calls so far and the survey have been to find >>>> a way >>>> > >>>>>>>> to promote *more* civil society coordination, and thus to >>>> change >>>> > >>>>>>>> the current state of affairs. I hope that they help in >>>> finding a way >>>> > >>>>>>>> forward which does this and in so doing, responds to the >>>> widest possible >>>> > >>>>>>>> range of opinion. Should you have any other suggestions on >>>> how to proceed, >>>> > >>>>>>>> please do chime in! Otherwise, I'll send around a doodle for >>>> a follow up >>>> > >>>>>>>> call. >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks again. >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> Best >>>> > >>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 15:02, Sheetal Kumar < >>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> >>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> We've received a useful number of responses but it would be >>>> great >>>> > >>>>>>>>> to hear from more people about the future of Bestbits. If >>>> you could fill >>>> > >>>>>>>>> out the survey by COB this Friday that would be much >>>> appreciated. >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/ >>>> > >>>>>>>>> < >>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/ >>>> > >>>>>>>>> < >>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> index&sid=528319 >>>> > >>>>>>>>> < >>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'll then likely send out a doodle for another call to >>>> decide next >>>> > >>>>>>>>> steps next week. >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you! >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> Best >>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 11:58, Sheetal Kumar < >>>> > >>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> We've got some great responses to the survey so thank you >>>> to >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> those who have responded already. >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The survey is still open so please do lend your views if >>>> you can, >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> by using the link below. The survey responses will feed >>>> into the next set >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> of discussions on the future of Bestbits. >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/ >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> < >>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/ >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> < >>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> index&sid=528319 >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> < >>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Best >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 09:37, Sheetal Kumar < >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Following a call and discussion on this thread, please >>>> see a >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> survey below to gather your views on the future of >>>> Bestbits. Following a >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> call on February 11 with members of Bestbits, as well as >>>> members of IGC, it >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> was agreed that a survey would be circulated to gather >>>> views of all members. >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The survey is preceded by a background information note >>>> which >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> includes a summary of the discussions so far, and links >>>> to the summaries of >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> calls. >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319&lang=en >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> As a member of the Bestbits mailing list, you are invited >>>> to >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> complete the survey. To inform future discussions in a >>>> timely way, please >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> complete the survey *by 08 March*. Should you have any >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> questions at all, don't hesitate to get in touch. >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to hearing your views! >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 20:08, Sheetal Kumar < >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you to those who participated in the call >>>> yesterday. For >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> those who couldn't attend the call, you'll find the list >>>> of participants >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> and notes here: >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> We had a rich discussion about the possible ways forward >>>> for >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Bestbits, building on the previous conversation in >>>> December and the >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> discussion on this thread since. >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> In essence, there was general agreement that both >>>> Bestbits and >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> IGC have been facing challenges in fulfilling their >>>> objectives, >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> particularly when it comes to coordination and we agreed >>>> to circulate a >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> survey to both lists to gather perspectives on four >>>> suggested ways forward >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> which were discussed on the call. It was suggested that >>>> this survey with >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> the broader communities feed into a decision on the >>>> future of the >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> platforms. The survey will be circulated shortly to both >>>> lists shortly, >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> and your participation would be greatly appreciated. >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 16:47, Sheetal Kumar < >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is just a gentle reminder that the call on next >>>> steps is >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> this coming Monday, 11 February from* 4- 6 PM UTC*. The >>>> full >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> details are included in my previous email and I've >>>> updated the >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> etherpad < >>>> https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with those planning to attend. >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to speaking to you then! >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 10:07, Sheetal Kumar < >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 < >>>> http://worldtimebuddy.com/> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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 < >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> 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 < >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> 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 < >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jeremy at malcolm.id.au> 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| >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *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| >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> *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| >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> *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| >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> -- >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> *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 >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> -- >>>> > >>>>>> Sivasubramanian M >>>> > >>>>>> Please send all replies to 6.Internet at gmail.com >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> --- >>>> > >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> > >>>>>> List help: >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> -- >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> < >>>> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Peter Taiwo Akinremi >>>> > >>>>> about.me/petertaiwoakinremi >>>> > >>>>> < >>>> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> -- >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> < >>>> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb >>>> > >>>> > >>> Peter Taiwo Akinremi >>>> > >>> about.me/petertaiwoakinremi >>>> > >>> < >>>> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb >>>> > >>>> > >>> >>>> > >> >>>> > > >>>> > > -- >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > *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| >>>> >>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>> > 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| >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *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| >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> *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| > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 bachar at igf.td Mon Jun 10 12:00:03 2019 From: bachar at igf.td (Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:00:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] HLPDC report In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Jun 10 12:09:23 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 18:09:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] HLPDC report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Adledjalil, Also, for those who missed the live, here is the link to the recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcB_aIq1OwA Regards, Arsene 2019-06-10 18:00 UTC+02:00, Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong : > Hello ARSENE > > > Thanks for sharing > > Link to download the full report > :https://digitalcooperation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/HLP-DC-Report-Summary.pdf > > > Look at page 24 about IGF PLUS :-) > > THANSK > > ------------------------------- > > Cordialement > > ABDELDJALIL BACHAR BONG > > > ---------------------------------- > PRESIDENT & CEO > > > ASSOCIATION "HOUSE OF AFRICA" > E-mail: bachar at houseof.africa > Twitter: @HOUSEOFINTERNET > WEBSITE : www.houseof.africa > Whatsapp: +23566274284 > Skype: Bongbour > > ------------------------------------- > > Le Secrétaire Exécutif/Executive Secretary > > Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet au Tchad (FGI Tchad) / > Chad Internet Governance Forum > ------------------------------------- > > E-mail: Bachar at igf.td > Website: www.igf.td > Twitter :@IGFCHAD > https://twitter.com/bacharbong > Tél:0023566274284 > N'djaména(Tchad) > > > --------------------------------------------- > |AFRINIC Fellow|ISOC CHAD Member|ICANN/AFRALO Member|NEXTGEN > Fellow|GIVE1PROJECT MEMBER|IGFSA MEMBER|ACIEDD BOARD MEMBER|UN YOUTH > DELEGATE - CHAD 2016-2018|ICANN60 Fellow ||Youth Peacebuilder||| > -- ------------------------ **Arsène Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) GPG: 523644A0 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow < http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member Member. UN IGF MAG Member From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Jun 10 12:43:21 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Capda Capda (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 18:43:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] HLPDC report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Anja and all, Listening to this message from the Secretary General, there is hope for the contribution of digital technology to the transformation of the world. Solutions will have to be found to help promote regional, sub-regional and national NRIs while taking into account the participation of all entities. I very much hope that the United Nations Secretary-General will sensitize our Heads of State for this cause. Once good luck to the IGF secretariat for its dynamism. Le lun. 10 juin 2019 à 18:09, Arsène Tungali a écrit : > Thanks, Adledjalil, > > Also, for those who missed the live, here is the link to the > recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcB_aIq1OwA > > Regards, > Arsene > > 2019-06-10 18:00 UTC+02:00, Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong : > > Hello ARSENE > > > > > > Thanks for sharing > > > > Link to download the full report > > : > https://digitalcooperation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/HLP-DC-Report-Summary.pdf > > > > > > Look at page 24 about IGF PLUS :-) > > > > THANSK > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > Cordialement > > > > ABDELDJALIL BACHAR BONG > > > > > > ---------------------------------- > > PRESIDENT & CEO > > > > > > ASSOCIATION "HOUSE OF AFRICA" > > E-mail: bachar at houseof.africa > > Twitter: @HOUSEOFINTERNET > > WEBSITE : www.houseof.africa > > Whatsapp: +23566274284 > > Skype: Bongbour > > > > ------------------------------------- > > > > Le Secrétaire Exécutif/Executive Secretary > > > > Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet au Tchad (FGI Tchad) / > > Chad Internet Governance Forum > > ------------------------------------- > > > > E-mail: Bachar at igf.td > > Website: www.igf.td > > Twitter :@IGFCHAD > > https://twitter.com/bacharbong > > Tél:0023566274284 > > N'djaména(Tchad) > > > > > > --------------------------------------------- > > |AFRINIC Fellow|ISOC CHAD Member|ICANN/AFRALO Member|NEXTGEN > > Fellow|GIVE1PROJECT MEMBER|IGFSA MEMBER|ACIEDD BOARD MEMBER|UN YOUTH > > DELEGATE - CHAD 2016-2018|ICANN60 Fellow ||Youth Peacebuilder||| > > > > > -- > ------------------------ > **Arsène Tungali* * > Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international > *, > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, > Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) > GPG: 523644A0 > > 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow > < > > http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html > > > > (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member > Member. UN IGF MAG > Member > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- *Michel TCHONANG LINZE* *Coordinateur Général* *ÉVÈNEMENTS SUR LES TIC :* Þ *Sommet africain de l’Internet (AIS) du 09 juin - 21 juin 2019 à Kampala en Ouganda* Þ *ICANN65 du 24 au 27 Juin 2019 à Marrakech au Maroc* Þ *ICANN65 du 24 au 27 Juin 2019 à Marrakech - Maroc* Þ *Symposium TIC Afrique du 09 au 12 juillet 2019 à Yaoundé-Cameroun* Þ *ITU Telecom World du 09 au 12 septembre 2019 à Budapest - Hongrie* Þ *FGI global à Berlin du 25 au 29 Novembre 2019.* *C**APDA (Consortium d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et le Développement de l'Afrique)* *BP : 15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN Tél. : (237) 67775-39-63 / 24212-9493 Email : capdasiege at gmail.com Site : www.capda.ong* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jun 11 02:33:42 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 12:03:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Launch of Bot Populi at RightsCon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear colleagues, You would have received our multiple mailers on this. We write to invite all of you who are joining us for the JNC satellite event today, to also join us at the same venue for the official launch of Bot Populi, an online media space dedicated to thoughtful and meaningful coverage on all things digital. This endeavor is a joint effort of seven global organizations and we are excited to be bringing it to RightsCon. At 1.30 PM the Carthage-2, at Laico we will be showcasing the website and talking more about the process behind it and also about how you can be involved. Please do join us. Regards IT for Change team From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Jun 12 09:14:49 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 13:14:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] PRIDA Questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello there! This is a gentle reminder for those who have not yet responded to this questionnaire, encouraging them to try their best and do so by tomorrow as much as possible. Thank you. Kind regards, ======= Chers collegues et amis, Ce message est juste pour rappeler a ceux qui n'ont pas encore repondu a ce questionnaire de fournir leur meilleur effort (ou de sommer en eux le meilleur de leur bonne volonte) pour le faire d'ici demain autant que possible. Merci encore. Cordialement, Mawaki On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 12:57 PM Mawaki Chango wrote: > > [Version française située plus bas.] > > Dear All, > > I am reaching out to you in reference to the Policy and Regulation > Initiative for Digital Africa, a.k.a the PRIDA Project, launched thanks to > a partnership between the African Union Commission and the European Union > Commission. The overall objective of the Project is to foster universally > accessible, affordable and effective wireless broadband across the > continent to unlock possible future benefits of Internet-based services. > Its specific objectives are a) to facilitate efficient and harmonized > spectrum utilization, b) to harmonize measurable ICT/Telecommunications > policy as well as legal and regulatory frameworks, and c) to strengthen the > ability of African stakeholders to actively participate in the global > Internet governance processes. > > It is in the context of the specific objective c) above that I would like > to invite anyone who has been involved in the IGF processes at the > national, the regional (North, West, Central, East, Southern) and the > continental level in Africa to participate in the related, ongoing study by > responding to the questionnaire at the following link. > > https://forms.gle/w5entdDA33udRrtk7 > > Please read carefully the introductory note of the questionnaire and that > of the section 1. Furthermore, you may consider this exercise more as a > written interview targeting key potential informants than as a survey > properly speaking targeting a sample of a given demography. Some of the > questions allow you to answer from the standpoint of your experience and to > the best of your ability and knowledge. If you find that some questions are > not relevant to your situation, you may skip them. > > I would appreciate receiving your responses by this Tuesday 11 June the > latest. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and for your contribution > to this project. Please do not hesitate to revert back to me should you > have any concern or question about this request. > > Best regards, > > Mawaki > ====== > > > Chers Tous, > > Je vous contacte à propos de l'Initiative de Politique et de > Réglementation pour l'Afrique numérique, connue sous le nom du projet > PRIDA, lancée grâce à un partenariat entre la Commission de l'Union > africaine et la Commission de l'Union européenne. L’objectif général du > projet est de promouvoir le haut débit sans fil accessible à tous, > abordable et efficace sur l’ensemble du continent, afin de tirer parti des > avantages futurs des services Internet. Ses objectifs spécifiques > consistent à (a) faciliter une utilisation efficace et harmonisée du > spectre radio, (b) harmoniser une politique mesurable en matière de TIC / > télécommunications ainsi que les cadres juridiques et réglementaires, et > (c) renforcer la capacité des parties prenantes africaines à participer > activement aux processus mondiaux de gouvernance de l'Internet. . > > C’est dans le contexte de l’objectif spécifique c) ci-dessus que je > souhaiterais inviter tous ceux qui sont impliqués d'une façon ou d'une > autre dans les processus du Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet (FGI) > aux niveaux national, régional (Nord, Ouest, Centre, Est, Sud/Austral) et > continental en Afrique, à participer à l’étude connexe en cours en > répondant au questionnaire en cliquant sur le lien suivant. > > https://forms.gle/CRdaEAGnAqN5sTMv9 > > Veuillez lire attentivement la note d’introduction du questionnaire et > surtout celle de la section 1. En outre, vous pouvez considérer cet > exercice davantage comme un entretien écrit avec de potentiels informateurs > clés plutôt que comme une enquête à proprement parler visant un > échantillonage d'une démographie donnée. Certaines des questions vous > permettent de répondre du point de vue de votre expérience et au mieux de > vos capacités et de vos connaissances. Si vous trouvez que certaines > questions ne concernent pas votre situation, vous pouvez les sauter. > > J'apprecierais recevoir vos réponses au plus tard ce Mardi 11 juin. Merci > d’avance de votre coopération et de votre contribution à ce projet. S'il > vous plaît n'hésitez pas à revenir à moi si vous avez une préoccupation ou > une question à propos de cette requête. > > Cordiales salutations, > > Mawaki > > > ==================================== > Mawaki Chango, PhD > Founder & Managing Director > > DigiLexis Consulting > Skype: digilexis | Slack: @digilexis > Twitter: @digilexis & @ki_chango > Mob. +228 92 14 22 22 | +233 264 070 555 > ==================================== > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Jun 13 04:33:15 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Christian Katzenbach (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 10:33:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?CfP_=22Automating_Communication=22=2C_Keyn?= =?UTF-8?Q?ote_Zuboff_=E2=80=93_DEADLINE_15=2E07=2E?= Message-ID: <01094A41-FC36-4745-9299-090283670EC1@gmail.com> Dear colleagues, the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG) and the Weizenbaum-Institute for the Networked Society are jointly hosting an International Conference: Automating Communication in the Networked Society​: Contexts, Consequences, Critique November 6-8, 2019 in Berlin Keynote by Shoshana Zuboff This is the annual conference of the German Communication Association’s Division “Digital Communication”. The theme speaks to a broad set of issues, including the dynamics of innovation, actors and strategies, digital methods and their critical reflection, and theoretical contributions. Please find the Call for Papers below and at the conference website: https://www.digikomm2019.de Deadline for abstracts submission is July 15, 2019. Don’t hesitate to contact me if you have questions. The keynote by Shoshana Zuboff (Harvard, author of „the age of surveillance capitalism“) is also part of the high-profile lecture series „Making Sense of the Digital Society“ hosted by the HIIG: https://www.hiig.de/en/making-sense-of-the-digital-society/ Best, Christian Katzenbach Senior Researcher, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society, Berlin http://www.hiig.de/staff/christian-katzenbach/ ###### AUTOMATING COMMUNICATION IN THE NETWORKED SOCIETY​: CONTEXTS, CONSEQUENCES, CRITIQUE November 6-8, 2019 in Berlin Keynote by Shoshana Zuboff A defining—yet understudied—feature of digital communication is automation: the production of content, the distribution of information and messages, the curation of media use and the governance of content are all increasingly shaped and influenced by automated processes and automated actors. Algorithms automate the production of content, algorithms operate the selection and filtering of information in news, news feeds and search engines, they attribute relevance and popularity, perform content moderation and fact-checking. Automated actors such as social bots participate both in organizational communication such as customer service and, as a potential force of manipulation, in election campaigns. While communication scholars have focused their attention on algorithms in diverse areas of the field, they can be studied as a means of the broader process of automating social relations and public communication. Because automation takes place in hybrid media systems, automation is not restrained to social media platforms or apps, but also plays a role in journalism and legacy media, as well as in interpersonal communication. Algorithms write simple news articles, rank mostread articles, and shape what journalists find relevant or newsworthy. Networked societies rely on permanent connectedness, all of which takes place in strongly automated, curated environments of data gathering, sharing, liking, commenting: monitoring complex actor-networks, self mass-communication, or organizing protest through connective action. The story of automating communication has two sides: the few who are shaping, designing, programming and implementing algorithms and other technologies, and the many who are using and are impacted by automated communication. In this regard, automation raises questions of power and power relations. Automating core features of democracy such as the assignment of relevance and legitimacy to issues, actors, and specific content, based on data and algorithms controlled and operated by a few private companies, challenges notions of transparency, due process, and legitimacy. What are the regulatory measures to curb this power? And are automation, algorithms, and artificial intelligence really meaningful answers to social problems? Submissions may cover one or several of the following aspects: 1. Theoretical innovations The process and consequences of automating communication challenge theoretical concepts. Are bots actors? Are algorithms institutions? Are software developers communicators? Does automated communication cause dissonance and disrupted public spheres, and how? Are concepts around consonance and deliberation really “out of touch with reality” (Pfetsch & Bennett 2018)? How does automated communication affect media use and media effects? How can we theoretically model automated communication? 2. Dynamics of communication Algorithms are at the core of automation, because automation works through algorithms. But how do they change and challenge the dynamics, the processes, and structuration of communication? How do search engines impact on public communication and information retrieval? How does the curation of news feeds work and how do they affect how media users receive information? What causes and influences the viral distribution of content? How do hate speech and “fake news” travel in networks of social media platforms and legacy media? Do algorithms cause filter bubbles and echo chambers? What is the impact of the increasing automatic detection of content deemed illegitimate (e.g., hate speech, copyright violation, nudity) in social media and comment section? What is the role of datafication for automated and automating communication? 3. Actors and strategies, accountability and governance Automating communication affects and involves a variety of actors: when algorithms produce content, this changes the effort and role of journalists. How do media actors work with algorithmic content production? Are journalists “gaming” the algorithms of platforms, and how? Who creates the tools and affordances that automate communication—and under which conditions? What happens when low-wage employees execute highly automated tasks, partly in order to mimic algorithms and artificial intelligence (“fauxtomation”)? New and (semi-)automated actors such as trolls, connected activist, and social bots alter the strategies of campaigning and the way parties and other organizations plan their activities. Who can be held accountable for automated communication? What are challenges and possible solutions for regulation and media policy? 4. Methods and critical reflection of methods Studying automated communication often involves computational methods and trace data. But qualitative methods such as ethnography, interviews or observations can also help to understand how algorithms are created, platforms are shaped, and actors use or make sense of automated communication. Particularly research focusing on social media platforms faces severe challenges of data access and data management nowadays, dealing with data protection regulation, privacy issues, and proprietary data. Analyses of automated actors, such as bots, rely on black-boxed tools and call for interdisciplinary approaches. We thus also invite submissions with a critical perspective on research methods, revisiting research ethics and quality standards. 5. Open call In addition to topic-specific submissions, there is an open call for current research on digital communication. We also welcome submissions that are not directly related to the conference theme but address pertinent issues of the research field. This must be noted in the submission. Submissions Extended abstracts (4,000 to 5,000 characters, exclusive bibliography and any appendices) can be submitted by 16 June 2019 in electronic form (*.docx, *.rtf or *.odt; not *.pdf) as email attachments to submissions at digikomm2019.de The abstracts must be made anonymous by means of a separate cover page and the removal of all identifying information from the text and document settings. All submissions will be evaluated in a peer review according to the following criteria customary in the German Communication Association: theoretical foundation, relevance of research questions, method/procedure, novelty/originality, clarity and conciseness of presentation. The results of the review process will be announced by mid-August 2019. Organization The conference will take place from November 6-8, 2019 in Berlin. The event is hosted by the Weizenbaum Institute for the Networked Society (FU Berlin) and the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society. More information will be added on the website, such as location, program, and social events: www.digikomm2019.de Hosts and contact German Communication Association, Digital Communication Division Christian Katzenbach, katzenbach at hiig.de Christian Pentzold, christian.pentzold at uni-bremen.de Weizenbaum Institute for the Networked Society/FU Berlin and Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society Ulrike Klinger, ulrike.klinger at fu-berlin.de Christian Katzenbach, katzenbach at hiig.de -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DigiKomm_2019_CfP-ver2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 192725 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- From sheetal at gp-digital.org Thu Jun 13 13:53:25 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 18:53:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") In-Reply-To: References: <20190410131012.GA17542@auk.tarvainen.info> <9fd097236d0c42d5a6a54f768bd0b2d8@adcu.columbia.edu> Message-ID: Dear all, I am writing here on behalf of the thirteen members of IGC and/or Bestbits which met on June 11, day 0 of RightsCon in Tunis to take forward our discussion on how to better coordinate civil society efforts (see agenda & participants at bottom of this email). Please see our proposal below. Following a discussion of the history of coordination efforts from those who had been involved in the early set up of the IGC, and a discussion of what is needed to address challenges to information sharing & coordination, those present agreed that the proposal for combining, or consolidating, efforts should be taken forward (this was one of the four options suggested in a survey to Bestbits members earlier this year - see attached). This discussion also draws on and continues a series of online conversations facilitated by members of IGC and Bestbits, which you can see a summary of here: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture. There was a need identified for more streamlined information sharing and expectation that opportunities to collaborate around common priorities or issues will arise from more structured and streamlined information sharing. It was also agreed that the current IGC Charter could form a basis for a future document but that it should be revisited and a more lightweight and general framework should be developed. Therefore, the group proposes that those interested in civil society coordination efforts related to the original vision of the IGC Charter (see attached), join the IGC and that Bestbits is closed, with an automatic response instituted for those posting on Bestbits, redirecting them to join IGC. Within IGC, following this merger, we propose that those interested form a small drafting group to draft a revised and more lightweight version of the Charter. Those present also agreed to work towards the organisation of a day 0 event before the global IGF this year in Berlin, in concert with German civil society groups. The day 0 event will be dedicated to finalising the revised Charter and sharing updates on relevant global processes (the UN High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation & the UN First Committee processes on cybersecurity). If you have strong concerns or if you oppose the merger proposal as outlined above, please share your perspectives by *05 July*. Should there be no objections, we suggest the process as outlined is implemented after July 05. If you have any questions at all about the process so far, please do get in touch with us. Participants: Leena Romppainen (Effi), Gayatri Khandhadai (APC), Pavitra Ramanujam (APC), Sheetal Kumar (GPD), Anriette Esterhuysen (APC), Milton Mueller (Georgia Tech), Jamila Venturini (Derechos Digitales), Peter Micek (Access Now), Rafik Dammak, Bruna Martins dos Santos (Coding Rights), Nadira Alaraj, Bach Avezdjanov (Columbia Global Freedom of Expression), Arsene Tungali (Rudi International) Agenda followed: 1) Introductions 2) Context/background: bringing everyone up to speed 3) Organising a day 0 event: what would we want to get out of it? Why organise the event? Can we set outcomes? How ambitious do we want to be? 4) Practicalities of organising the event: steering committee? Agreement on roles and responsibilities, further outreach, next steps -- On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 16:36, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > Looking forward to seeing those of you who can make it to our meeting in > Tunis tomorrow. > > If you're attending to come but haven't yet let me know, please drop me a > line if you can. > > Please find the details below: > > *Where:* Room DOUGGA on Tuesday, June 11th from 9am-12:30pm > > *Why/Aims/intended outcome:* > > - > *Agreed next steps for organising a day 0 event * > > > *What/the agenda: * > > *1) Introductions (15 minutes)* > > *2) Context/background: bringing everyone up to speed (15 minutes)* > > *3) Organising a day 0 event: what would we want to get out of it? Why > organise the event? Can we set outcomes? How ambitious do we want to be? > (1-1.5 hours)* > *4) Practicalities of organising the event: steering committee? Agreement > on roles and responsibilities, further outreach, next steps (45 minutes) * > > Do let me know if you have any questions! > > Best > > *Best* > > *Sheetal.* > > > On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 10:24, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Following on from my previous email, we will have our meeting to plan the >> IGF day 0 event on Day 0 of RightsCon. See the details below: >> >> - Room Dougga >> - June 11, *9am-12:30pm * >> - Hôtel LAICO, Ave Mohamed V, Tunis, Tunisia >> >> If you can't make it but will be at RightsCon and would like to be part >> of the discussions, let me know as I we can find time to meet before/after >> the event. I've set up a thread for those who expressed interest in this >> effort so I can add you to that too. >> >> Hope to see many of you soon! >> >> Best >> Sheetal. >> -- >> >> On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 11:30, Sheetal Kumar >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Thank you for your replies. I've also received a few replies off-thread >>> expressing interest in the effort. >>> >>> @Bach - thank you for the kind offer! We've secured a space at the >>> RightsCon venue but that would have been very helpful if not! Will you be >>> at RightsCon? >>> >>> On the way forward: >>> >>> - Please let me know if you are at RightsCon and would like to >>> attend that first meeting as there is limited space but of course we'd like >>> to accommodate everyone who can attend >>> - If you are not at RightsCon and still interested then please do >>> get in touch anyway, as we will be keeping everyone updated and you can >>> input into the meeting agenda (and maybe even the discussions if we have >>> good wifi) >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal. >>> >>> On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 20:19, Bakhtiyor Avezdjanov >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Columbia University has a center in Tunis, and I could inquire if we >>>> could use it for a Day 0 meeting, if it takes place. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please let me know. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Bach Avezdjanov >>>> >>>> Program Officer, Columbia Global Freedom of Expression >>>> >>>> Email: ba2482 at columbia.edu >>>> >>>> Phone: 212 854 1591 >>>> >>>> Twitter: @ColumbiaGFOE >>>> >>>> Columbia Global Freedom of Expression >>>> >>>> >>>> *Subscribe to our Weekly News Letter! >>>> * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: >>>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Lee W McKnight >>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2019 3:07 PM >>>> *To:* Tapani Tarvainen; sivasubramanian muthusamy; Akinremi Peter >>>> Taiwo; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; governance; Sheetal Kumar >>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Follow-on from survey on the >>>> future of Bestbits: next steps >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for this. I agree with the Day 0 meeting idea. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> For me this feels quite deja vu-ish of the (2nd?) IGF in Hyderabad >>>> where the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and the DC on Internet >>>> Principles had a joint meeting to discuss overlaps; we left with a Dynamic >>>> Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles. Which eventually led to the >>>> creation and translation of the Charter on Internet Rights and Principles >>>> among other positive outcomes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So, I am optimistic an IGC-CSCG (sp?) can move forward out of this; ie >>>> among IGC's tasks going forward is to help energize also the cross-CS >>>> coordination right? >>>> >>>> Which has to be done with BestBits 'Get it done' mindset and methods >>>> embedded; vs IGC's at its worst eternal faculty meeting feel (at times to >>>> this prof). >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net < >>>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> on behalf of Sheetal Kumar < >>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> >>>> *Sent:* Monday, May 13, 2019 12:40:53 PM >>>> *To:* Tapani Tarvainen; Sheetal Kumar; sivasubramanian muthusamy; >>>> Akinremi Peter Taiwo; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; governance >>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Follow-on from survey on the >>>> future of Bestbits: next steps >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Following our discussions, and some discussions among some of those of >>>> us who attended the last call four weeks ago (notes & participants here: >>>> https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture), see below what >>>> some of us propose as a hopefully straightforward plan going forward. >>>> >>>> - IGC and Bestbits list members work together to organise a day 0 >>>> event at IGF >>>> - Volunteers from both lists come together in an informal steering >>>> committee to organise the event - you don't have to identify as >>>> 'Bestbits'/IGC necessarily and can agree how to approach the organisation >>>> of the event however they see fit >>>> - Members of other lists are invited to join once an informal >>>> agenda has been put together >>>> - Those who are present at RightsCon and interested in this effort >>>> come together to discuss preliminary ideas - to include the idea of >>>> focusing the day 0 event on reviving IGC (and many others that have already >>>> been proposed) >>>> >>>> Although after all this to-ing and fro-ing it may sound like we've now >>>> decided to just organise a meeting again I hope you will agree that the >>>> discussions had so far, the interest and commitment to global level >>>> coordination, would be usefully served by collectively putting together an >>>> agenda that responds to the interests of those committed to these efforts. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please provide your views on this. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Sheetal. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 17:30, Sheetal Kumar >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for those who joined the call yesterday. Once I have the >>>> recording I'll send it around. In the meantime, you can see a short summary >>>> at the top of the etherpad. Apologies for its staccato nature but it should >>>> provide an overview of what we discussed: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In essence, we discussed the reasons that these discussions about civil >>>> society coordination have recently re-surfaced and those on the call >>>> reiterated the commitment to global-level coordination and the need to work >>>> together in a less fragmented way. We looked at the survey results and >>>> discussed the fact that although about half of the respondents supported >>>> exploring a 'merger' with IGC, around half also thought expanding the >>>> mandate of the CSCG could be an option. However, those on the call >>>> mentioned that the historical standing of the IGC is important to leverage >>>> and there is complementary between Bestbits and IGCs mandates. Therefore, >>>> we shouldn't lose that in whatever we choose to do going forward. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We discussed that proposing something more concrete to the IGC would be >>>> helpful in terms of how a 'merger' could work. We were cognizant of the >>>> limited number of the people on the call, so we agreed to put something >>>> short together and then to share it with you for your feedback before >>>> sharing it with IGC. At the moment, we're working on that simple proposal >>>> to share with you. I'll share it shortly. If anyone else on the call wants >>>> to chime in with more information please do. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If you have any questions, please do let us know! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Sheetal. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 14:10, Tapani Tarvainen < >>>> tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> I couldn't get bluejeans to work for me. I trust someone will >>>> report on the meeting. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Tapani Tarvainen >>>> >>>> On huhti 10 13:11, Sheetal Kumar (sheetal at gp-digital.org) wrote: >>>> >>>> > Dear all, >>>> > >>>> > This is just a quick reminder that we'll be meeting in under an hour >>>> at 1 >>>> > PM UTC (see the link below). >>>> > >>>> > Looking forward to speaking to you then! >>>> > >>>> > Best >>>> > Sheetal. >>>> > >>>> > Meeting room details >>>> > >>>> > *Meeting URL* >>>> > https://bluejeans.com/524189381?src=join_info >>>> > >>>> > Meeting ID >>>> > 524 189 381 >>>> > Want to dial in from a phone? >>>> > >>>> > Dial one of the following numbers: >>>> > +1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose)) >>>> > +1.408.317.9253 (US (Primary, San Jose)) >>>> > (see all numbers - https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers) >>>> > >>>> > Enter the meeting ID and passcode followed by # >>>> > >>>> > Connecting from a room system? >>>> > Dial: bjn.vc or 199.48.152.152 and enter your meeting ID & passcode >>>> > >>>> > On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 at 13:39, Sheetal Kumar >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > Dear all >>>> > > >>>> > > As promised, please find below the details for meeting us on >>>> *Wednesday, >>>> > > April 10 at 1 PM UTC*. I've included the agenda further below too. >>>> > > >>>> > > Looking forward to speaking to you then! >>>> > > >>>> > > Best >>>> > > Sheetal. >>>> > > >>>> > > Meeting room details >>>> > > >>>> > > *Meeting URL* >>>> > > https://bluejeans.com/524189381?src=join_info >>>> > > >>>> > > Meeting ID >>>> > > 524 189 381 >>>> > > Want to dial in from a phone? >>>> > > >>>> > > Dial one of the following numbers: >>>> > > +1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose)) >>>> > > +1.408.317.9253 (US (Primary, San Jose)) >>>> > > (see all numbers - https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers) >>>> > > >>>> > > Enter the meeting ID and passcode followed by # >>>> > > >>>> > > Connecting from a room system? >>>> > > Dial: bjn.vc or 199.48.152.152 and enter your meeting ID & passcode >>>> > > >>>> > > Any civil society stakeholders interested in the discussion around >>>> > > improving coordination are welcome so please share with anyone >>>> relevant. >>>> > > >>>> > > Suggested agenda >>>> > > 1) Grounding: why are we having this discussion/a recap of what's >>>> happened >>>> > > so far >>>> > > 1) Responses to the survey: a discussion >>>> > > 2) Suggestion of concrete ways forward >>>> > > 3) Meeting at RightsCon? >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 at 08:55, sivasubramanian muthusamy < >>>> > > 6.internet at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Dear Akinremi, >>>> > >> >>>> > >> I was wondering if the discussion so far has reached the >>>> participants of >>>> > >> the Governance list, especially the thinking that "discussion about >>>> > >> merging should be limited to each group". If riseup.net is >>>> working, >>>> > >> then I do not have concerns. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Thank you. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Sivasubramanian M < >>>> https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> >>>> > >> twitter.com/shivaindia >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 1:05 PM Akinremi Peter Taiwo < >>>> > >> compsoftnet at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >>> Hi Sivasubramanian, >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> I don't understand what you mean by saying igcaucus.org mailbox >>>> is not >>>> > >>> receiving messages. IGC is currently hosted on riseup.net >>>> mailing-list. >>>> > >>> Please can you help me understand what you are trying to do so as >>>> to be >>>> > >>> able to help. >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> Regards. >>>> > >>> Peter >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 4:12 AM sivasubramanian muthusamy < >>>> > >>> 6.internet at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> I wasn't aware that it was formally decided by the Bestbits list >>>> to >>>> > >>>> discuss this list-wise. Posting a note here on a different >>>> problem. The >>>> > >>>> igcaucus. org mailbox is NOT receiving messages, who is managing >>>> the >>>> > >>>> Governance lists please? >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> Sivasubramanian M < >>>> https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> >>>> > >>>> twitter.com/shivaindia >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 8:03 PM Akinremi Peter Taiwo < >>>> > >>>> compsoftnet at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>>> Hi Sivasubramanian, >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> I think what was agreed was that the survey should be limited to >>>> > >>>>> Bestbit only and that the discussion about merging should be >>>> limited to >>>> > >>>>> each group. This would enable each group to do a kind of an >>>> independent >>>> > >>>>> assessment that would inform the decision of whether the group >>>> should cease >>>> > >>>>> or merge. Also, I could remember that some folks on the IGC >>>> group wants IGC >>>> > >>>>> to remain as it is. >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> @Deirdre Williams I remembered I openly shared some contacts on >>>> the >>>> > >>>>> IGC list back then, which might be the privacy issue you are >>>> referring to. >>>> > >>>>> Aside of that, I don't think I was in the picture of any >>>> privacy issue that >>>> > >>>>> affected the group. Maybe Jeremy could throw more light on this. >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> I could also remembered during the review of CSCG, part of our >>>> > >>>>> discussion was to accommodate regional civil society >>>> organization in the >>>> > >>>>> sphere of IG but the challenge of the individual wearing many >>>> hat remains. >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> Regards. >>>> > >>>>> Peter >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 9:41 PM Sivasubramanian M < >>>> > >>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> With apologies for cross-posting, I see a limited response, >>>> only >>>> > >>>>>> about 8 respondents. >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> Is there a corresponding message on the IGC list? Possibly >>>> the poll >>>> > >>>>>> announcement hasn't reached those who are subscribed only to >>>> the IGC list. >>>> > >>>>>> (or because the title of the message says "future of Bestbits" >>>> rather than >>>> > >>>>>> say "future of IG Civil Society". >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> Sivasubramanian M >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:41 PM Sheetal Kumar < >>>> > >>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> It's been really great to see the level of engagement in these >>>> > >>>>>>> conversations about strengthening civil society coordination, >>>> and I know >>>> > >>>>>>> there's a lot of interest in not losing motivation. The >>>> conversations have >>>> > >>>>>>> been premised on a general interest in changing the current >>>> situation >>>> > >>>>>>> (namely Bestbits being inactive as a coordination network), >>>> and >>>> > >>>>>>> collectively finding ways to strengthen global civil society >>>> coordination >>>> > >>>>>>> on the issues we work on. >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> Hopefully the conversations so far, and the survey which >>>> gathered a >>>> > >>>>>>> broader array of views, have been helpful. I attached a >>>> summary report of >>>> > >>>>>>> the survey in my last email. At the last IGF in Paris there >>>> was discussion >>>> > >>>>>>> of holding a meeting at RightsCon this year. Before we do >>>> that however, it >>>> > >>>>>>> would be good to discuss the responses to the survey and >>>> agree a way >>>> > >>>>>>> forward. >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> I'm including a doodle below, with a suggested agenda. It >>>> would be >>>> > >>>>>>> great if you could fill it out by 29 March so I can confirm >>>> the date and >>>> > >>>>>>> set up a room. >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> https://doodle.com/poll/vyfn2zdxzt8wqzis >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> *Suggested agenda* >>>> > >>>>>>> 1) Responses to the survey: a discussion >>>> > >>>>>>> 2) Suggestion of concrete ways forward >>>> > >>>>>>> 3) Meeting at RightsCon? >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> Looking forward to building on your energy and contributions >>>> so far! >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> Best >>>> > >>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 13:43, Sheetal Kumar < >>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> >>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> Thank you very much to those who completed the survey. I have >>>> > >>>>>>>> attached the anonymised results as a text document, with a >>>> summary included >>>> > >>>>>>>> at the top in case useful. >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> As a next step I would suggest a split call, with the first >>>> half >>>> > >>>>>>>> spent discussing the results and suggesting a way forward >>>> (45 minutes-1 >>>> > >>>>>>>> hour) and the second half, if deemed necessary, with IGC >>>> founders and other >>>> > >>>>>>>> key members of IGC. We could arrange that as a separate call >>>> too. >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> The aim of the calls so far and the survey have been to find >>>> a way >>>> > >>>>>>>> to promote *more* civil society coordination, and thus to >>>> change >>>> > >>>>>>>> the current state of affairs. I hope that they help in >>>> finding a way >>>> > >>>>>>>> forward which does this and in so doing, responds to the >>>> widest possible >>>> > >>>>>>>> range of opinion. Should you have any other suggestions on >>>> how to proceed, >>>> > >>>>>>>> please do chime in! Otherwise, I'll send around a doodle for >>>> a follow up >>>> > >>>>>>>> call. >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks again. >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> Best >>>> > >>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 15:02, Sheetal Kumar < >>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> >>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> We've received a useful number of responses but it would be >>>> great >>>> > >>>>>>>>> to hear from more people about the future of Bestbits. If >>>> you could fill >>>> > >>>>>>>>> out the survey by COB this Friday that would be much >>>> appreciated. >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/ >>>> > >>>>>>>>> < >>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/ >>>> > >>>>>>>>> < >>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> index&sid=528319 >>>> > >>>>>>>>> < >>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'll then likely send out a doodle for another call to >>>> decide next >>>> > >>>>>>>>> steps next week. >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you! >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> Best >>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 11:58, Sheetal Kumar < >>>> > >>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> We've got some great responses to the survey so thank you >>>> to >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> those who have responded already. >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The survey is still open so please do lend your views if >>>> you can, >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> by using the link below. The survey responses will feed >>>> into the next set >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> of discussions on the future of Bestbits. >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/ >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> < >>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/ >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> < >>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> index&sid=528319 >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> < >>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Best >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 09:37, Sheetal Kumar < >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Following a call and discussion on this thread, please >>>> see a >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> survey below to gather your views on the future of >>>> Bestbits. Following a >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> call on February 11 with members of Bestbits, as well as >>>> members of IGC, it >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> was agreed that a survey would be circulated to gather >>>> views of all members. >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The survey is preceded by a background information note >>>> which >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> includes a summary of the discussions so far, and links >>>> to the summaries of >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> calls. >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319&lang=en >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> As a member of the Bestbits mailing list, you are invited >>>> to >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> complete the survey. To inform future discussions in a >>>> timely way, please >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> complete the survey *by 08 March*. Should you have any >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> questions at all, don't hesitate to get in touch. >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to hearing your views! >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 20:08, Sheetal Kumar < >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you to those who participated in the call >>>> yesterday. For >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> those who couldn't attend the call, you'll find the list >>>> of participants >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> and notes here: >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> We had a rich discussion about the possible ways forward >>>> for >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Bestbits, building on the previous conversation in >>>> December and the >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> discussion on this thread since. >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> In essence, there was general agreement that both >>>> Bestbits and >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> IGC have been facing challenges in fulfilling their >>>> objectives, >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> particularly when it comes to coordination and we agreed >>>> to circulate a >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> survey to both lists to gather perspectives on four >>>> suggested ways forward >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> which were discussed on the call. It was suggested that >>>> this survey with >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> the broader communities feed into a decision on the >>>> future of the >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> platforms. The survey will be circulated shortly to both >>>> lists shortly, >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> and your participation would be greatly appreciated. >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 16:47, Sheetal Kumar < >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is just a gentle reminder that the call on next >>>> steps is >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> this coming Monday, 11 February from* 4- 6 PM UTC*. The >>>> full >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> details are included in my previous email and I've >>>> updated the >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> etherpad < >>>> https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with those planning to attend. >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to speaking to you then! >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 10:07, Sheetal Kumar < >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 < >>>> http://worldtimebuddy.com/> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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 < >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> 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 < >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> 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 < >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jeremy at malcolm.id.au> 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| >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *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| >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> *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| >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>>> *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| >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> -- >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> *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 >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> -- >>>> > >>>>>> Sivasubramanian M >>>> > >>>>>> Please send all replies to 6.Internet at gmail.com >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> --- >>>> > >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> > >>>>>> List help: >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> -- >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> < >>>> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Peter Taiwo Akinremi >>>> > >>>>> about.me/petertaiwoakinremi >>>> > >>>>> < >>>> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> -- >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> < >>>> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb >>>> > >>>> > >>> Peter Taiwo Akinremi >>>> > >>> about.me/petertaiwoakinremi >>>> > >>> < >>>> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb >>>> > >>>> > >>> >>>> > >> >>>> > > >>>> > > -- >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > *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| >>>> >>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>> > 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| >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *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| >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> *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| > > -- *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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Summary of Bestbits survey on the future of bestbits.odt Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text Size: 22343 bytes Desc: not available URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Jun 13 14:05:15 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Deirdre Williams (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 14:05:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") In-Reply-To: References: <20190410131012.GA17542@auk.tarvainen.info> <9fd097236d0c42d5a6a54f768bd0b2d8@adcu.columbia.edu> Message-ID: Congratulations!!! Deirdre On Thu, 13 Jun 2019, 13:53 Sheetal Kumar, wrote: > Dear all, > > I am writing here on behalf of the thirteen members of IGC and/or Bestbits > which met on June 11, day 0 of RightsCon in Tunis to take forward our > discussion on how to better coordinate civil society efforts (see agenda & > participants at bottom of this email). Please see our proposal below. > > Following a discussion of the history of coordination efforts from those > who had been involved in the early set up of the IGC, and a discussion of > what is needed to address challenges to information sharing & coordination, > those present agreed that the proposal for combining, or consolidating, > efforts should be taken forward (this was one of the four options suggested > in a survey to Bestbits members earlier this year - see attached). This > discussion also draws on and continues a series of online conversations > facilitated by members of IGC and Bestbits, which you can see a summary of > here: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture. There was a > need identified for more streamlined information sharing and expectation > that opportunities to collaborate around common priorities or issues will > arise from more structured and streamlined information sharing. It was also > agreed that the current IGC Charter could form a basis for a future > document but that it should be revisited and a more lightweight and general > framework should be developed. > > Therefore, the group proposes that those interested in civil society > coordination efforts related to the original vision of the IGC Charter (see > attached), join the IGC and that Bestbits is closed, with an automatic > response instituted for those posting on Bestbits, redirecting them to join > IGC. Within IGC, following this merger, we propose that those interested > form a small drafting group to draft a revised and more lightweight version > of the Charter. Those present also agreed to work towards the organisation > of a day 0 event before the global IGF this year in Berlin, in concert with > German civil society groups. The day 0 event will be dedicated to > finalising the revised Charter and sharing updates on relevant global > processes (the UN High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation & the UN First > Committee processes on cybersecurity). > > If you have strong concerns or if you oppose the merger proposal as > outlined above, please share your perspectives by *05 July*. Should there > be no objections, we suggest the process as outlined is implemented after > July 05. If you have any questions at all about the process so far, please > do get in touch with us. > > Participants: Leena Romppainen (Effi), Gayatri Khandhadai (APC), Pavitra > Ramanujam (APC), Sheetal Kumar (GPD), Anriette Esterhuysen (APC), Milton > Mueller (Georgia Tech), Jamila Venturini (Derechos Digitales), Peter Micek > (Access Now), Rafik Dammak, Bruna Martins dos Santos (Coding Rights), > Nadira Alaraj, Bach Avezdjanov (Columbia Global Freedom of Expression), > Arsene Tungali (Rudi International) > > Agenda followed: > 1) Introductions > 2) Context/background: bringing everyone up to speed > 3) Organising a day 0 event: what would we want to get out of it? Why > organise the event? Can we set outcomes? How ambitious do we want to be? > 4) Practicalities of organising the event: steering committee? Agreement > on roles and responsibilities, further outreach, next steps > > > -- > > > On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 16:36, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Looking forward to seeing those of you who can make it to our meeting in >> Tunis tomorrow. >> >> If you're attending to come but haven't yet let me know, please drop me a >> line if you can. >> >> Please find the details below: >> >> *Where:* Room DOUGGA on Tuesday, June 11th from 9am-12:30pm >> >> *Why/Aims/intended outcome:* >> >> - >> *Agreed next steps for organising a day 0 event * >> >> >> *What/the agenda: * >> >> *1) Introductions (15 minutes)* >> >> *2) Context/background: bringing everyone up to speed (15 minutes)* >> >> *3) Organising a day 0 event: what would we want to get out of it? Why >> organise the event? Can we set outcomes? How ambitious do we want to be? >> (1-1.5 hours)* >> *4) Practicalities of organising the event: steering committee? Agreement >> on roles and responsibilities, further outreach, next steps (45 minutes) * >> >> Do let me know if you have any questions! >> >> Best >> >> *Best* >> >> *Sheetal.* >> >> >> On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 10:24, Sheetal Kumar >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Following on from my previous email, we will have our meeting to plan >>> the IGF day 0 event on Day 0 of RightsCon. See the details below: >>> >>> - Room Dougga >>> - June 11, *9am-12:30pm * >>> - Hôtel LAICO, Ave Mohamed V, Tunis, Tunisia >>> >>> If you can't make it but will be at RightsCon and would like to be part >>> of the discussions, let me know as I we can find time to meet before/after >>> the event. I've set up a thread for those who expressed interest in this >>> effort so I can add you to that too. >>> >>> Hope to see many of you soon! >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal. >>> -- >>> >>> On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 11:30, Sheetal Kumar >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Thank you for your replies. I've also received a few replies off-thread >>>> expressing interest in the effort. >>>> >>>> @Bach - thank you for the kind offer! We've secured a space at the >>>> RightsCon venue but that would have been very helpful if not! Will you be >>>> at RightsCon? >>>> >>>> On the way forward: >>>> >>>> - Please let me know if you are at RightsCon and would like to >>>> attend that first meeting as there is limited space but of course we'd like >>>> to accommodate everyone who can attend >>>> - If you are not at RightsCon and still interested then please do >>>> get in touch anyway, as we will be keeping everyone updated and you can >>>> input into the meeting agenda (and maybe even the discussions if we have >>>> good wifi) >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Sheetal. >>>> >>>> On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 20:19, Bakhtiyor Avezdjanov >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Columbia University has a center in Tunis, and I could inquire if we >>>>> could use it for a Day 0 meeting, if it takes place. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please let me know. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bach Avezdjanov >>>>> >>>>> Program Officer, Columbia Global Freedom of Expression >>>>> >>>>> Email: ba2482 at columbia.edu >>>>> >>>>> Phone: 212 854 1591 >>>>> >>>>> Twitter: @ColumbiaGFOE >>>>> >>>>> Columbia Global Freedom of Expression >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Subscribe to our Weekly News Letter! >>>>> * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: >>>>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Lee W McKnight >>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2019 3:07 PM >>>>> *To:* Tapani Tarvainen; sivasubramanian muthusamy; Akinremi Peter >>>>> Taiwo; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; governance; Sheetal Kumar >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Follow-on from survey on the >>>>> future of Bestbits: next steps >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for this. I agree with the Day 0 meeting idea. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For me this feels quite deja vu-ish of the (2nd?) IGF in Hyderabad >>>>> where the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and the DC on Internet >>>>> Principles had a joint meeting to discuss overlaps; we left with a Dynamic >>>>> Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles. Which eventually led to the >>>>> creation and translation of the Charter on Internet Rights and Principles >>>>> among other positive outcomes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So, I am optimistic an IGC-CSCG (sp?) can move forward out of this; ie >>>>> among IGC's tasks going forward is to help energize also the cross-CS >>>>> coordination right? >>>>> >>>>> Which has to be done with BestBits 'Get it done' mindset and methods >>>>> embedded; vs IGC's at its worst eternal faculty meeting feel (at times to >>>>> this prof). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net < >>>>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> on behalf of Sheetal Kumar < >>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> >>>>> *Sent:* Monday, May 13, 2019 12:40:53 PM >>>>> *To:* Tapani Tarvainen; Sheetal Kumar; sivasubramanian muthusamy; >>>>> Akinremi Peter Taiwo; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; governance >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Follow-on from survey on the >>>>> future of Bestbits: next steps >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear all >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Following our discussions, and some discussions among some of those >>>>> of us who attended the last call four weeks ago (notes & participants >>>>> here: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture), see >>>>> below what some of us propose as a hopefully straightforward plan going >>>>> forward. >>>>> >>>>> - IGC and Bestbits list members work together to organise a day 0 >>>>> event at IGF >>>>> - Volunteers from both lists come together in an informal steering >>>>> committee to organise the event - you don't have to identify as >>>>> 'Bestbits'/IGC necessarily and can agree how to approach the organisation >>>>> of the event however they see fit >>>>> - Members of other lists are invited to join once an informal >>>>> agenda has been put together >>>>> - Those who are present at RightsCon and interested in this effort >>>>> come together to discuss preliminary ideas - to include the idea of >>>>> focusing the day 0 event on reviving IGC (and many others that have already >>>>> been proposed) >>>>> >>>>> Although after all this to-ing and fro-ing it may sound like we've now >>>>> decided to just organise a meeting again I hope you will agree that the >>>>> discussions had so far, the interest and commitment to global level >>>>> coordination, would be usefully served by collectively putting together an >>>>> agenda that responds to the interests of those committed to these efforts. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please provide your views on this. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 17:30, Sheetal Kumar >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for those who joined the call yesterday. Once I have the >>>>> recording I'll send it around. In the meantime, you can see a short summary >>>>> at the top of the etherpad. Apologies for its staccato nature but it should >>>>> provide an overview of what we discussed: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In essence, we discussed the reasons that these discussions about >>>>> civil society coordination have recently re-surfaced and those on the call >>>>> reiterated the commitment to global-level coordination and the need to work >>>>> together in a less fragmented way. We looked at the survey results and >>>>> discussed the fact that although about half of the respondents supported >>>>> exploring a 'merger' with IGC, around half also thought expanding the >>>>> mandate of the CSCG could be an option. However, those on the call >>>>> mentioned that the historical standing of the IGC is important to leverage >>>>> and there is complementary between Bestbits and IGCs mandates. Therefore, >>>>> we shouldn't lose that in whatever we choose to do going forward. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We discussed that proposing something more concrete to the IGC would >>>>> be helpful in terms of how a 'merger' could work. We were cognizant of the >>>>> limited number of the people on the call, so we agreed to put something >>>>> short together and then to share it with you for your feedback before >>>>> sharing it with IGC. At the moment, we're working on that simple proposal >>>>> to share with you. I'll share it shortly. If anyone else on the call wants >>>>> to chime in with more information please do. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you have any questions, please do let us know! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 14:10, Tapani Tarvainen < >>>>> tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I couldn't get bluejeans to work for me. I trust someone will >>>>> report on the meeting. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Tapani Tarvainen >>>>> >>>>> On huhti 10 13:11, Sheetal Kumar (sheetal at gp-digital.org) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Dear all, >>>>> > >>>>> > This is just a quick reminder that we'll be meeting in under an hour >>>>> at 1 >>>>> > PM UTC (see the link below). >>>>> > >>>>> > Looking forward to speaking to you then! >>>>> > >>>>> > Best >>>>> > Sheetal. >>>>> > >>>>> > Meeting room details >>>>> > >>>>> > *Meeting URL* >>>>> > https://bluejeans.com/524189381?src=join_info >>>>> > >>>>> > Meeting ID >>>>> > 524 189 381 >>>>> > Want to dial in from a phone? >>>>> > >>>>> > Dial one of the following numbers: >>>>> > +1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose)) >>>>> > +1.408.317.9253 (US (Primary, San Jose)) >>>>> > (see all numbers - https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers) >>>>> > >>>>> > Enter the meeting ID and passcode followed by # >>>>> > >>>>> > Connecting from a room system? >>>>> > Dial: bjn.vc or 199.48.152.152 and enter your meeting ID & passcode >>>>> > >>>>> > On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 at 13:39, Sheetal Kumar >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > > Dear all >>>>> > > >>>>> > > As promised, please find below the details for meeting us on >>>>> *Wednesday, >>>>> > > April 10 at 1 PM UTC*. I've included the agenda further below too. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Looking forward to speaking to you then! >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Best >>>>> > > Sheetal. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Meeting room details >>>>> > > >>>>> > > *Meeting URL* >>>>> > > https://bluejeans.com/524189381?src=join_info >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Meeting ID >>>>> > > 524 189 381 >>>>> > > Want to dial in from a phone? >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Dial one of the following numbers: >>>>> > > +1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose)) >>>>> > > +1.408.317.9253 (US (Primary, San Jose)) >>>>> > > (see all numbers - https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers) >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Enter the meeting ID and passcode followed by # >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Connecting from a room system? >>>>> > > Dial: bjn.vc or 199.48.152.152 and enter your meeting ID & >>>>> passcode >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Any civil society stakeholders interested in the discussion around >>>>> > > improving coordination are welcome so please share with anyone >>>>> relevant. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Suggested agenda >>>>> > > 1) Grounding: why are we having this discussion/a recap of what's >>>>> happened >>>>> > > so far >>>>> > > 1) Responses to the survey: a discussion >>>>> > > 2) Suggestion of concrete ways forward >>>>> > > 3) Meeting at RightsCon? >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 at 08:55, sivasubramanian muthusamy < >>>>> > > 6.internet at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > > >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> Dear Akinremi, >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> I was wondering if the discussion so far has reached the >>>>> participants of >>>>> > >> the Governance list, especially the thinking that "discussion >>>>> about >>>>> > >> merging should be limited to each group". If riseup.net is >>>>> working, >>>>> > >> then I do not have concerns. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> Thank you. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> Sivasubramanian M < >>>>> https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> >>>>> > >> twitter.com/shivaindia >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 1:05 PM Akinremi Peter Taiwo < >>>>> > >> compsoftnet at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >>> Hi Sivasubramanian, >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> I don't understand what you mean by saying igcaucus.org mailbox >>>>> is not >>>>> > >>> receiving messages. IGC is currently hosted on riseup.net >>>>> mailing-list. >>>>> > >>> Please can you help me understand what you are trying to do so >>>>> as to be >>>>> > >>> able to help. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> Regards. >>>>> > >>> Peter >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 4:12 AM sivasubramanian muthusamy < >>>>> > >>> 6.internet at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> I wasn't aware that it was formally decided by the Bestbits >>>>> list to >>>>> > >>>> discuss this list-wise. Posting a note here on a different >>>>> problem. The >>>>> > >>>> igcaucus. org mailbox is NOT receiving messages, who is >>>>> managing the >>>>> > >>>> Governance lists please? >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> Sivasubramanian M < >>>>> https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> >>>>> > >>>> twitter.com/shivaindia >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 8:03 PM Akinremi Peter Taiwo < >>>>> > >>>> compsoftnet at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Sivasubramanian, >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> I think what was agreed was that the survey should be limited >>>>> to >>>>> > >>>>> Bestbit only and that the discussion about merging should be >>>>> limited to >>>>> > >>>>> each group. This would enable each group to do a kind of an >>>>> independent >>>>> > >>>>> assessment that would inform the decision of whether the group >>>>> should cease >>>>> > >>>>> or merge. Also, I could remember that some folks on the IGC >>>>> group wants IGC >>>>> > >>>>> to remain as it is. >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> @Deirdre Williams I remembered I openly shared some contacts >>>>> on the >>>>> > >>>>> IGC list back then, which might be the privacy issue you are >>>>> referring to. >>>>> > >>>>> Aside of that, I don't think I was in the picture of any >>>>> privacy issue that >>>>> > >>>>> affected the group. Maybe Jeremy could throw more light on >>>>> this. >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> I could also remembered during the review of CSCG, part of our >>>>> > >>>>> discussion was to accommodate regional civil society >>>>> organization in the >>>>> > >>>>> sphere of IG but the challenge of the individual wearing many >>>>> hat remains. >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> Regards. >>>>> > >>>>> Peter >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 9:41 PM Sivasubramanian M < >>>>> > >>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> With apologies for cross-posting, I see a limited response, >>>>> only >>>>> > >>>>>> about 8 respondents. >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> Is there a corresponding message on the IGC list? Possibly >>>>> the poll >>>>> > >>>>>> announcement hasn't reached those who are subscribed only to >>>>> the IGC list. >>>>> > >>>>>> (or because the title of the message says "future of >>>>> Bestbits" rather than >>>>> > >>>>>> say "future of IG Civil Society". >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> Sivasubramanian M >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:41 PM Sheetal Kumar < >>>>> > >>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> It's been really great to see the level of engagement in >>>>> these >>>>> > >>>>>>> conversations about strengthening civil society >>>>> coordination, and I know >>>>> > >>>>>>> there's a lot of interest in not losing motivation. The >>>>> conversations have >>>>> > >>>>>>> been premised on a general interest in changing the current >>>>> situation >>>>> > >>>>>>> (namely Bestbits being inactive as a coordination network), >>>>> and >>>>> > >>>>>>> collectively finding ways to strengthen global civil society >>>>> coordination >>>>> > >>>>>>> on the issues we work on. >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> Hopefully the conversations so far, and the survey which >>>>> gathered a >>>>> > >>>>>>> broader array of views, have been helpful. I attached a >>>>> summary report of >>>>> > >>>>>>> the survey in my last email. At the last IGF in Paris there >>>>> was discussion >>>>> > >>>>>>> of holding a meeting at RightsCon this year. Before we do >>>>> that however, it >>>>> > >>>>>>> would be good to discuss the responses to the survey and >>>>> agree a way >>>>> > >>>>>>> forward. >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm including a doodle below, with a suggested agenda. It >>>>> would be >>>>> > >>>>>>> great if you could fill it out by 29 March so I can confirm >>>>> the date and >>>>> > >>>>>>> set up a room. >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> https://doodle.com/poll/vyfn2zdxzt8wqzis >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> *Suggested agenda* >>>>> > >>>>>>> 1) Responses to the survey: a discussion >>>>> > >>>>>>> 2) Suggestion of concrete ways forward >>>>> > >>>>>>> 3) Meeting at RightsCon? >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> Looking forward to building on your energy and contributions >>>>> so far! >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> Best >>>>> > >>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 13:43, Sheetal Kumar < >>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> >>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thank you very much to those who completed the survey. I >>>>> have >>>>> > >>>>>>>> attached the anonymised results as a text document, with a >>>>> summary included >>>>> > >>>>>>>> at the top in case useful. >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> As a next step I would suggest a split call, with the first >>>>> half >>>>> > >>>>>>>> spent discussing the results and suggesting a way forward >>>>> (45 minutes-1 >>>>> > >>>>>>>> hour) and the second half, if deemed necessary, with IGC >>>>> founders and other >>>>> > >>>>>>>> key members of IGC. We could arrange that as a separate >>>>> call too. >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> The aim of the calls so far and the survey have been to >>>>> find a way >>>>> > >>>>>>>> to promote *more* civil society coordination, and thus to >>>>> change >>>>> > >>>>>>>> the current state of affairs. I hope that they help in >>>>> finding a way >>>>> > >>>>>>>> forward which does this and in so doing, responds to the >>>>> widest possible >>>>> > >>>>>>>> range of opinion. Should you have any other suggestions on >>>>> how to proceed, >>>>> > >>>>>>>> please do chime in! Otherwise, I'll send around a doodle >>>>> for a follow up >>>>> > >>>>>>>> call. >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks again. >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> Best >>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 15:02, Sheetal Kumar < >>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We've received a useful number of responses but it would >>>>> be great >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> to hear from more people about the future of Bestbits. If >>>>> you could fill >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> out the survey by COB this Friday that would be much >>>>> appreciated. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/ >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> < >>>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/ >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> < >>>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> index&sid=528319 >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> < >>>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'll then likely send out a doodle for another call to >>>>> decide next >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> steps next week. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you! >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Best >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 11:58, Sheetal Kumar < >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> We've got some great responses to the survey so thank you >>>>> to >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> those who have responded already. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The survey is still open so please do lend your views if >>>>> you can, >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> by using the link below. The survey responses will feed >>>>> into the next set >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> of discussions on the future of Bestbits. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/ >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> < >>>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/ >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> < >>>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> index&sid=528319 >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> < >>>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 09:37, Sheetal Kumar < >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Following a call and discussion on this thread, please >>>>> see a >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> survey below to gather your views on the future of >>>>> Bestbits. Following a >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> call on February 11 with members of Bestbits, as well as >>>>> members of IGC, it >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> was agreed that a survey would be circulated to gather >>>>> views of all members. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The survey is preceded by a background information note >>>>> which >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> includes a summary of the discussions so far, and links >>>>> to the summaries of >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> calls. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319&lang=en >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> As a member of the Bestbits mailing list, you are >>>>> invited to >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> complete the survey. To inform future discussions in a >>>>> timely way, please >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> complete the survey *by 08 March*. Should you have any >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> questions at all, don't hesitate to get in touch. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to hearing your views! >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 20:08, Sheetal Kumar < >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you to those who participated in the call >>>>> yesterday. For >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> those who couldn't attend the call, you'll find the >>>>> list of participants >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> and notes here: >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> We had a rich discussion about the possible ways >>>>> forward for >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Bestbits, building on the previous conversation in >>>>> December and the >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> discussion on this thread since. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> In essence, there was general agreement that both >>>>> Bestbits and >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> IGC have been facing challenges in fulfilling their >>>>> objectives, >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> particularly when it comes to coordination and we >>>>> agreed to circulate a >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> survey to both lists to gather perspectives on four >>>>> suggested ways forward >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> which were discussed on the call. It was suggested that >>>>> this survey with >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> the broader communities feed into a decision on the >>>>> future of the >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> platforms. The survey will be circulated shortly to >>>>> both lists shortly, >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> and your participation would be greatly appreciated. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 16:47, Sheetal Kumar < >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is just a gentle reminder that the call on next >>>>> steps is >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> this coming Monday, 11 February from* 4- 6 PM UTC*. >>>>> The full >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> details are included in my previous email and I've >>>>> updated the >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> etherpad < >>>>> https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with those planning to attend. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to speaking to you then! >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 10:07, Sheetal Kumar < >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 < >>>>> http://worldtimebuddy.com/> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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 < >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> 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 < >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> 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 < >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jeremy at malcolm.id.au> 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| >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *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| >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> *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| >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> *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| >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> -- >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> *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 >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> -- >>>>> > >>>>>> Sivasubramanian M >>>>> > >>>>>> Please send all replies to 6.Internet at gmail.com >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> --- >>>>> > >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> > >>>>>> List help: >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> -- >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> < >>>>> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Peter Taiwo Akinremi >>>>> > >>>>> about.me/petertaiwoakinremi >>>>> > >>>>> < >>>>> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> -- >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> < >>>>> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> Peter Taiwo Akinremi >>>>> > >>> about.me/petertaiwoakinremi >>>>> > >>> < >>>>> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > > >>>>> > > -- >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > *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| >>>>> >>>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> > 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| >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *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| >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> *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| >> >> > > -- > > > *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 governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Jun 13 21:40:49 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 02:40:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") In-Reply-To: References: <20190410131012.GA17542@auk.tarvainen.info> <9fd097236d0c42d5a6a54f768bd0b2d8@adcu.columbia.edu> Message-ID: The IGC usually takes a poll led by elected co-coordinators to determine consensus. If post discussion and debate, consensusnis reached to merge then by all means. Nobody speaks for the IGC unless there is consensus, if you want to change the Charter, then there is a process to follow. It is meant to protect us. Members of Best Bits are members of the IGC anyway unless they left or unsubscribed. One of the challenges, I have seen is the loss of important IGC data from the old servers. Every organsiation has to evolve, advance but this has to be based on consensus, and papers for and against, proper discussion and debate. From the outset, all I have seen is a presumption where the IGC has been forcibly roped into discussing mergers without the consensus. The co-coordinators have not set a strategic pathway for engagement in key international fora as the IGC in the HLP session although I was to see great geographical representation by some members of the IGC in the.forum in their individual capacity. I would also like to see the IGC working with the World Economic Forum etc and participating in the UN New York meetings, although some members participate in their organisational capacity. It is also significant that UNDESA reviews the global SDG projects and has a monitoring/evaluation/audit type role which it uses to review and report back to the UNGA. On another separate, note, whilst Arden (bless her heart), and others have been royally pissed about making a dent in how global MNCs like Facebook behave in crisis, these are not new issues as they are.similar to historical discussion on the list about Brits imposing a temporary ban over a certain radius of the London bombing just as the Egyptians and others have done during times of national security. The Tech Accord which represents the committment and negotiations between MNCs, Tech Giants and some government reps as was shared by the former French Ambassador on Cyber affairs and others, it is on a transcript at a main session from last year. The most New Zealand can do is impose a law in New Zealand against these giants. Facebook's Mia in NZ who is based in the Sydney officer and global public policy counterparts have alot of work on their hands. One view is that the threat to freedom of expression (which the IGC has always talked about is no respecter of whether you are from the East, West, South, North. The principles are well established in International law and Frank La Rue's report to the UN General Assembly which was endorsed is relevant. On the other hand, threats that Jeremy Malcolm and others have been raising on wordings and semantics on child pornography by a UN Drafting.committee show an example of new and emergent threats. Personally, even if Arden takes it to the UN, the UN is obliged and mandated not to duplicate work that is already done and to this end, the UN Secretary General's foresight in appointing the HLP and launching the report is key as geopolitical tensions are further heightened. I have yet to read the full HLP report, but if it is missing a FoX compoment, then a letter to the Co-Chairs, the UN Secretary General.may the faster non bureaucratic way to get traction. What giants like Facebook would fear is being broken up for regulation! Frankly Macron is hated in France just as Trump is hated in the US for imposing taxes. It would be great for the IGC to host and convene a panel to explore this. I would recommend Bertrand from Internet Jurisdiction to co facilitate and moderate a geographically diverse panel and a representative from the Geneva Internet Platform. I know Bertrand is speaking at a European Court of Human Rights with others. We need to take a step back and reflect as a community how we want to engage. We cannot be reactive and we have to stay ahead of the curve. 2.36am so best be getting back to bed. Cheers, Sala > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sun Jun 2 19:22:30 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (farzaneh badii (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 19:22:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] How to proceed with the Christchurch Call? Message-ID: The NZ government and Prime Minister Ardern were specifically interested in receiving feedback on how to proceed with the Christchurch call and which processes and forums should be used. We already mentioned some venues in our collective input such as the Internet Governance Forum and others. since we have a couple of days to discuss the appropriate processes and perhaps submit a more elaborate process document to the NZ government, I thought it would be good to start a thread here. In my opinion, we need a couple of pre-requisite for the venues that discuss content moderation online. Moreover, we need to discuss pre-requisite about the pledge itself before moving forward with processes through which the pledge can be implemented. I think one off processes or annual meetings that can be selective about topics such as IGF or are by invitation only might not be the best venues. Perhaps we can start by creating a process that possesses certain criteria. We can use the InternetNZ coordination space as the starting point and build on it. [ https://christchurchcallcoord.internetnz.nz] The criteria that come to mind are the following. - A stand-alone process which solely focuses on the Christchurch call and the mandate of the process is defined by the community. - Some aspects of the pledge text are unacceptable to some part of the Internet community. Any process for implementation of the pledge should consider the shortcomings of the text and provide further clarifications on the terms that are used or discuss whether some clauses should be implemented. - Any process used to move the Christchurch call forward should be inclusive of all stakeholders and not be government run only. - There should be direct participation by civil society and other parts of the Internet community in the Christchurch call process and stakeholders should not be consulted with in silos and through parallel processes. - The process should be inclusive hence by invitation only workshops and conferences are not the preferred venues to discuss the Christchurch call. Raising awareness about the call in these venues might be suitable but discussions about the text and its implementation that should be done through a process whereby everyone on an equal footing can participate. These criteria are a starting point and we can elaborate further. If you have any other issue in mind regarding the process lets discuss here. Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Jun 13 22:19:21 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (farzaneh badii (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 22:19:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") In-Reply-To: References: <20190410131012.GA17542@auk.tarvainen.info> <9fd097236d0c42d5a6a54f768bd0b2d8@adcu.columbia.edu> Message-ID: Sala We have been extensively debating this since December 2018. Have held 3 online meetings and one in person meeting. Had a survey, shared with IGC as well. As you say BestBits members are IGC members anyway. This was about merging Bestbits with IGC. coordination to come to this conclusion took place with both IGC and BestBits members. Is there a requirement to take a poll? Polling is actually an imperfect way to gauge consensus. We had to have a discussion about it and alleviate concerns and bring reasons. Which members of IGC and Bestbits( those who were interested and attended the calls and responded to survey) have been doing so. This is a great move for civil society to get its act together and not be fragmented. And the revival of IGC can happen too. Are there provisions in IGC charter about how to agree on starting charter amendments? If so then we can follow. As to your other points, I would not blame the co-coordinators for our own inactivity. Lets set IGC into motion then we can discuss strategy and what we should do. We don't even have a website now! We need to rebuild. On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 9:48 PM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > The IGC usually takes a poll led by elected co-coordinators to determine > consensus. If post discussion and debate, consensusnis reached to merge > then by all means. > > Nobody speaks for the IGC unless there is consensus, if you want to change > the Charter, then there is a process to follow. It is meant to protect us. > Members of Best Bits are members of the IGC anyway unless they left or > unsubscribed. > > One of the challenges, I have seen is the loss of important IGC data from > the old servers. Every organsiation has to evolve, advance but this has to > be based on consensus, and papers for and against, proper discussion and > debate. From the outset, all I have seen is a presumption where the IGC has > been forcibly roped into discussing mergers without the consensus. > > The co-coordinators have not set a strategic pathway for engagement in key > international fora as the IGC in the HLP session although I was to see > great geographical representation by some members of the IGC in the.forum > in their individual capacity. > > I would also like to see the IGC working with the World Economic Forum etc > and participating in the UN New York meetings, although some members > participate in their organisational capacity. It is also significant that > UNDESA reviews the global SDG projects and has a > monitoring/evaluation/audit type role which it uses to review and report > back to the UNGA. > > On another separate, note, whilst Arden (bless her heart), and others have > been royally pissed about making a dent in how global MNCs like Facebook > behave in crisis, these are not new issues as they are.similar to > historical discussion on the list about Brits imposing a temporary ban over > a certain radius of the London bombing just as the Egyptians and others > have done during times of national security. The Tech Accord which > represents the committment and negotiations between MNCs, Tech Giants and > some government reps as was shared by the former French Ambassador on Cyber > affairs and others, it is on a transcript at a main session from last year. > > The most New Zealand can do is impose a law in New Zealand against these > giants. Facebook's Mia in NZ who is based in the Sydney officer and global > public policy counterparts have alot of work on their hands. > > One view is that the threat to freedom of expression (which the IGC has > always talked about is no respecter of whether you are from the East, West, > South, North. The principles are well established in International law and > Frank La Rue's report to the UN General Assembly which was endorsed is > relevant. On the other hand, threats that Jeremy Malcolm and others have > been raising on wordings and semantics on child pornography by a UN > Drafting.committee show an example of new and emergent threats. > > Personally, even if Arden takes it to the UN, the UN is obliged and > mandated not to duplicate work that is already done and to this end, the UN > Secretary General's foresight in appointing the HLP and launching the > report is key as geopolitical tensions are further heightened. I have yet > to read the full HLP report, but if it is missing a FoX compoment, then a > letter to the Co-Chairs, the UN Secretary General.may the faster non > bureaucratic way to get traction. > > What giants like Facebook would fear is being broken up for regulation! > Frankly Macron is hated in France just as Trump is hated in the US for > imposing taxes. > > It would be great for the IGC to host and convene a panel to explore this. > I would recommend Bertrand from Internet Jurisdiction to co facilitate and > moderate a geographically diverse panel and a representative from the > Geneva Internet Platform. I know Bertrand is speaking at a European Court > of Human Rights with others. > > We need to take a step back and reflect as a community how we want to > engage. We cannot be reactive and we have to stay ahead of the curve. > > 2.36am so best be getting back to bed. > > Cheers, > Sala > > > > > >> --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Jun 13 23:26:21 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 04:26:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") In-Reply-To: References: <20190410131012.GA17542@auk.tarvainen.info> <9fd097236d0c42d5a6a54f768bd0b2d8@adcu.columbia.edu> Message-ID: Hey Farzaneh, Hope you are well and in good health. There is a way under the charter to debate with the view of calling a consensus if we have done since inception of the IGC. The co-coordinators lead this process. Merely tossing it on the list and getting a few comments. Also draft texts are placed in any convenient platform (we used to use an etherpad, but something that shows tracked input from the IGC community) where the draft is then put to the IGC for consensus before the IGC position is taken as a statement or into negotiations. Minority views can also be mentioned. The process is only to preserve accountability and collaboration, transparency because of the multifaceted views within the community. When the initial discussions of merger came up last year, I noted that it had Best Bits copied in and raised the same procedural concerns. At the end of the day, speaking as a former IGC co-cordinator, it is respectfully the coordinators who need to coordinate and our role as members is to as you pointed out contribute. Once the IGC has a strategic plan, in place, it can identify organisations who are already doing work in key spaces eg. Dynamic Coalition on Human Rights or organisations. Personally, the Charter is not broken.amd works perfectly, it's just that members need to follow it and if they have tested it, and find needs reviewing and amending then do so. Fixing it to solve the problem will be like taking mongoose to a country that does not have them to eat chickens only to discover, the mongoose are now eating chicken. Personally, I love your energy and we need energy from every member within the community to be productive in an open, collaborative and transparent manner. I also forgot to thank you for keeping us posted on the Christchurch call. Hopefully Keith who lurks on this page is reading this :). Glad that Jordan is leading Internet NZ and hopefully, Arden can place more prominence on their Net Hui (IGF) in NZ. P.S feel free to add me on wattsapp and we can.discuss offline so am not repeating myself on the list.My cell is +447597516694 On Fri, 14 Jun 2019, 3:19 am farzaneh badii, wrote: > Sala > > We have been extensively debating this since December 2018. Have held 3 > online meetings and one in person meeting. Had a survey, shared with IGC as > well. As you say BestBits members are IGC members anyway. This was about > merging Bestbits with IGC. coordination to come to this conclusion took > place with both IGC and BestBits members. > Is there a requirement to take a poll? Polling is actually an imperfect > way to gauge consensus. We had to have a discussion about it and alleviate > concerns and bring reasons. Which members of IGC and Bestbits( those who > were interested and attended the calls and responded to survey) have been > doing so. > > This is a great move for civil society to get its act together and not be > fragmented. And the revival of IGC can happen too. > > Are there provisions in IGC charter about how to agree on starting charter > amendments? If so then we can follow. > > As to your other points, I would not blame the co-coordinators for our own > inactivity. Lets set IGC into motion then we can discuss strategy and what > we should do. We don't even have a website now! We need to rebuild. > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 9:48 PM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > >> The IGC usually takes a poll led by elected co-coordinators to determine >> consensus. If post discussion and debate, consensusnis reached to merge >> then by all means. >> >> Nobody speaks for the IGC unless there is consensus, if you want to >> change the Charter, then there is a process to follow. It is meant to >> protect us. Members of Best Bits are members of the IGC anyway unless they >> left or unsubscribed. >> >> One of the challenges, I have seen is the loss of important IGC data from >> the old servers. Every organsiation has to evolve, advance but this has to >> be based on consensus, and papers for and against, proper discussion and >> debate. From the outset, all I have seen is a presumption where the IGC has >> been forcibly roped into discussing mergers without the consensus. >> >> The co-coordinators have not set a strategic pathway for engagement in >> key international fora as the IGC in the HLP session although I was to see >> great geographical representation by some members of the IGC in the.forum >> in their individual capacity. >> >> I would also like to see the IGC working with the World Economic Forum >> etc and participating in the UN New York meetings, although some members >> participate in their organisational capacity. It is also significant that >> UNDESA reviews the global SDG projects and has a >> monitoring/evaluation/audit type role which it uses to review and report >> back to the UNGA. >> >> On another separate, note, whilst Arden (bless her heart), and others >> have been royally pissed about making a dent in how global MNCs like >> Facebook behave in crisis, these are not new issues as they are.similar to >> historical discussion on the list about Brits imposing a temporary ban over >> a certain radius of the London bombing just as the Egyptians and others >> have done during times of national security. The Tech Accord which >> represents the committment and negotiations between MNCs, Tech Giants and >> some government reps as was shared by the former French Ambassador on Cyber >> affairs and others, it is on a transcript at a main session from last year. >> >> The most New Zealand can do is impose a law in New Zealand against these >> giants. Facebook's Mia in NZ who is based in the Sydney officer and global >> public policy counterparts have alot of work on their hands. >> >> One view is that the threat to freedom of expression (which the IGC has >> always talked about is no respecter of whether you are from the East, West, >> South, North. The principles are well established in International law and >> Frank La Rue's report to the UN General Assembly which was endorsed is >> relevant. On the other hand, threats that Jeremy Malcolm and others have >> been raising on wordings and semantics on child pornography by a UN >> Drafting.committee show an example of new and emergent threats. >> >> Personally, even if Arden takes it to the UN, the UN is obliged and >> mandated not to duplicate work that is already done and to this end, the UN >> Secretary General's foresight in appointing the HLP and launching the >> report is key as geopolitical tensions are further heightened. I have yet >> to read the full HLP report, but if it is missing a FoX compoment, then a >> letter to the Co-Chairs, the UN Secretary General.may the faster non >> bureaucratic way to get traction. >> >> What giants like Facebook would fear is being broken up for regulation! >> Frankly Macron is hated in France just as Trump is hated in the US for >> imposing taxes. >> >> It would be great for the IGC to host and convene a panel to explore >> this. I would recommend Bertrand from Internet Jurisdiction to co >> facilitate and moderate a geographically diverse panel and a representative >> from the Geneva Internet Platform. I know Bertrand is speaking at a >> European Court of Human Rights with others. >> >> We need to take a step back and reflect as a community how we want to >> engage. We cannot be reactive and we have to stay ahead of the curve. >> >> 2.36am so best be getting back to bed. >> >> Cheers, >> Sala >> >> >> >> >> >>> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > -- > Farzaneh > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Fri Jun 14 00:17:03 2019 From: avri at acm.org (avri doria) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 00:17:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") In-Reply-To: References: <20190410131012.GA17542@auk.tarvainen.info> <9fd097236d0c42d5a6a54f768bd0b2d8@adcu.columbia.edu> Message-ID: <3c8f34c1-18ac-8706-1cec-df0cc127347a@acm.org> On 13-Jun-19 21:40, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > One of the challenges, I have seen is the loss of important IGC data > from the old servers. does the info here help at all: https://web.archive.org/web/*/igcaucus.org not sure what yu can find in the archives, but there seems to be a bunch. avri From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Jun 14 00:18:57 2019 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 04:18:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") In-Reply-To: References: <20190410131012.GA17542@auk.tarvainen.info> <9fd097236d0c42d5a6a54f768bd0b2d8@adcu.columbia.edu> Message-ID: No poll needed. Best Bits closes down (their call). Former members join IGC individually. End of story. But fixing the IGC constitution (a later step) is more complex as Sala points out. Ian. ------ Original Message ------ From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" To: "Sheetal Kumar" Cc: "Bakhtiyor Avezdjanov" ; "Lee W McKnight" ; "Tapani Tarvainen" ; "Sivasubramanian M" <6.Internet at gmail.com>; "Akinremi Peter Taiwo" ; "governance" Sent: 14/06/2019 11:40:49 AM Subject: Re: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") >The IGC usually takes a poll led by elected co-coordinators to >determine consensus. If post discussion and debate, consensusnis >reached to merge then by all means. > >Nobody speaks for the IGC unless there is consensus, if you want to >change the Charter, then there is a process to follow. It is meant to >protect us. Members of Best Bits are members of the IGC anyway unless >they left or unsubscribed. > >One of the challenges, I have seen is the loss of important IGC data >from the old servers. Every organsiation has to evolve, advance but >this has to be based on consensus, and papers for and against, proper >discussion and debate. From the outset, all I have seen is a >presumption where the IGC has been forcibly roped into discussing >mergers without the consensus. > >The co-coordinators have not set a strategic pathway for engagement in >key international fora as the IGC in the HLP session although I was to >see great geographical representation by some members of the IGC in >the.forum in their individual capacity. > >I would also like to see the IGC working with the World Economic Forum >etc and participating in the UN New York meetings, although some >members participate in their organisational capacity. It is also >significant that UNDESA reviews the global SDG projects and has a >monitoring/evaluation/audit type role which it uses to review and >report back to the UNGA. > >On another separate, note, whilst Arden (bless her heart), and others >have been royally pissed about making a dent in how global MNCs like >Facebook behave in crisis, these are not new issues as they are.similar >to historical discussion on the list about Brits imposing a temporary >ban over a certain radius of the London bombing just as the Egyptians >and others have done during times of national security. The Tech Accord >which represents the committment and negotiations between MNCs, Tech >Giants and some government reps as was shared by the former French >Ambassador on Cyber affairs and others, it is on a transcript at a main >session from last year. > >The most New Zealand can do is impose a law in New Zealand against >these giants. Facebook's Mia in NZ who is based in the Sydney officer >and global public policy counterparts have alot of work on their hands. > >One view is that the threat to freedom of expression (which the IGC has >always talked about is no respecter of whether you are from the East, >West, South, North. The principles are well established in >International law and Frank La Rue's report to the UN General Assembly >which was endorsed is relevant. On the other hand, threats that Jeremy >Malcolm and others have been raising on wordings and semantics on child >pornography by a UN Drafting.committee show an example of new and >emergent threats. > >Personally, even if Arden takes it to the UN, the UN is obliged and >mandated not to duplicate work that is already done and to this end, >the UN Secretary General's foresight in appointing the HLP and >launching the report is key as geopolitical tensions are further >heightened. I have yet to read the full HLP report, but if it is >missing a FoX compoment, then a letter to the Co-Chairs, the UN >Secretary General.may the faster non bureaucratic way to get traction. > >What giants like Facebook would fear is being broken up for regulation! >Frankly Macron is hated in France just as Trump is hated in the US for >imposing taxes. > >It would be great for the IGC to host and convene a panel to explore >this. I would recommend Bertrand from Internet Jurisdiction to co >facilitate and moderate a geographically diverse panel and a >representative from the Geneva Internet Platform. I know Bertrand is >speaking at a European Court of Human Rights with others. > >We need to take a step back and reflect as a community how we want to >engage. We cannot be reactive and we have to stay ahead of the curve. > >2.36am so best be getting back to bed. > >Cheers, >Sala > > > >>>>>>>> > >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Jun 14 03:42:02 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Carolina Rossini (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 08:42:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") In-Reply-To: References: <20190410131012.GA17542@auk.tarvainen.info> <9fd097236d0c42d5a6a54f768bd0b2d8@adcu.columbia.edu> Message-ID: I disagree with you Ian. A pool is needed among the BB members. There are more than 11. And for the BB folks, and it’s is not only the mailing list. BB site has a lot of good material and statements that should be captured and saved. Sorry I could not make to the meeting. You can only imagine how busy I am. Tks Sheetal for moving this forward with all the delicate and sensitive touch it does deserve. C On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:20 AM ian.peter at ianpeter.com < ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: > No poll needed. Best Bits closes down (their call). Former members join > IGC individually. End of story. > > > But fixing the IGC constitution (a later step) is more complex as Sala > points out. > > Ian. > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > To: "Sheetal Kumar" > Cc: "Bakhtiyor Avezdjanov" ; "Lee W McKnight" < > lmcknigh at syr.edu>; "Tapani Tarvainen" ; > "Sivasubramanian M" <6.Internet at gmail.com>; "Akinremi Peter Taiwo" < > compsoftnet at gmail.com>; "governance" > Sent: 14/06/2019 11:40:49 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging > with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of > Bestbits: next steps") > > The IGC usually takes a poll led by elected co-coordinators to determine > consensus. If post discussion and debate, consensusnis reached to merge > then by all means. > > Nobody speaks for the IGC unless there is consensus, if you want to change > the Charter, then there is a process to follow. It is meant to protect us. > Members of Best Bits are members of the IGC anyway unless they left or > unsubscribed. > > One of the challenges, I have seen is the loss of important IGC data from > the old servers. Every organsiation has to evolve, advance but this has to > be based on consensus, and papers for and against, proper discussion and > debate. From the outset, all I have seen is a presumption where the IGC has > been forcibly roped into discussing mergers without the consensus. > > The co-coordinators have not set a strategic pathway for engagement in key > international fora as the IGC in the HLP session although I was to see > great geographical representation by some members of the IGC in the.forum > in their individual capacity. > > I would also like to see the IGC working with the World Economic Forum etc > and participating in the UN New York meetings, although some members > participate in their organisational capacity. It is also significant that > UNDESA reviews the global SDG projects and has a > monitoring/evaluation/audit type role which it uses to review and report > back to the UNGA. > > On another separate, note, whilst Arden (bless her heart), and others have > been royally pissed about making a dent in how global MNCs like Facebook > behave in crisis, these are not new issues as they are.similar to > historical discussion on the list about Brits imposing a temporary ban over > a certain radius of the London bombing just as the Egyptians and others > have done during times of national security. The Tech Accord which > represents the committment and negotiations between MNCs, Tech Giants and > some government reps as was shared by the former French Ambassador on Cyber > affairs and others, it is on a transcript at a main session from last year. > > The most New Zealand can do is impose a law in New Zealand against these > giants. Facebook's Mia in NZ who is based in the Sydney officer and global > public policy counterparts have alot of work on their hands. > > One view is that the threat to freedom of expression (which the IGC has > always talked about is no respecter of whether you are from the East, West, > South, North. The principles are well established in International law and > Frank La Rue's report to the UN General Assembly which was endorsed is > relevant. On the other hand, threats that Jeremy Malcolm and others have > been raising on wordings and semantics on child pornography by a UN > Drafting.committee show an example of new and emergent threats. > > Personally, even if Arden takes it to the UN, the UN is obliged and > mandated not to duplicate work that is already done and to this end, the UN > Secretary General's foresight in appointing the HLP and launching the > report is key as geopolitical tensions are further heightened. I have yet > to read the full HLP report, but if it is missing a FoX compoment, then a > letter to the Co-Chairs, the UN Secretary General.may the faster non > bureaucratic way to get traction. > > What giants like Facebook would fear is being broken up for regulation! > Frankly Macron is hated in France just as Trump is hated in the US for > imposing taxes. > > It would be great for the IGC to host and convene a panel to explore this. > I would recommend Bertrand from Internet Jurisdiction to co facilitate and > moderate a geographically diverse panel and a representative from the > Geneva Internet Platform. I know Bertrand is speaking at a European Court > of Human Rights with others. > > We need to take a step back and reflect as a community how we want to > engage. We cannot be reactive and we have to stay ahead of the curve. > > 2.36am so best be getting back to bed. > > Cheers, > Sala > > > > > >> --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- *Carolina Rossini * + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini PGP ID: 0xEC81015C -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Jun 14 04:41:45 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (farzaneh badii (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 04:41:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") In-Reply-To: References: <20190410131012.GA17542@auk.tarvainen.info> <9fd097236d0c42d5a6a54f768bd0b2d8@adcu.columbia.edu> Message-ID: @Carolina (Hello!) I don't think anyone here is suggesting that BestBits documents, materials etc will not be preserved. It is only a matter of how we should preserve them when we carry out the merge. (Jeremy has been wanting to transfer the domain name for the past I think around 3 years, no one wants to take over, so we definitely need a plan), we can for example decide on having the materials stored on future IGC website. As to changes to the IGC charter, as Sheetal explained and it is in the proposal, the changes are going to be lightweight but if IGC charter recommends a process for amendment, then we should follow that. I still support forming a small group to look into these issues and let us know how we should proceed. Even if we don't agree to change the charter, we can consider what new features IGC should possess in order to address the needs of its members and those members that are migrating from BestBits and generally more engagement with IG processes. As to the poll among BestBits members, that is something you need to discuss with BestBits. Just a reminder that both groups have been in my opinion briefed and engaged with the conversation. We did not just have a meeting with 11 members. Since December 2018, IGC and BestBits held meetings about this, a survey was taken to see what BestBits members think (the average attendance in those meetings was something like 15 members, Sheetal shared a comprehensive result of the survey). @Sala thank you for your kind words. I believe in collective action and am glad that you found the briefings and reports useful. InternetNZ's help was crucial in making that happen. Christchurch call was one instance when the civil society got together and showed its depth of expertise and knowledge about Internet governance issues. So we definitely can get it together and act collectively. It's just a matter of how, which I am sure we solve if we keep at it and have these conversations. Farzaneh On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 3:42 AM Carolina Rossini < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > I disagree with you Ian. A pool is needed among the BB members. There are > more than 11. > > And for the BB folks, and it’s is not only the mailing list. BB site has a > lot of good material and statements that should be captured and saved. > > Sorry I could not make to the meeting. You can only imagine how busy I am. > > Tks Sheetal for moving this forward with all the delicate and sensitive > touch it does deserve. > > C > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:20 AM ian.peter at ianpeter.com < > ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: > >> No poll needed. Best Bits closes down (their call). Former members join >> IGC individually. End of story. >> >> >> But fixing the IGC constitution (a later step) is more complex as Sala >> points out. >> >> Ian. >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> To: "Sheetal Kumar" >> Cc: "Bakhtiyor Avezdjanov" ; "Lee W McKnight" < >> lmcknigh at syr.edu>; "Tapani Tarvainen" ; >> "Sivasubramanian M" <6.Internet at gmail.com>; "Akinremi Peter Taiwo" < >> compsoftnet at gmail.com>; "governance" >> Sent: 14/06/2019 11:40:49 AM >> Subject: Re: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging >> with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of >> Bestbits: next steps") >> >> The IGC usually takes a poll led by elected co-coordinators to determine >> consensus. If post discussion and debate, consensusnis reached to merge >> then by all means. >> >> Nobody speaks for the IGC unless there is consensus, if you want to >> change the Charter, then there is a process to follow. It is meant to >> protect us. Members of Best Bits are members of the IGC anyway unless they >> left or unsubscribed. >> >> One of the challenges, I have seen is the loss of important IGC data from >> the old servers. Every organsiation has to evolve, advance but this has to >> be based on consensus, and papers for and against, proper discussion and >> debate. From the outset, all I have seen is a presumption where the IGC has >> been forcibly roped into discussing mergers without the consensus. >> >> The co-coordinators have not set a strategic pathway for engagement in >> key international fora as the IGC in the HLP session although I was to see >> great geographical representation by some members of the IGC in the.forum >> in their individual capacity. >> >> I would also like to see the IGC working with the World Economic Forum >> etc and participating in the UN New York meetings, although some members >> participate in their organisational capacity. It is also significant that >> UNDESA reviews the global SDG projects and has a >> monitoring/evaluation/audit type role which it uses to review and report >> back to the UNGA. >> >> On another separate, note, whilst Arden (bless her heart), and others >> have been royally pissed about making a dent in how global MNCs like >> Facebook behave in crisis, these are not new issues as they are.similar to >> historical discussion on the list about Brits imposing a temporary ban over >> a certain radius of the London bombing just as the Egyptians and others >> have done during times of national security. The Tech Accord which >> represents the committment and negotiations between MNCs, Tech Giants and >> some government reps as was shared by the former French Ambassador on Cyber >> affairs and others, it is on a transcript at a main session from last year. >> >> The most New Zealand can do is impose a law in New Zealand against these >> giants. Facebook's Mia in NZ who is based in the Sydney officer and global >> public policy counterparts have alot of work on their hands. >> >> One view is that the threat to freedom of expression (which the IGC has >> always talked about is no respecter of whether you are from the East, West, >> South, North. The principles are well established in International law and >> Frank La Rue's report to the UN General Assembly which was endorsed is >> relevant. On the other hand, threats that Jeremy Malcolm and others have >> been raising on wordings and semantics on child pornography by a UN >> Drafting.committee show an example of new and emergent threats. >> >> Personally, even if Arden takes it to the UN, the UN is obliged and >> mandated not to duplicate work that is already done and to this end, the UN >> Secretary General's foresight in appointing the HLP and launching the >> report is key as geopolitical tensions are further heightened. I have yet >> to read the full HLP report, but if it is missing a FoX compoment, then a >> letter to the Co-Chairs, the UN Secretary General.may the faster non >> bureaucratic way to get traction. >> >> What giants like Facebook would fear is being broken up for regulation! >> Frankly Macron is hated in France just as Trump is hated in the US for >> imposing taxes. >> >> It would be great for the IGC to host and convene a panel to explore >> this. I would recommend Bertrand from Internet Jurisdiction to co >> facilitate and moderate a geographically diverse panel and a representative >> from the Geneva Internet Platform. I know Bertrand is speaking at a >> European Court of Human Rights with others. >> >> We need to take a step back and reflect as a community how we want to >> engage. We cannot be reactive and we have to stay ahead of the curve. >> >> 2.36am so best be getting back to bed. >> >> Cheers, >> Sala >> >> >> >> >> >>> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > -- > > *Carolina Rossini * > + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini > PGP ID: 0xEC81015C > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Jun 14 04:46:28 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Nnenna Nwakanma (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 08:46:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") In-Reply-To: References: <20190410131012.GA17542@auk.tarvainen.info> <9fd097236d0c42d5a6a54f768bd0b2d8@adcu.columbia.edu> Message-ID: Hello people While we may want to weigh a lot of things... my suggestions are: 1. Focus on what is needed to move the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) forward as the platform for CS engagement with current IG issues. 2. While we may want to do a BB consultation/consensus/polling.. I truly believe that people in BB who have followed so far have not majorly raised key counterpoint all through the process. 3. I do not think that reviewing the IGC charter is the most important thing at the moment. We can run with it as it is 4. What might be helpful is to support whatever leadership we have at the moment (IGC, folks who have been leading the merger process, Farzaneh) towards pulling off a good Day 0 event in Berlin 5. SUMMARY: Let us focus on Berlin: make sure people get there/participate remotely, build a good agenda, sort out the logistics, and ensure a quality meeting with measurable results. 6. Between now and then, whatever we can achieve in consolidation will be helpful. Happy to contribute to the measure of my availability. Best Nnenna On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:42 AM Carolina Rossini < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > I disagree with you Ian. A pool is needed among the BB members. There are > more than 11. > > And for the BB folks, and it’s is not only the mailing list. BB site has a > lot of good material and statements that should be captured and saved. > > Sorry I could not make to the meeting. You can only imagine how busy I am. > > Tks Sheetal for moving this forward with all the delicate and sensitive > touch it does deserve. > > C > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:20 AM ian.peter at ianpeter.com < > ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: > >> No poll needed. Best Bits closes down (their call). Former members join >> IGC individually. End of story. >> >> >> But fixing the IGC constitution (a later step) is more complex as Sala >> points out. >> >> Ian. >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> To: "Sheetal Kumar" >> Cc: "Bakhtiyor Avezdjanov" ; "Lee W McKnight" < >> lmcknigh at syr.edu>; "Tapani Tarvainen" ; >> "Sivasubramanian M" <6.Internet at gmail.com>; "Akinremi Peter Taiwo" < >> compsoftnet at gmail.com>; "governance" >> Sent: 14/06/2019 11:40:49 AM >> Subject: Re: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging >> with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of >> Bestbits: next steps") >> >> Tlp: >> >> -- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Fri Jun 14 05:39:23 2019 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 10:39:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] RightsCon Session on Tunis 2005 Message-ID: <4aa7bb40-7400-7da0-d178-bff83e13126c@apc.org> Dear all Anyone who was around during the WSIS, and who is in Tunis at RightsCon, or anyone who is interested in learning more about the process.. about how different Tunis was then, please join us today, Friday, at 12h00 Tunis time. https://rightscon2019.sched.com/event/Q5xl/tunis-1334-from-the-tunis-agenda-to-rightscon-tunis-its-been-a-lifetime-of-internet-governance Anriette -- ----------------------------- Anriette Esterhuysen Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning Association for Progressive Communications apc.org afrisig.org anriette at apc.org From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Jun 14 06:03:38 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Carolina Rossini (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:03:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") In-Reply-To: References: <20190410131012.GA17542@auk.tarvainen.info> <9fd097236d0c42d5a6a54f768bd0b2d8@adcu.columbia.edu> Message-ID: I did not say anybody was suggesting anything. It was just a reminder. Tks On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:42 AM farzaneh badii wrote: > > @Carolina (Hello!) I don't think anyone here is suggesting that BestBits > documents, materials etc will not be preserved. It is only a matter of how > we should preserve them when we carry out the merge. (Jeremy has been > wanting to transfer the domain name for the past I think around 3 years, > no one wants to take over, so we definitely need a plan), we can for > example decide on having the materials stored on future IGC website. > > As to changes to the IGC charter, as Sheetal explained and it is in the > proposal, the changes are going to be lightweight but if IGC charter > recommends a process for amendment, then we should follow that. I still > support forming a small group to look into these issues and let us know how > we should proceed. Even if we don't agree to change the charter, we can > consider what new features IGC should possess in order to address the needs > of its members and those members that are migrating from BestBits and > generally more engagement with IG processes. > > As to the poll among BestBits members, that is something you need to > discuss with BestBits. Just a reminder that both groups have been in my > opinion briefed and engaged with the conversation. We did not just have a > meeting with 11 members. Since December 2018, IGC and BestBits held > meetings about this, a survey was taken to see what BestBits members think > (the average attendance in those meetings was something like 15 members, > Sheetal shared a comprehensive result of the survey). > > @Sala thank you for your kind words. I believe in collective action and am > glad that you found the briefings and reports useful. InternetNZ's help was > crucial in making that happen. > > Christchurch call was one instance when the civil society got together and > showed its depth of expertise and knowledge about Internet governance > issues. So we definitely can get it together and act collectively. It's > just a matter of how, which I am sure we solve if we keep at it and have > these conversations. > > > Farzaneh > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 3:42 AM Carolina Rossini < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > >> I disagree with you Ian. A pool is needed among the BB members. There are >> more than 11. >> >> And for the BB folks, and it’s is not only the mailing list. BB site has >> a lot of good material and statements that should be captured and saved. >> >> Sorry I could not make to the meeting. You can only imagine how busy I am. >> >> Tks Sheetal for moving this forward with all the delicate and sensitive >> touch it does deserve. >> >> C >> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:20 AM ian.peter at ianpeter.com < >> ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: >> >>> No poll needed. Best Bits closes down (their call). Former members join >>> IGC individually. End of story. >>> >>> >>> But fixing the IGC constitution (a later step) is more complex as Sala >>> points out. >>> >>> Ian. >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >>> To: "Sheetal Kumar" >>> Cc: "Bakhtiyor Avezdjanov" ; "Lee W McKnight" < >>> lmcknigh at syr.edu>; "Tapani Tarvainen" ; >>> "Sivasubramanian M" <6.Internet at gmail.com>; "Akinremi Peter Taiwo" < >>> compsoftnet at gmail.com>; "governance" >>> Sent: 14/06/2019 11:40:49 AM >>> Subject: Re: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging >>> with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of >>> Bestbits: next steps") >>> >>> The IGC usually takes a poll led by elected co-coordinators to determine >>> consensus. If post discussion and debate, consensusnis reached to merge >>> then by all means. >>> >>> Nobody speaks for the IGC unless there is consensus, if you want to >>> change the Charter, then there is a process to follow. It is meant to >>> protect us. Members of Best Bits are members of the IGC anyway unless they >>> left or unsubscribed. >>> >>> One of the challenges, I have seen is the loss of important IGC data >>> from the old servers. Every organsiation has to evolve, advance but this >>> has to be based on consensus, and papers for and against, proper discussion >>> and debate. From the outset, all I have seen is a presumption where the IGC >>> has been forcibly roped into discussing mergers without the consensus. >>> >>> The co-coordinators have not set a strategic pathway for engagement in >>> key international fora as the IGC in the HLP session although I was to see >>> great geographical representation by some members of the IGC in the.forum >>> in their individual capacity. >>> >>> I would also like to see the IGC working with the World Economic Forum >>> etc and participating in the UN New York meetings, although some members >>> participate in their organisational capacity. It is also significant that >>> UNDESA reviews the global SDG projects and has a >>> monitoring/evaluation/audit type role which it uses to review and report >>> back to the UNGA. >>> >>> On another separate, note, whilst Arden (bless her heart), and others >>> have been royally pissed about making a dent in how global MNCs like >>> Facebook behave in crisis, these are not new issues as they are.similar to >>> historical discussion on the list about Brits imposing a temporary ban over >>> a certain radius of the London bombing just as the Egyptians and others >>> have done during times of national security. The Tech Accord which >>> represents the committment and negotiations between MNCs, Tech Giants and >>> some government reps as was shared by the former French Ambassador on Cyber >>> affairs and others, it is on a transcript at a main session from last year. >>> >>> The most New Zealand can do is impose a law in New Zealand against these >>> giants. Facebook's Mia in NZ who is based in the Sydney officer and global >>> public policy counterparts have alot of work on their hands. >>> >>> One view is that the threat to freedom of expression (which the IGC has >>> always talked about is no respecter of whether you are from the East, West, >>> South, North. The principles are well established in International law and >>> Frank La Rue's report to the UN General Assembly which was endorsed is >>> relevant. On the other hand, threats that Jeremy Malcolm and others have >>> been raising on wordings and semantics on child pornography by a UN >>> Drafting.committee show an example of new and emergent threats. >>> >>> Personally, even if Arden takes it to the UN, the UN is obliged and >>> mandated not to duplicate work that is already done and to this end, the UN >>> Secretary General's foresight in appointing the HLP and launching the >>> report is key as geopolitical tensions are further heightened. I have yet >>> to read the full HLP report, but if it is missing a FoX compoment, then a >>> letter to the Co-Chairs, the UN Secretary General.may the faster non >>> bureaucratic way to get traction. >>> >>> What giants like Facebook would fear is being broken up for regulation! >>> Frankly Macron is hated in France just as Trump is hated in the US for >>> imposing taxes. >>> >>> It would be great for the IGC to host and convene a panel to explore >>> this. I would recommend Bertrand from Internet Jurisdiction to co >>> facilitate and moderate a geographically diverse panel and a representative >>> from the Geneva Internet Platform. I know Bertrand is speaking at a >>> European Court of Human Rights with others. >>> >>> We need to take a step back and reflect as a community how we want to >>> engage. We cannot be reactive and we have to stay ahead of the curve. >>> >>> 2.36am so best be getting back to bed. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Sala >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> -- >> >> *Carolina Rossini * >> + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini >> PGP ID: 0xEC81015C >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > -- *Carolina Rossini * + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini PGP ID: 0xEC81015C -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Jun 14 09:53:10 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Remmy Nweke (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 14:53:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") In-Reply-To: References: <20190410131012.GA17542@auk.tarvainen.info> <9fd097236d0c42d5a6a54f768bd0b2d8@adcu.columbia.edu> Message-ID: Thanks A better option. Regards Remmy Nweke On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 18:57 Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > I am writing here on behalf of the thirteen members of IGC and/or Bestbits > which met on June 11, day 0 of RightsCon in Tunis to take forward our > discussion on how to better coordinate civil society efforts (see agenda & > participants at bottom of this email). Please see our proposal below. > > Following a discussion of the history of coordination efforts from those > who had been involved in the early set up of the IGC, and a discussion of > what is needed to address challenges to information sharing & coordination, > those present agreed that the proposal for combining, or consolidating, > efforts should be taken forward (this was one of the four options suggested > in a survey to Bestbits members earlier this year - see attached). This > discussion also draws on and continues a series of online conversations > facilitated by members of IGC and Bestbits, which you can see a summary of > here: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture. There was a > need identified for more streamlined information sharing and expectation > that opportunities to collaborate around common priorities or issues will > arise from more structured and streamlined information sharing. It was also > agreed that the current IGC Charter could form a basis for a future > document but that it should be revisited and a more lightweight and general > framework should be developed. > > Therefore, the group proposes that those interested in civil society > coordination efforts related to the original vision of the IGC Charter (see > attached), join the IGC and that Bestbits is closed, with an automatic > response instituted for those posting on Bestbits, redirecting them to join > IGC. Within IGC, following this merger, we propose that those interested > form a small drafting group to draft a revised and more lightweight version > of the Charter. Those present also agreed to work towards the organisation > of a day 0 event before the global IGF this year in Berlin, in concert with > German civil society groups. The day 0 event will be dedicated to > finalising the revised Charter and sharing updates on relevant global > processes (the UN High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation & the UN First > Committee processes on cybersecurity). > > If you have strong concerns or if you oppose the merger proposal as > outlined above, please share your perspectives by *05 July*. Should there > be no objections, we suggest the process as outlined is implemented after > July 05. If you have any questions at all about the process so far, please > do get in touch with us. > > Participants: Leena Romppainen (Effi), Gayatri Khandhadai (APC), Pavitra > Ramanujam (APC), Sheetal Kumar (GPD), Anriette Esterhuysen (APC), Milton > Mueller (Georgia Tech), Jamila Venturini (Derechos Digitales), Peter Micek > (Access Now), Rafik Dammak, Bruna Martins dos Santos (Coding Rights), > Nadira Alaraj, Bach Avezdjanov (Columbia Global Freedom of Expression), > Arsene Tungali (Rudi International) > > Agenda followed: > 1) Introductions > 2) Context/background: bringing everyone up to speed > 3) Organising a day 0 event: what would we want to get out of it? Why > organise the event? Can we set outcomes? How ambitious do we want to be? > 4) Practicalities of organising the event: steering committee? Agreement > on roles and responsibilities, further outreach, next steps > > > -- > > > On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 16:36, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Looking forward to seeing those of you who can make it to our meeting in >> Tunis tomorrow. >> >> If you're attending to come but haven't yet let me know, please drop me a >> line if you can. >> >> Please find the details below: >> >> *Where:* Room DOUGGA on Tuesday, June 11th from 9am-12:30pm >> >> *Why/Aims/intended outcome:* >> >> - >> *Agreed next steps for organising a day 0 event * >> >> >> *What/the agenda: * >> >> *1) Introductions (15 minutes)* >> >> *2) Context/background: bringing everyone up to speed (15 minutes)* >> >> *3) Organising a day 0 event: what would we want to get out of it? Why >> organise the event? Can we set outcomes? How ambitious do we want to be? >> (1-1.5 hours)* >> *4) Practicalities of organising the event: steering committee? Agreement >> on roles and responsibilities, further outreach, next steps (45 minutes) * >> >> Do let me know if you have any questions! >> >> Best >> >> *Best* >> >> *Sheetal.* >> >> >> On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 10:24, Sheetal Kumar >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Following on from my previous email, we will have our meeting to plan >>> the IGF day 0 event on Day 0 of RightsCon. See the details below: >>> >>> - Room Dougga >>> - June 11, *9am-12:30pm * >>> - Hôtel LAICO, Ave Mohamed V, Tunis, Tunisia >>> >>> If you can't make it but will be at RightsCon and would like to be part >>> of the discussions, let me know as I we can find time to meet before/after >>> the event. I've set up a thread for those who expressed interest in this >>> effort so I can add you to that too. >>> >>> Hope to see many of you soon! >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal. >>> -- >>> >>> On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 11:30, Sheetal Kumar >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Thank you for your replies. I've also received a few replies off-thread >>>> expressing interest in the effort. >>>> >>>> @Bach - thank you for the kind offer! We've secured a space at the >>>> RightsCon venue but that would have been very helpful if not! Will you be >>>> at RightsCon? >>>> >>>> On the way forward: >>>> >>>> - Please let me know if you are at RightsCon and would like to >>>> attend that first meeting as there is limited space but of course we'd like >>>> to accommodate everyone who can attend >>>> - If you are not at RightsCon and still interested then please do >>>> get in touch anyway, as we will be keeping everyone updated and you can >>>> input into the meeting agenda (and maybe even the discussions if we have >>>> good wifi) >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Sheetal. >>>> >>>> On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 20:19, Bakhtiyor Avezdjanov >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Columbia University has a center in Tunis, and I could inquire if we >>>>> could use it for a Day 0 meeting, if it takes place. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please let me know. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bach Avezdjanov >>>>> >>>>> Program Officer, Columbia Global Freedom of Expression >>>>> >>>>> Email: ba2482 at columbia.edu >>>>> >>>>> Phone: 212 854 1591 >>>>> >>>>> Twitter: @ColumbiaGFOE >>>>> >>>>> Columbia Global Freedom of Expression >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Subscribe to our Weekly News Letter! >>>>> * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: >>>>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Lee W McKnight >>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2019 3:07 PM >>>>> *To:* Tapani Tarvainen; sivasubramanian muthusamy; Akinremi Peter >>>>> Taiwo; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; governance; Sheetal Kumar >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Follow-on from survey on the >>>>> future of Bestbits: next steps >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for this. I agree with the Day 0 meeting idea. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For me this feels quite deja vu-ish of the (2nd?) IGF in Hyderabad >>>>> where the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and the DC on Internet >>>>> Principles had a joint meeting to discuss overlaps; we left with a Dynamic >>>>> Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles. Which eventually led to the >>>>> creation and translation of the Charter on Internet Rights and Principles >>>>> among other positive outcomes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So, I am optimistic an IGC-CSCG (sp?) can move forward out of this; ie >>>>> among IGC's tasks going forward is to help energize also the cross-CS >>>>> coordination right? >>>>> >>>>> Which has to be done with BestBits 'Get it done' mindset and methods >>>>> embedded; vs IGC's at its worst eternal faculty meeting feel (at times to >>>>> this prof). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net < >>>>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> on behalf of Sheetal Kumar < >>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> >>>>> *Sent:* Monday, May 13, 2019 12:40:53 PM >>>>> *To:* Tapani Tarvainen; Sheetal Kumar; sivasubramanian muthusamy; >>>>> Akinremi Peter Taiwo; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; governance >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Follow-on from survey on the >>>>> future of Bestbits: next steps >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear all >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Following our discussions, and some discussions among some of those >>>>> of us who attended the last call four weeks ago (notes & participants >>>>> here: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture), see >>>>> below what some of us propose as a hopefully straightforward plan going >>>>> forward. >>>>> >>>>> - IGC and Bestbits list members work together to organise a day 0 >>>>> event at IGF >>>>> - Volunteers from both lists come together in an informal steering >>>>> committee to organise the event - you don't have to identify as >>>>> 'Bestbits'/IGC necessarily and can agree how to approach the organisation >>>>> of the event however they see fit >>>>> - Members of other lists are invited to join once an informal >>>>> agenda has been put together >>>>> - Those who are present at RightsCon and interested in this effort >>>>> come together to discuss preliminary ideas - to include the idea of >>>>> focusing the day 0 event on reviving IGC (and many others that have already >>>>> been proposed) >>>>> >>>>> Although after all this to-ing and fro-ing it may sound like we've now >>>>> decided to just organise a meeting again I hope you will agree that the >>>>> discussions had so far, the interest and commitment to global level >>>>> coordination, would be usefully served by collectively putting together an >>>>> agenda that responds to the interests of those committed to these efforts. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please provide your views on this. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 17:30, Sheetal Kumar >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for those who joined the call yesterday. Once I have the >>>>> recording I'll send it around. In the meantime, you can see a short summary >>>>> at the top of the etherpad. Apologies for its staccato nature but it should >>>>> provide an overview of what we discussed: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In essence, we discussed the reasons that these discussions about >>>>> civil society coordination have recently re-surfaced and those on the call >>>>> reiterated the commitment to global-level coordination and the need to work >>>>> together in a less fragmented way. We looked at the survey results and >>>>> discussed the fact that although about half of the respondents supported >>>>> exploring a 'merger' with IGC, around half also thought expanding the >>>>> mandate of the CSCG could be an option. However, those on the call >>>>> mentioned that the historical standing of the IGC is important to leverage >>>>> and there is complementary between Bestbits and IGCs mandates. Therefore, >>>>> we shouldn't lose that in whatever we choose to do going forward. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We discussed that proposing something more concrete to the IGC would >>>>> be helpful in terms of how a 'merger' could work. We were cognizant of the >>>>> limited number of the people on the call, so we agreed to put something >>>>> short together and then to share it with you for your feedback before >>>>> sharing it with IGC. At the moment, we're working on that simple proposal >>>>> to share with you. I'll share it shortly. If anyone else on the call wants >>>>> to chime in with more information please do. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you have any questions, please do let us know! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 14:10, Tapani Tarvainen < >>>>> tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I couldn't get bluejeans to work for me. I trust someone will >>>>> report on the meeting. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Tapani Tarvainen >>>>> >>>>> On huhti 10 13:11, Sheetal Kumar (sheetal at gp-digital.org) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Dear all, >>>>> > >>>>> > This is just a quick reminder that we'll be meeting in under an hour >>>>> at 1 >>>>> > PM UTC (see the link below). >>>>> > >>>>> > Looking forward to speaking to you then! >>>>> > >>>>> > Best >>>>> > Sheetal. >>>>> > >>>>> > Meeting room details >>>>> > >>>>> > *Meeting URL* >>>>> > https://bluejeans.com/524189381?src=join_info >>>>> > >>>>> > Meeting ID >>>>> > 524 189 381 >>>>> > Want to dial in from a phone? >>>>> > >>>>> > Dial one of the following numbers: >>>>> > +1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose)) >>>>> > +1.408.317.9253 (US (Primary, San Jose)) >>>>> > (see all numbers - https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers) >>>>> > >>>>> > Enter the meeting ID and passcode followed by # >>>>> > >>>>> > Connecting from a room system? >>>>> > Dial: bjn.vc or 199.48.152.152 and enter your meeting ID & passcode >>>>> > >>>>> > On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 at 13:39, Sheetal Kumar >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > > Dear all >>>>> > > >>>>> > > As promised, please find below the details for meeting us on >>>>> *Wednesday, >>>>> > > April 10 at 1 PM UTC*. I've included the agenda further below too. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Looking forward to speaking to you then! >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Best >>>>> > > Sheetal. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Meeting room details >>>>> > > >>>>> > > *Meeting URL* >>>>> > > https://bluejeans.com/524189381?src=join_info >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Meeting ID >>>>> > > 524 189 381 >>>>> > > Want to dial in from a phone? >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Dial one of the following numbers: >>>>> > > +1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose)) >>>>> > > +1.408.317.9253 (US (Primary, San Jose)) >>>>> > > (see all numbers - https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers) >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Enter the meeting ID and passcode followed by # >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Connecting from a room system? >>>>> > > Dial: bjn.vc or 199.48.152.152 and enter your meeting ID & >>>>> passcode >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Any civil society stakeholders interested in the discussion around >>>>> > > improving coordination are welcome so please share with anyone >>>>> relevant. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Suggested agenda >>>>> > > 1) Grounding: why are we having this discussion/a recap of what's >>>>> happened >>>>> > > so far >>>>> > > 1) Responses to the survey: a discussion >>>>> > > 2) Suggestion of concrete ways forward >>>>> > > 3) Meeting at RightsCon? >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 at 08:55, sivasubramanian muthusamy < >>>>> > > 6.internet at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > > >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> Dear Akinremi, >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> I was wondering if the discussion so far has reached the >>>>> participants of >>>>> > >> the Governance list, especially the thinking that "discussion >>>>> about >>>>> > >> merging should be limited to each group". If riseup.net is >>>>> working, >>>>> > >> then I do not have concerns. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> Thank you. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> Sivasubramanian M < >>>>> https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> >>>>> > >> twitter.com/shivaindia >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 1:05 PM Akinremi Peter Taiwo < >>>>> > >> compsoftnet at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >>> Hi Sivasubramanian, >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> I don't understand what you mean by saying igcaucus.org mailbox >>>>> is not >>>>> > >>> receiving messages. IGC is currently hosted on riseup.net >>>>> mailing-list. >>>>> > >>> Please can you help me understand what you are trying to do so >>>>> as to be >>>>> > >>> able to help. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> Regards. >>>>> > >>> Peter >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 4:12 AM sivasubramanian muthusamy < >>>>> > >>> 6.internet at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> I wasn't aware that it was formally decided by the Bestbits >>>>> list to >>>>> > >>>> discuss this list-wise. Posting a note here on a different >>>>> problem. The >>>>> > >>>> igcaucus. org mailbox is NOT receiving messages, who is >>>>> managing the >>>>> > >>>> Governance lists please? >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> Sivasubramanian M < >>>>> https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> >>>>> > >>>> twitter.com/shivaindia >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 8:03 PM Akinremi Peter Taiwo < >>>>> > >>>> compsoftnet at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Sivasubramanian, >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> I think what was agreed was that the survey should be limited >>>>> to >>>>> > >>>>> Bestbit only and that the discussion about merging should be >>>>> limited to >>>>> > >>>>> each group. This would enable each group to do a kind of an >>>>> independent >>>>> > >>>>> assessment that would inform the decision of whether the group >>>>> should cease >>>>> > >>>>> or merge. Also, I could remember that some folks on the IGC >>>>> group wants IGC >>>>> > >>>>> to remain as it is. >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> @Deirdre Williams I remembered I openly shared some contacts >>>>> on the >>>>> > >>>>> IGC list back then, which might be the privacy issue you are >>>>> referring to. >>>>> > >>>>> Aside of that, I don't think I was in the picture of any >>>>> privacy issue that >>>>> > >>>>> affected the group. Maybe Jeremy could throw more light on >>>>> this. >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> I could also remembered during the review of CSCG, part of our >>>>> > >>>>> discussion was to accommodate regional civil society >>>>> organization in the >>>>> > >>>>> sphere of IG but the challenge of the individual wearing many >>>>> hat remains. >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> Regards. >>>>> > >>>>> Peter >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 9:41 PM Sivasubramanian M < >>>>> > >>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> With apologies for cross-posting, I see a limited response, >>>>> only >>>>> > >>>>>> about 8 respondents. >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> Is there a corresponding message on the IGC list? Possibly >>>>> the poll >>>>> > >>>>>> announcement hasn't reached those who are subscribed only to >>>>> the IGC list. >>>>> > >>>>>> (or because the title of the message says "future of >>>>> Bestbits" rather than >>>>> > >>>>>> say "future of IG Civil Society". >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> Sivasubramanian M >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:41 PM Sheetal Kumar < >>>>> > >>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> It's been really great to see the level of engagement in >>>>> these >>>>> > >>>>>>> conversations about strengthening civil society >>>>> coordination, and I know >>>>> > >>>>>>> there's a lot of interest in not losing motivation. The >>>>> conversations have >>>>> > >>>>>>> been premised on a general interest in changing the current >>>>> situation >>>>> > >>>>>>> (namely Bestbits being inactive as a coordination network), >>>>> and >>>>> > >>>>>>> collectively finding ways to strengthen global civil society >>>>> coordination >>>>> > >>>>>>> on the issues we work on. >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> Hopefully the conversations so far, and the survey which >>>>> gathered a >>>>> > >>>>>>> broader array of views, have been helpful. I attached a >>>>> summary report of >>>>> > >>>>>>> the survey in my last email. At the last IGF in Paris there >>>>> was discussion >>>>> > >>>>>>> of holding a meeting at RightsCon this year. Before we do >>>>> that however, it >>>>> > >>>>>>> would be good to discuss the responses to the survey and >>>>> agree a way >>>>> > >>>>>>> forward. >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm including a doodle below, with a suggested agenda. It >>>>> would be >>>>> > >>>>>>> great if you could fill it out by 29 March so I can confirm >>>>> the date and >>>>> > >>>>>>> set up a room. >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> https://doodle.com/poll/vyfn2zdxzt8wqzis >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> *Suggested agenda* >>>>> > >>>>>>> 1) Responses to the survey: a discussion >>>>> > >>>>>>> 2) Suggestion of concrete ways forward >>>>> > >>>>>>> 3) Meeting at RightsCon? >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> Looking forward to building on your energy and contributions >>>>> so far! >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> Best >>>>> > >>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 13:43, Sheetal Kumar < >>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> >>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thank you very much to those who completed the survey. I >>>>> have >>>>> > >>>>>>>> attached the anonymised results as a text document, with a >>>>> summary included >>>>> > >>>>>>>> at the top in case useful. >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> As a next step I would suggest a split call, with the first >>>>> half >>>>> > >>>>>>>> spent discussing the results and suggesting a way forward >>>>> (45 minutes-1 >>>>> > >>>>>>>> hour) and the second half, if deemed necessary, with IGC >>>>> founders and other >>>>> > >>>>>>>> key members of IGC. We could arrange that as a separate >>>>> call too. >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> The aim of the calls so far and the survey have been to >>>>> find a way >>>>> > >>>>>>>> to promote *more* civil society coordination, and thus to >>>>> change >>>>> > >>>>>>>> the current state of affairs. I hope that they help in >>>>> finding a way >>>>> > >>>>>>>> forward which does this and in so doing, responds to the >>>>> widest possible >>>>> > >>>>>>>> range of opinion. Should you have any other suggestions on >>>>> how to proceed, >>>>> > >>>>>>>> please do chime in! Otherwise, I'll send around a doodle >>>>> for a follow up >>>>> > >>>>>>>> call. >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks again. >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> Best >>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 15:02, Sheetal Kumar < >>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We've received a useful number of responses but it would >>>>> be great >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> to hear from more people about the future of Bestbits. If >>>>> you could fill >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> out the survey by COB this Friday that would be much >>>>> appreciated. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/ >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> < >>>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/ >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> < >>>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> index&sid=528319 >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> < >>>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'll then likely send out a doodle for another call to >>>>> decide next >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> steps next week. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you! >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Best >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 11:58, Sheetal Kumar < >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> We've got some great responses to the survey so thank you >>>>> to >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> those who have responded already. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The survey is still open so please do lend your views if >>>>> you can, >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> by using the link below. The survey responses will feed >>>>> into the next set >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> of discussions on the future of Bestbits. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/ >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> < >>>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/ >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> < >>>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> index&sid=528319 >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> < >>>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 09:37, Sheetal Kumar < >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Following a call and discussion on this thread, please >>>>> see a >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> survey below to gather your views on the future of >>>>> Bestbits. Following a >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> call on February 11 with members of Bestbits, as well as >>>>> members of IGC, it >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> was agreed that a survey would be circulated to gather >>>>> views of all members. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The survey is preceded by a background information note >>>>> which >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> includes a summary of the discussions so far, and links >>>>> to the summaries of >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> calls. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319&lang=en >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> As a member of the Bestbits mailing list, you are >>>>> invited to >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> complete the survey. To inform future discussions in a >>>>> timely way, please >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> complete the survey *by 08 March*. Should you have any >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> questions at all, don't hesitate to get in touch. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to hearing your views! >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 20:08, Sheetal Kumar < >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you to those who participated in the call >>>>> yesterday. For >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> those who couldn't attend the call, you'll find the >>>>> list of participants >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> and notes here: >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> We had a rich discussion about the possible ways >>>>> forward for >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Bestbits, building on the previous conversation in >>>>> December and the >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> discussion on this thread since. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> In essence, there was general agreement that both >>>>> Bestbits and >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> IGC have been facing challenges in fulfilling their >>>>> objectives, >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> particularly when it comes to coordination and we >>>>> agreed to circulate a >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> survey to both lists to gather perspectives on four >>>>> suggested ways forward >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> which were discussed on the call. It was suggested that >>>>> this survey with >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> the broader communities feed into a decision on the >>>>> future of the >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> platforms. The survey will be circulated shortly to >>>>> both lists shortly, >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> and your participation would be greatly appreciated. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 16:47, Sheetal Kumar < >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is just a gentle reminder that the call on next >>>>> steps is >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> this coming Monday, 11 February from* 4- 6 PM UTC*. >>>>> The full >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> details are included in my previous email and I've >>>>> updated the >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> etherpad < >>>>> https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with those planning to attend. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to speaking to you then! >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 10:07, Sheetal Kumar < >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 < >>>>> http://worldtimebuddy.com/> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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 < >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> 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 < >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> 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 < >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jeremy at malcolm.id.au> 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| >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *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| >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> *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| >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> *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| >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> -- >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>> *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 >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> -- >>>>> > >>>>>> Sivasubramanian M >>>>> > >>>>>> Please send all replies to 6.Internet at gmail.com >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> --- >>>>> > >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> > >>>>>> List help: >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> -- >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> < >>>>> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Peter Taiwo Akinremi >>>>> > >>>>> about.me/petertaiwoakinremi >>>>> > >>>>> < >>>>> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> -- >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> < >>>>> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> Peter Taiwo Akinremi >>>>> > >>> about.me/petertaiwoakinremi >>>>> > >>> < >>>>> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > > >>>>> > > -- >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > *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| >>>>> >>>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> > 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| >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *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| >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> *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| >> >> > > -- > > > *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| > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Jun 5 04:23:43 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 11:23:43 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 to be held in Poland Message-ID: Hi all, It has just been announced at the Open Consultation and MAG meeting today. Regards, Arsene ------------------------ **Arsène Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) GPG: 523644A0 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow < http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member Member. UN IGF MAG Member From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Jun 14 15:39:54 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 07:39:54 +1200 Subject: [governance] RightsCon Session on Tunis 2005 In-Reply-To: <4aa7bb40-7400-7da0-d178-bff83e13126c@apc.org> References: <4aa7bb40-7400-7da0-d178-bff83e13126c@apc.org> Message-ID: Thank you Antiette for the information, will there be streaming? Many thanks, Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Sat Jun 15 05:56:47 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 10:56:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") In-Reply-To: References: <20190410131012.GA17542@auk.tarvainen.info> <9fd097236d0c42d5a6a54f768bd0b2d8@adcu.columbia.edu> Message-ID: Dear all, Without wanting to weigh in on the substantive discussion being had here, I was just wondering if it was a purposeful decision to drop Bestbits in some of these replies. It seems there are two divergent perceptions of the discussion happening. Happy for IGC to have its discussion but at some point, those on Bestbits who are not on IGC will need to be updated as I believe there are some Bestbits members who have only seen one side of the conversation. Otherwise, I'm happy to loop Bestbits back in, and share the conversation that has already happened? Best Sheetal. On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:03, Carolina Rossini wrote: > I did not say anybody was suggesting anything. It was just a reminder. > Tks > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:42 AM farzaneh badii > wrote: > >> >> @Carolina (Hello!) I don't think anyone here is suggesting that BestBits >> documents, materials etc will not be preserved. It is only a matter of how >> we should preserve them when we carry out the merge. (Jeremy has been >> wanting to transfer the domain name for the past I think around 3 years, >> no one wants to take over, so we definitely need a plan), we can for >> example decide on having the materials stored on future IGC website. >> >> As to changes to the IGC charter, as Sheetal explained and it is in the >> proposal, the changes are going to be lightweight but if IGC charter >> recommends a process for amendment, then we should follow that. I still >> support forming a small group to look into these issues and let us know how >> we should proceed. Even if we don't agree to change the charter, we can >> consider what new features IGC should possess in order to address the needs >> of its members and those members that are migrating from BestBits and >> generally more engagement with IG processes. >> >> As to the poll among BestBits members, that is something you need to >> discuss with BestBits. Just a reminder that both groups have been in my >> opinion briefed and engaged with the conversation. We did not just have a >> meeting with 11 members. Since December 2018, IGC and BestBits held >> meetings about this, a survey was taken to see what BestBits members think >> (the average attendance in those meetings was something like 15 members, >> Sheetal shared a comprehensive result of the survey). >> >> @Sala thank you for your kind words. I believe in collective action and >> am glad that you found the briefings and reports useful. InternetNZ's help >> was crucial in making that happen. >> >> Christchurch call was one instance when the civil society got together >> and showed its depth of expertise and knowledge about Internet governance >> issues. So we definitely can get it together and act collectively. It's >> just a matter of how, which I am sure we solve if we keep at it and have >> these conversations. >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 3:42 AM Carolina Rossini < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >> >>> I disagree with you Ian. A pool is needed among the BB members. There >>> are more than 11. >>> >>> And for the BB folks, and it’s is not only the mailing list. BB site has >>> a lot of good material and statements that should be captured and saved. >>> >>> Sorry I could not make to the meeting. You can only imagine how busy I >>> am. >>> >>> Tks Sheetal for moving this forward with all the delicate and sensitive >>> touch it does deserve. >>> >>> C >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:20 AM ian.peter at ianpeter.com < >>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: >>> >>>> No poll needed. Best Bits closes down (their call). Former members join >>>> IGC individually. End of story. >>>> >>>> >>>> But fixing the IGC constitution (a later step) is more complex as Sala >>>> points out. >>>> >>>> Ian. >>>> >>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >>>> To: "Sheetal Kumar" >>>> Cc: "Bakhtiyor Avezdjanov" ; "Lee W McKnight" < >>>> lmcknigh at syr.edu>; "Tapani Tarvainen" ; >>>> "Sivasubramanian M" <6.Internet at gmail.com>; "Akinremi Peter Taiwo" < >>>> compsoftnet at gmail.com>; "governance" >>>> Sent: 14/06/2019 11:40:49 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging >>>> with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of >>>> Bestbits: next steps") >>>> >>>> The IGC usually takes a poll led by elected co-coordinators to >>>> determine consensus. If post discussion and debate, consensusnis reached to >>>> merge then by all means. >>>> >>>> Nobody speaks for the IGC unless there is consensus, if you want to >>>> change the Charter, then there is a process to follow. It is meant to >>>> protect us. Members of Best Bits are members of the IGC anyway unless they >>>> left or unsubscribed. >>>> >>>> One of the challenges, I have seen is the loss of important IGC data >>>> from the old servers. Every organsiation has to evolve, advance but this >>>> has to be based on consensus, and papers for and against, proper discussion >>>> and debate. From the outset, all I have seen is a presumption where the IGC >>>> has been forcibly roped into discussing mergers without the consensus. >>>> >>>> The co-coordinators have not set a strategic pathway for engagement in >>>> key international fora as the IGC in the HLP session although I was to see >>>> great geographical representation by some members of the IGC in the.forum >>>> in their individual capacity. >>>> >>>> I would also like to see the IGC working with the World Economic Forum >>>> etc and participating in the UN New York meetings, although some members >>>> participate in their organisational capacity. It is also significant that >>>> UNDESA reviews the global SDG projects and has a >>>> monitoring/evaluation/audit type role which it uses to review and report >>>> back to the UNGA. >>>> >>>> On another separate, note, whilst Arden (bless her heart), and others >>>> have been royally pissed about making a dent in how global MNCs like >>>> Facebook behave in crisis, these are not new issues as they are.similar to >>>> historical discussion on the list about Brits imposing a temporary ban over >>>> a certain radius of the London bombing just as the Egyptians and others >>>> have done during times of national security. The Tech Accord which >>>> represents the committment and negotiations between MNCs, Tech Giants and >>>> some government reps as was shared by the former French Ambassador on Cyber >>>> affairs and others, it is on a transcript at a main session from last year. >>>> >>>> The most New Zealand can do is impose a law in New Zealand against >>>> these giants. Facebook's Mia in NZ who is based in the Sydney officer and >>>> global public policy counterparts have alot of work on their hands. >>>> >>>> One view is that the threat to freedom of expression (which the IGC has >>>> always talked about is no respecter of whether you are from the East, West, >>>> South, North. The principles are well established in International law and >>>> Frank La Rue's report to the UN General Assembly which was endorsed is >>>> relevant. On the other hand, threats that Jeremy Malcolm and others have >>>> been raising on wordings and semantics on child pornography by a UN >>>> Drafting.committee show an example of new and emergent threats. >>>> >>>> Personally, even if Arden takes it to the UN, the UN is obliged and >>>> mandated not to duplicate work that is already done and to this end, the UN >>>> Secretary General's foresight in appointing the HLP and launching the >>>> report is key as geopolitical tensions are further heightened. I have yet >>>> to read the full HLP report, but if it is missing a FoX compoment, then a >>>> letter to the Co-Chairs, the UN Secretary General.may the faster non >>>> bureaucratic way to get traction. >>>> >>>> What giants like Facebook would fear is being broken up for regulation! >>>> Frankly Macron is hated in France just as Trump is hated in the US for >>>> imposing taxes. >>>> >>>> It would be great for the IGC to host and convene a panel to explore >>>> this. I would recommend Bertrand from Internet Jurisdiction to co >>>> facilitate and moderate a geographically diverse panel and a representative >>>> from the Geneva Internet Platform. I know Bertrand is speaking at a >>>> European Court of Human Rights with others. >>>> >>>> We need to take a step back and reflect as a community how we want to >>>> engage. We cannot be reactive and we have to stay ahead of the curve. >>>> >>>> 2.36am so best be getting back to bed. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Carolina Rossini * >>> + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini >>> PGP ID: 0xEC81015C >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> -- > > *Carolina Rossini * > + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini > PGP ID: 0xEC81015C > -- *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 joly at punkcast.com Sun Jun 16 07:32:24 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 07:32:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: GFCE Triple-I Capacity Building Day @AIS2019 Message-ID: Kampala being UTC +3 the afternoon session of this has just started with a session on anti-abuse. Open Standards and DDOS were covered in the morning. IoT is yet to come in the afternoon. [image: livestream] On *Sunday 16 June 2019*, *GFCE Triple-I * will work with *AfricaCERT *, *AfriNIC *, *AfNOG *, *WACREN *, *ICANN * and the *Internet Society *, to host the* Internet Infrastructure Security Day * at the *Africa Internet Summit 2019 * in Kampala, Uganda. Participants across regional Internet stakeholder groups, including government, business, education, and technical community will join this workshop in order to improve the trusted Internet experience in the region. The event will be webcast live on the *Internet Society Livestream Channel *. *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/gfce/ * *PROGRAM: https://triple-i-workshop-ais2019.gfce-events.com/page/572959 * *TWITTER: #GFCE #AIS2019 http://bit.ly/gfceais2019 * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11146/ - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Mon Jun 17 17:08:25 2019 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 21:08:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") In-Reply-To: References: <20190410131012.GA17542@auk.tarvainen.info> <9fd097236d0c42d5a6a54f768bd0b2d8@adcu.columbia.edu> Message-ID: Really good point, Sheetal. But it is actually a substantive one. You have pointed out that there are divergent perceptions of the discussion, and this is happening because the lists are not integrated. So how can anyone seriously suggest that we do not need to merge these lists? How can anyone truly concerned with civil society influence favor maintaining this stupid barrier between the groups involved? --MM Dear all, Without wanting to weigh in on the substantive discussion being had here, I was just wondering if it was a purposeful decision to drop Bestbits in some of these replies. It seems there are two divergent perceptions of the discussion happening. Happy for IGC to have its discussion but at some point, those on Bestbits who are not on IGC will need to be updated as I believe there are some Bestbits members who have only seen one side of the conversation. Otherwise, I'm happy to loop Bestbits back in, and share the conversation that has already happened? Best Sheetal. On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:03, Carolina Rossini > wrote: I did not say anybody was suggesting anything. It was just a reminder. Tks On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:42 AM farzaneh badii > wrote: @Carolina (Hello!) I don't think anyone here is suggesting that BestBits documents, materials etc will not be preserved. It is only a matter of how we should preserve them when we carry out the merge. (Jeremy has been wanting to transfer the domain name for the past I think around 3 years, no one wants to take over, so we definitely need a plan), we can for example decide on having the materials stored on future IGC website. As to changes to the IGC charter, as Sheetal explained and it is in the proposal, the changes are going to be lightweight but if IGC charter recommends a process for amendment, then we should follow that. I still support forming a small group to look into these issues and let us know how we should proceed. Even if we don't agree to change the charter, we can consider what new features IGC should possess in order to address the needs of its members and those members that are migrating from BestBits and generally more engagement with IG processes. As to the poll among BestBits members, that is something you need to discuss with BestBits. Just a reminder that both groups have been in my opinion briefed and engaged with the conversation. We did not just have a meeting with 11 members. Since December 2018, IGC and BestBits held meetings about this, a survey was taken to see what BestBits members think (the average attendance in those meetings was something like 15 members, Sheetal shared a comprehensive result of the survey). @Sala thank you for your kind words. I believe in collective action and am glad that you found the briefings and reports useful. InternetNZ's help was crucial in making that happen. Christchurch call was one instance when the civil society got together and showed its depth of expertise and knowledge about Internet governance issues. So we definitely can get it together and act collectively. It's just a matter of how, which I am sure we solve if we keep at it and have these conversations. Farzaneh On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 3:42 AM Carolina Rossini > wrote: I disagree with you Ian. A pool is needed among the BB members. There are more than 11. And for the BB folks, and it’s is not only the mailing list. BB site has a lot of good material and statements that should be captured and saved. Sorry I could not make to the meeting. You can only imagine how busy I am. Tks Sheetal for moving this forward with all the delicate and sensitive touch it does deserve. C On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:20 AM ian.peter at ianpeter.com > wrote: No poll needed. Best Bits closes down (their call). Former members join IGC individually. End of story. But fixing the IGC constitution (a later step) is more complex as Sala points out. Ian. ------ Original Message ------ From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > To: "Sheetal Kumar" > Cc: "Bakhtiyor Avezdjanov" >; "Lee W McKnight" >; "Tapani Tarvainen" >; "Sivasubramanian M" <6.Internet at gmail.com>; "Akinremi Peter Taiwo" >; "governance" > Sent: 14/06/2019 11:40:49 AM Subject: Re: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") The IGC usually takes a poll led by elected co-coordinators to determine consensus. If post discussion and debate, consensusnis reached to merge then by all means. Nobody speaks for the IGC unless there is consensus, if you want to change the Charter, then there is a process to follow. It is meant to protect us. Members of Best Bits are members of the IGC anyway unless they left or unsubscribed. One of the challenges, I have seen is the loss of important IGC data from the old servers. Every organsiation has to evolve, advance but this has to be based on consensus, and papers for and against, proper discussion and debate. From the outset, all I have seen is a presumption where the IGC has been forcibly roped into discussing mergers without the consensus. The co-coordinators have not set a strategic pathway for engagement in key international fora as the IGC in the HLP session although I was to see great geographical representation by some members of the IGC in the.forum in their individual capacity. I would also like to see the IGC working with the World Economic Forum etc and participating in the UN New York meetings, although some members participate in their organisational capacity. It is also significant that UNDESA reviews the global SDG projects and has a monitoring/evaluation/audit type role which it uses to review and report back to the UNGA. On another separate, note, whilst Arden (bless her heart), and others have been royally pissed about making a dent in how global MNCs like Facebook behave in crisis, these are not new issues as they are.similar to historical discussion on the list about Brits imposing a temporary ban over a certain radius of the London bombing just as the Egyptians and others have done during times of national security. The Tech Accord which represents the committment and negotiations between MNCs, Tech Giants and some government reps as was shared by the former French Ambassador on Cyber affairs and others, it is on a transcript at a main session from last year. The most New Zealand can do is impose a law in New Zealand against these giants. Facebook's Mia in NZ who is based in the Sydney officer and global public policy counterparts have alot of work on their hands. One view is that the threat to freedom of expression (which the IGC has always talked about is no respecter of whether you are from the East, West, South, North. The principles are well established in International law and Frank La Rue's report to the UN General Assembly which was endorsed is relevant. On the other hand, threats that Jeremy Malcolm and others have been raising on wordings and semantics on child pornography by a UN Drafting.committee show an example of new and emergent threats. Personally, even if Arden takes it to the UN, the UN is obliged and mandated not to duplicate work that is already done and to this end, the UN Secretary General's foresight in appointing the HLP and launching the report is key as geopolitical tensions are further heightened. I have yet to read the full HLP report, but if it is missing a FoX compoment, then a letter to the Co-Chairs, the UN Secretary General.may the faster non bureaucratic way to get traction. What giants like Facebook would fear is being broken up for regulation! Frankly Macron is hated in France just as Trump is hated in the US for imposing taxes. It would be great for the IGC to host and convene a panel to explore this. I would recommend Bertrand from Internet Jurisdiction to co facilitate and moderate a geographically diverse panel and a representative from the Geneva Internet Platform. I know Bertrand is speaking at a European Court of Human Rights with others. We need to take a step back and reflect as a community how we want to engage. We cannot be reactive and we have to stay ahead of the curve. 2.36am so best be getting back to bed. Cheers, Sala --- To unsubscribe: > List help: -- Carolina Rossini + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini PGP ID: 0xEC81015C --- To unsubscribe: > List help: -- Carolina Rossini + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini PGP ID: 0xEC81015C -- 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 anriette at apc.org Mon Jun 17 17:45:02 2019 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 23:45:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") In-Reply-To: References: <9fd097236d0c42d5a6a54f768bd0b2d8@adcu.columbia.edu> Message-ID: <1a7c0747-9727-6ed7-0197-38ec56f79c7f@apc.org> Agree completely with you on this Milton. And as Farzi pointed out, of course we should preserve the documents on the Best Bits site, and the list archives. By the way, if anyone wants the archives of the IGC lists I have pretty complete records for 2009-2016. Probably earlier too but on a back-up drive somewhere. I also think that the list archive of the list when it was still hosted by APC is still available somewhere too. Anriette ----------------------------- Anriette Esterhuysen Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning Association for Progressive Communications apc.org afrisig.org anriette at apc.org On 2019/06/17 23:08, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Really good point, Sheetal. > > But it is actually a substantive one. You have pointed out that there > are divergent perceptions of the discussion, and this is happening > because the lists are not integrated. > >   > > So how can anyone seriously suggest that we do not need to merge these > lists? How can anyone truly concerned with civil society influence > favor maintaining this stupid barrier between the groups involved? > >   > > --MM > >   > > Dear all, > >   > > Without wanting to weigh in on the substantive discussion being had > here, I was just wondering if it was a purposeful decision to drop > Bestbits in some of these replies. It seems there are two divergent > perceptions of the discussion happening. Happy for IGC to have its > discussion but at some point, those on Bestbits who are not on IGC > will need to be updated as I believe there are some Bestbits members > who have only seen one side of the conversation. Otherwise, I'm happy > to loop Bestbits back in, and share the conversation that has already > happened? > >   > > Best > > Sheetal. > >   > > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:03, Carolina Rossini > > wrote: > > I did not say anybody was suggesting anything.  It was just a > reminder. > > Tks  > >   > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:42 AM farzaneh badii > > wrote: > >   > > @Carolina (Hello!) I don't think anyone here is suggesting > that BestBits documents, materials etc will not be preserved. > It is only a matter of how we should preserve them when we > carry out the merge. (Jeremy has been wanting to transfer the > domain name for the past  I think around 3 years, no one wants > to take over, so we definitely need a plan), we can for > example decide on having the materials stored on future IGC > website.  > >   > > As to changes to the IGC charter, as Sheetal explained and it > is in the proposal, the changes are going to be lightweight > but if IGC charter recommends a process for amendment, then we > should follow that. I still support forming a small group to > look into these issues and let us know how we should proceed. > Even if we don't agree to change the charter, we can consider > what new features IGC should possess in order to address the > needs of its members and those members that are migrating from > BestBits and generally more engagement with IG processes.  > >   > > As to the poll among BestBits members, that is something you > need to discuss with BestBits. Just a reminder that both > groups have been in my opinion briefed and engaged with the > conversation. We did not just have a meeting with 11 members. > Since December 2018, IGC and BestBits held meetings about > this, a survey was taken to see what BestBits members think > (the average attendance in those meetings was something like > 15 members, Sheetal shared a comprehensive result of the survey).  > >   > > @Sala thank you for your kind words. I believe in collective > action and am glad that you found the briefings and reports > useful. InternetNZ's help was crucial in making that happen. > >   > > Christchurch call was one instance when the civil society got > together and showed its depth of expertise and knowledge about > Internet governance issues. So we definitely can get it > together and act collectively. It's just a matter of how, > which I am sure we solve if we keep at it and have these > conversations.  > >   > >   > > Farzaneh > >   > >   > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 3:42 AM Carolina Rossini > > wrote: > > I disagree with you Ian. A pool is needed among the BB > members. There are more than 11.  > >   > > And for the BB folks, and it’s is not only the mailing > list. BB site has a lot of good material and statements > that should be captured and saved.  > >   > > Sorry I could not make to the meeting. You can only > imagine how busy I am. > >   > > Tks Sheetal for moving this forward with all the delicate > and sensitive touch it does deserve.  > >   > > C > >   > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:20 AM ian.peter at ianpeter.com > > wrote: > > No poll needed. Best Bits closes down (their call). > Former members join IGC individually. End of story.  > >   > >   > > But fixing the IGC constitution (a later step) is more > complex as Sala points out. > >   > > Ian. > >   > > ------ Original Message ------ > > From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > > > To: "Sheetal Kumar" > > > Cc: "Bakhtiyor Avezdjanov" >; "Lee W McKnight" > >; "Tapani > Tarvainen" >; "Sivasubramanian > M" <6.Internet at gmail.com > >; "Akinremi Peter Taiwo" > >; "governance" > > > > Sent: 14/06/2019 11:40:49 AM > > Subject: Re: [governance] The proposal for closing > Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was > "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next > steps") > >   > > The IGC usually takes a poll led by elected > co-coordinators to determine consensus. If post > discussion and debate, consensusnis reached to > merge then by all means. > >   > > Nobody speaks for the IGC unless there is > consensus, if you want to change the Charter, then > there is a process to follow. It is meant to > protect us. Members of Best Bits are members of > the IGC anyway unless they left or unsubscribed. > >   > > One of the challenges, I have seen is the loss of > important IGC data from the old servers. Every > organsiation has to evolve, advance but this has > to be based on consensus, and papers for and > against, proper discussion and debate. From the > outset, all I have seen is a presumption where the > IGC has been forcibly roped into discussing > mergers without the consensus. > >   > > The co-coordinators have not set a strategic > pathway for engagement in key international fora > as the IGC in the HLP session although I was to > see great geographical representation by some > members of the IGC in the.forum in their > individual capacity. > >   > > I would also like to see the IGC working with the > World Economic Forum etc and participating in the > UN New York meetings, although some members > participate in their organisational capacity. It > is also significant that UNDESA reviews the global > SDG projects and has a monitoring/evaluation/audit > type role which it uses to review and report back > to the UNGA. > >   > > On another separate, note, whilst Arden (bless her > heart), and others have been royally pissed about > making a dent in how global MNCs like Facebook > behave in crisis, these are not new issues as they > are.similar to historical discussion on the list > about Brits imposing a temporary ban over a > certain radius of the London bombing just as the > Egyptians and others have done during times of > national security. The Tech Accord which > represents the committment and negotiations > between MNCs, Tech Giants and some government reps > as was shared by the former French Ambassador on > Cyber affairs and others, it is on a transcript at > a main session from last year. > >   > > The most New Zealand can do is impose a law in New > Zealand against these giants.  Facebook's Mia in > NZ who is based in the Sydney officer and global > public policy counterparts have alot of work on > their hands. > >   > > One view is that the threat to freedom of > expression (which the IGC has always talked about > is no respecter of whether you are from the East, > West, South, North. The principles are well > established in International law and Frank La > Rue's report to the UN General Assembly which was > endorsed is relevant. On the other hand, threats > that Jeremy Malcolm and others have been raising > on wordings and semantics on child pornography by > a UN Drafting.committee show an example of new and > emergent threats. > >   > > Personally, even if Arden takes it to the UN, the > UN is obliged and mandated not to duplicate work > that is already done and to this end, the UN > Secretary General's foresight in appointing the > HLP and launching the report is key as > geopolitical tensions are further heightened. I > have yet to read the full HLP report, but if it is > missing a FoX compoment, then a letter to the > Co-Chairs, the UN Secretary General.may the faster > non bureaucratic way to get traction. > >   > > What giants like Facebook would fear is being > broken up for regulation! Frankly Macron is hated > in France just as Trump is hated in the US for > imposing taxes. > >   > > It would be great for the IGC to host and convene > a panel to explore this. I would recommend > Bertrand from Internet Jurisdiction to co > facilitate and moderate a geographically diverse > panel and a representative from the Geneva > Internet Platform. I know Bertrand is speaking at > a European Court of Human Rights with others. > >   > > We need to take a step back and reflect as a > community how we want to engage. We cannot be > reactive and we have to stay ahead of the curve. > >   > > 2.36am so best be getting back to bed. > >   > > Cheers, > > Sala > >   > >   > >   > >   > >   > > --- > To unsubscribe: > > > List help: > > -- > >   > > *Carolina Rossini * > > + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini  > > PGP ID:  0xEC81015C > > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > -- > >   > > *Carolina Rossini * > > + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini  > > PGP ID:  0xEC81015C > > > > -- > >   > >   > > *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| > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Jun 18 07:01:09 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 11:01:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] MAG 2020 Renewal Process References: <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Colleagues, Just to reminder that the deadline for nominating candidates for the 2020 MAG Renewal is 30 June 2019: Do we have CSCG activities for collection of Nominations, Sorting-out suitable candidates and further submission of names of finalized Candidates? MAG 2020 Renewal | | | | | | | | | | | MAG 2020 Renewal Announcement ‎ The Internet Governance Forum's Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) has been ‎instrumental in p... | | | The general guidance and notes to take into consideration regarding nominations for a position on the MAG are also available at the IGF website: MAG Renewal 2020: General guidance | | | | | | | | | | | MAG Renewal 2020: General guidance Internet Governance Forum (IGF)2020 Renewal of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) General guidance and no... | | | Whereas they were looking for 7 male candidates     3 from Africa, (2 Government, 1 Private Sector)     1 from Asia Pacific, (1 Government)     1 from Eastern Europe  (1 Private Sector)     2 from GRULAC.  (1 Private Sector and 1 Technical Community) Best regards, Imran Ahmed Shah [Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan][Youth Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Wed Jun 19 12:52:29 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:52:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: How Regulation Could Break the Internet: Andrew Sullivan @ Chatham House Message-ID: This is just about to kick off. 1pm ET. It will be captioned. [image: livestream] Today, *Wednesday June 19 2019* at *6pm BST* (17:00 UTC) *Internet Society * CEO & President *Andrew Sullivan* will be in conversation with *Emily Taylor*, Editor of Cyber Policy, at *Chatham House * in London. In the session, entitled *How Regulation Could Break the Internet, *they will discuss current practices in internet-related regulation and the related challenges. How can governments can enforce regulations that achieve their intended purpose while at the same time protecting the internet’s core infrastructure and its properties, including its openness, interoperability and global reach? The event will be webcast live on the* Internet Society Livestream Channel *. *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/regulation * *REAL TIME TEXT: https://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=CFI-ISOC * *BLOG POST: http://bit.ly/2XpmQH4 * *TWITTER: #DontBreakTheInternet http://bit.ly/2ZwB5al * *MORE: https://bit.ly/dontbreaktheinternet * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11152/ - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Wed Jun 19 15:21:50 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 15:21:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_SHLB_Webinar_=E2=80=93_Sc?= =?UTF-8?Q?oring_Congressional_Broadband_Proposals?= Message-ID: This is underway. A restream since live it clashed with Andrew in London :) A great opportunity to bone up on current USA legislative proposals. Our licence with SHLB, in typical library practice, only extends for a month - so view before July 19. [image: livestream] Today *Wednesday June 19 2019* at *3pm EDT* (19:00 UTC) the *Internet Society Livestream Channel * will webcast a SHLB Coalition webinar "*Scoring Congressional Broadband Proposals *" that will examine the broadband bills most likely to become law and discuss those with the most potential to attain the National Broadband Plan's goal of gigabit connectivity for all community anchor institutions. *PANEL* *Phillip Berenbroick*, senior policy counsel, Public Knowledge (@pab_PK @publicknowledge) *Michael Romano*, senior vice president of industry affairs & business development, NTCA - The Rural Broadband Association (@MikeRomanoNTCA , @NTCAconnect) *Thomas Cohen*, Partner, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP (@KelleyDrye) *MODERATOR* *John Windhausen Jr*., executive director, SHLB Coalition *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM*: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/shlbbroadband/ *TWITTER* #broadband + @SHLBCoalition http://bit.ly/2F9kzpj #grow2gig http://bit.ly/grow2gig *ABOUT SHLB COALITION* The SHLB Coalition is a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) advocacy organization that supports open, affordable, high-quality broadband connections for anchor institutions and their surrounding communities. The SHLB Coalition is based in Washington, D.C. and has a diverse membership of over 160 commercial and non-commercial organizations from across the United States. https://shlb.org *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11155/ -------------------------------------------------------------- - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Wed Jun 19 16:34:38 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 16:34:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: What the Loss of Net Neutrality Means for Democracy and Innovation Message-ID: Webcast Wednesday continues with a resteam of another one that you might have missed. Net Neutrality's Not Dead! Or not if these folks have their way. [image: livestream] Today *Wednesday June 19 2019* at *5pm EDT* (21:00 UTC) the* Internet Society Livestream Channel * will webcast *What the Loss of Net Neutrality Means for Democracy and Innovation * - a panel at *Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society * on May 30. In 2017, the FCC voted to abolish net neutrality protections, which ensure that we, not the companies we pay to get online, get to choose what we do online. This event explored what we lost, why it matters, and what’s happening with efforts to restore those protections in the courts, the states and Washington, D.C. Speakers include Congresswoman *Anna Eshoo* , FCC Commissioner *Jessica Rosenworcel*, Reddit CEO *Steve Huffman*, and net neutrality expert Stanford Law Professor *Barbara van Schewick*. *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/cis-nn * *VIEW ON YOUTUBE: https://youtu.be/EBi45Qsb3ZE * *TWITTER: @StanfordCIS #NetNeutrality http://bit.ly/2ZwOnDV * *REVIEW:* *https://www.wired.com/story/why-net-neutrality-advocates-remain-optimistic/ * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11158/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Jun 24 12:12:34 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 17:12:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") In-Reply-To: References: <9fd097236d0c42d5a6a54f768bd0b2d8@adcu.columbia.edu> <1a7c0747-9727-6ed7-0197-38ec56f79c7f@apc.org> Message-ID: Best Bits is dead. Members of Best Bits are also members on IGC and if some are'nt there is nothing stopping them from joining the IGC, if they wished to do so. On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 5:15 pm Sheetal Kumar, wrote: > Dear all > > Apologies for the delay in responding - I've been away for a week and I > trust you received my OOO. Reading through the comments, it seems to me > there is more or less agreement on some things but less on others. In > essence: > > - There seems to be agreement that reviving IGC is a good thing > because there's a lot of work to be done by CS on important IG issues on > the global agenda/at global forums > - There's some agreement that merging BB with IGC would be a good way > forward to accomplish that but concern that the appropriate process hasn't > been followed within IGC, albeit there is disagreement about what that > process would/could be > - There's agreement that all documents, from both lists, should be > preserved and centralised for easy access by all members > - There support for organising a day 0 event at the IGF in Berlin > - There's less agreement that there's a need to review the IGC > Charter > > Hopefully this captures the conversation so far? > > I've also read the responses on the thread which includes Bestbits and > although there are only a few responses there, combined with the views of > those who attended the meeting at RightsCon, I think we can say that there > is general support from the Bestbits list members for merging so far. > > As such, I'd suggest the following as a way forward, interested to hear > what others think if you don't agree: > > - If there isn't agreement on the diagnosis of the problem, we can > start the discussion anew. It's important we all agree on the premise we're > working on, otherwise we'll move forward leaving people behind and just > recreate the current situation again. Currently the diagnosis of those > engaged, and the basis of those who attended the meeting at RightsCon, is > that civil society working on IG issues is split/fragmented and therefore > less effective than it could be. If anyone disagrees with this diagnosis, I > think they should express this on the thread with Bestbits included > - If anyone is against the merger as a way of addressing this issue > (i.e split/fragmentation as a key factor which explains our > ineffectiveness) I think this should be expressed on the Bestbits thread > too - mainly because of the general support for the idea of merging among > members of both lists, and the main concern currently expressed about the > merger being about process. Otherwise, the conversations will continue to > be split and the current situation will be perpetuated. > - If anyone is against the idea of reforming the Charter *in principle* > they make that clear in the thread with Bestbits too - as there maybe > Bestbits members who have opinions on that as well. This is just a > conversation so if there is strong disagreement about reforming the Charter > among anyone in either list, we could potentially agree not to reform it > and revisit the idea in a year, for example. > > Unless there's disagreement, I'll send a reminder to the thread which > includes Bestbits at the end of this week, and hopefully we can weave > ourselves back together there? > > Best > Sheetal > > On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 22:45, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > >> Agree completely with you on this Milton. And as Farzi pointed out, of >> course we should preserve the documents on the Best Bits site, and the list >> archives. >> >> By the way, if anyone wants the archives of the IGC lists I have pretty >> complete records for 2009-2016. Probably earlier too but on a back-up drive >> somewhere. I also think that the list archive of the list when it was still >> hosted by APC is still available somewhere too. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning >> Association for Progressive Communicationsapc.orgafrisig.organriette at apc.org >> >> On 2019/06/17 23:08, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >> >> Really good point, Sheetal. >> >> But it is actually a substantive one. You have pointed out that there are >> divergent perceptions of the discussion, and this is happening because the >> lists are not integrated. >> >> >> >> So how can anyone seriously suggest that we do not need to merge these >> lists? How can anyone truly concerned with civil society influence favor >> maintaining this stupid barrier between the groups involved? >> >> >> >> --MM >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> Without wanting to weigh in on the substantive discussion being had here, >> I was just wondering if it was a purposeful decision to drop Bestbits in >> some of these replies. It seems there are two divergent perceptions of the >> discussion happening. Happy for IGC to have its discussion but at some >> point, those on Bestbits who are not on IGC will need to be updated as I >> believe there are some Bestbits members who have only seen one side of the >> conversation. Otherwise, I'm happy to loop Bestbits back in, and share the >> conversation that has already happened? >> >> >> >> Best >> >> Sheetal. >> >> >> >> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:03, Carolina Rossini < >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I did not say anybody was suggesting anything. It was just a reminder. >> >> Tks >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:42 AM farzaneh badii >> wrote: >> >> >> >> @Carolina (Hello!) I don't think anyone here is suggesting that BestBits >> documents, materials etc will not be preserved. It is only a matter of how >> we should preserve them when we carry out the merge. (Jeremy has been >> wanting to transfer the domain name for the past I think around 3 years, >> no one wants to take over, so we definitely need a plan), we can for >> example decide on having the materials stored on future IGC website. >> >> >> >> As to changes to the IGC charter, as Sheetal explained and it is in the >> proposal, the changes are going to be lightweight but if IGC charter >> recommends a process for amendment, then we should follow that. I still >> support forming a small group to look into these issues and let us know how >> we should proceed. Even if we don't agree to change the charter, we can >> consider what new features IGC should possess in order to address the needs >> of its members and those members that are migrating from BestBits and >> generally more engagement with IG processes. >> >> >> >> As to the poll among BestBits members, that is something you need to >> discuss with BestBits. Just a reminder that both groups have been in my >> opinion briefed and engaged with the conversation. We did not just have a >> meeting with 11 members. Since December 2018, IGC and BestBits held >> meetings about this, a survey was taken to see what BestBits members think >> (the average attendance in those meetings was something like 15 members, >> Sheetal shared a comprehensive result of the survey). >> >> >> >> @Sala thank you for your kind words. I believe in collective action and >> am glad that you found the briefings and reports useful. InternetNZ's help >> was crucial in making that happen. >> >> >> >> Christchurch call was one instance when the civil society got together >> and showed its depth of expertise and knowledge about Internet governance >> issues. So we definitely can get it together and act collectively. It's >> just a matter of how, which I am sure we solve if we keep at it and have >> these conversations. >> >> >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 3:42 AM Carolina Rossini < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >> >> I disagree with you Ian. A pool is needed among the BB members. There are >> more than 11. >> >> >> >> And for the BB folks, and it’s is not only the mailing list. BB site has >> a lot of good material and statements that should be captured and saved. >> >> >> >> Sorry I could not make to the meeting. You can only imagine how busy I am. >> >> >> >> Tks Sheetal for moving this forward with all the delicate and sensitive >> touch it does deserve. >> >> >> >> C >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:20 AM ian.peter at ianpeter.com < >> ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: >> >> No poll needed. Best Bits closes down (their call). Former members join >> IGC individually. End of story. >> >> >> >> >> >> But fixing the IGC constitution (a later step) is more complex as Sala >> points out. >> >> >> >> Ian. >> >> >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> >> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> >> To: "Sheetal Kumar" >> >> Cc: "Bakhtiyor Avezdjanov" ; "Lee W McKnight" < >> lmcknigh at syr.edu>; "Tapani Tarvainen" ; >> "Sivasubramanian M" <6.Internet at gmail.com>; "Akinremi Peter Taiwo" < >> compsoftnet at gmail.com>; "governance" >> >> Sent: 14/06/2019 11:40:49 AM >> >> Subject: Re: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging >> with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of >> Bestbits: next steps") >> >> >> >> The IGC usually takes a poll led by elected co-coordinators to determine >> consensus. If post discussion and debate, consensusnis reached to merge >> then by all means. >> >> >> >> Nobody speaks for the IGC unless there is consensus, if you want to >> change the Charter, then there is a process to follow. It is meant to >> protect us. Members of Best Bits are members of the IGC anyway unless they >> left or unsubscribed. >> >> >> >> One of the challenges, I have seen is the loss of important IGC data from >> the old servers. Every organsiation has to evolve, advance but this has to >> be based on consensus, and papers for and against, proper discussion and >> debate. From the outset, all I have seen is a presumption where the IGC has >> been forcibly roped into discussing mergers without the consensus. >> >> >> >> The co-coordinators have not set a strategic pathway for engagement in >> key international fora as the IGC in the HLP session although I was to see >> great geographical representation by some members of the IGC in the.forum >> in their individual capacity. >> >> >> >> I would also like to see the IGC working with the World Economic Forum >> etc and participating in the UN New York meetings, although some members >> participate in their organisational capacity. It is also significant that >> UNDESA reviews the global SDG projects and has a >> monitoring/evaluation/audit type role which it uses to review and report >> back to the UNGA. >> >> >> >> On another separate, note, whilst Arden (bless her heart), and others >> have been royally pissed about making a dent in how global MNCs like >> Facebook behave in crisis, these are not new issues as they are.similar to >> historical discussion on the list about Brits imposing a temporary ban over >> a certain radius of the London bombing just as the Egyptians and others >> have done during times of national security. The Tech Accord which >> represents the committment and negotiations between MNCs, Tech Giants and >> some government reps as was shared by the former French Ambassador on Cyber >> affairs and others, it is on a transcript at a main session from last year. >> >> >> >> The most New Zealand can do is impose a law in New Zealand against these >> giants. Facebook's Mia in NZ who is based in the Sydney officer and global >> public policy counterparts have alot of work on their hands. >> >> >> >> One view is that the threat to freedom of expression (which the IGC has >> always talked about is no respecter of whether you are from the East, West, >> South, North. The principles are well established in International law and >> Frank La Rue's report to the UN General Assembly which was endorsed is >> relevant. On the other hand, threats that Jeremy Malcolm and others have >> been raising on wordings and semantics on child pornography by a UN >> Drafting.committee show an example of new and emergent threats. >> >> >> >> Personally, even if Arden takes it to the UN, the UN is obliged and >> mandated not to duplicate work that is already done and to this end, the UN >> Secretary General's foresight in appointing the HLP and launching the >> report is key as geopolitical tensions are further heightened. I have yet >> to read the full HLP report, but if it is missing a FoX compoment, then a >> letter to the Co-Chairs, the UN Secretary General.may the faster non >> bureaucratic way to get traction. >> >> >> >> What giants like Facebook would fear is being broken up for regulation! >> Frankly Macron is hated in France just as Trump is hated in the US for >> imposing taxes. >> >> >> >> It would be great for the IGC to host and convene a panel to explore >> this. I would recommend Bertrand from Internet Jurisdiction to co >> facilitate and moderate a geographically diverse panel and a representative >> from the Geneva Internet Platform. I know Bertrand is speaking at a >> European Court of Human Rights with others. >> >> >> >> We need to take a step back and reflect as a community how we want to >> engage. We cannot be reactive and we have to stay ahead of the curve. >> >> >> >> 2.36am so best be getting back to bed. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Sala >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> -- >> >> >> >> *Carolina Rossini * >> >> + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini >> >> PGP ID: 0xEC81015C >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> -- >> >> >> >> *Carolina Rossini * >> >> + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini >> >> PGP ID: 0xEC81015C >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> >> *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| >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> > > -- > > > *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 bachar at igf.td Wed Jun 5 04:28:59 2019 From: bachar at igf.td (Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 09:28:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 to be held in Poland In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Jun 24 12:14:02 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 17:14:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Who are the IGC Co-coordinators? Message-ID: Dear All, Can someone advise me who the co-coordinators are? Many thanks, Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Jun 24 12:21:11 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 17:21:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") In-Reply-To: References: <9fd097236d0c42d5a6a54f768bd0b2d8@adcu.columbia.edu> <1a7c0747-9727-6ed7-0197-38ec56f79c7f@apc.org> Message-ID: Hope you are well Sheetal. There is usually a list of members on the IGC website which describes those who can vote or not as per charter depending on whether they participated in the elections and voted. The IGC alongwith others should have a day 0 event at the IGF. On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 5:25 pm Sheetal Kumar, wrote: > Dear Sala, all, > > Thanks for the reply! So we can continue the conversation on the proposal > included at the beginning of this thread in the other thread which includes > Bestbits members. I actually have no idea who is part of both as there are > definitely members of Bestbits who are not members of IGC and vice versa, > but I know there is some discrepancy. > > Best > > On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 17:20, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Best Bits is dead. Members of Best Bits are also members on IGC and if >> some are'nt there is nothing stopping them from joining the IGC, if they >> wished to do so. >> >> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 5:15 pm Sheetal Kumar, >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> Apologies for the delay in responding - I've been away for a week and I >>> trust you received my OOO. Reading through the comments, it seems to me >>> there is more or less agreement on some things but less on others. In >>> essence: >>> >>> - There seems to be agreement that reviving IGC is a good thing >>> because there's a lot of work to be done by CS on important IG issues on >>> the global agenda/at global forums >>> - There's some agreement that merging BB with IGC would be a good >>> way forward to accomplish that but concern that the appropriate process >>> hasn't been followed within IGC, albeit there is disagreement about what >>> that process would/could be >>> - There's agreement that all documents, from both lists, should be >>> preserved and centralised for easy access by all members >>> - There support for organising a day 0 event at the IGF in Berlin >>> - There's less agreement that there's a need to review the IGC >>> Charter >>> >>> Hopefully this captures the conversation so far? >>> >>> I've also read the responses on the thread which includes Bestbits and >>> although there are only a few responses there, combined with the views of >>> those who attended the meeting at RightsCon, I think we can say that there >>> is general support from the Bestbits list members for merging so far. >>> >>> As such, I'd suggest the following as a way forward, interested to hear >>> what others think if you don't agree: >>> >>> - If there isn't agreement on the diagnosis of the problem, we can >>> start the discussion anew. It's important we all agree on the premise we're >>> working on, otherwise we'll move forward leaving people behind and just >>> recreate the current situation again. Currently the diagnosis of those >>> engaged, and the basis of those who attended the meeting at RightsCon, is >>> that civil society working on IG issues is split/fragmented and therefore >>> less effective than it could be. If anyone disagrees with this diagnosis, I >>> think they should express this on the thread with Bestbits included >>> - If anyone is against the merger as a way of addressing this issue >>> (i.e split/fragmentation as a key factor which explains our >>> ineffectiveness) I think this should be expressed on the Bestbits thread >>> too - mainly because of the general support for the idea of merging among >>> members of both lists, and the main concern currently expressed about the >>> merger being about process. Otherwise, the conversations will continue to >>> be split and the current situation will be perpetuated. >>> - If anyone is against the idea of reforming the Charter *in >>> principle* they make that clear in the thread with Bestbits too - as >>> there maybe Bestbits members who have opinions on that as well. This is >>> just a conversation so if there is strong disagreement about reforming the >>> Charter among anyone in either list, we could potentially agree not to >>> reform it and revisit the idea in a year, for example. >>> >>> Unless there's disagreement, I'll send a reminder to the thread which >>> includes Bestbits at the end of this week, and hopefully we can weave >>> ourselves back together there? >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal >>> >>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 22:45, Anriette Esterhuysen >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Agree completely with you on this Milton. And as Farzi pointed out, of >>>> course we should preserve the documents on the Best Bits site, and the list >>>> archives. >>>> >>>> By the way, if anyone wants the archives of the IGC lists I have pretty >>>> complete records for 2009-2016. Probably earlier too but on a back-up drive >>>> somewhere. I also think that the list archive of the list when it was still >>>> hosted by APC is still available somewhere too. >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>>> Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning >>>> Association for Progressive Communicationsapc.orgafrisig.organriette at apc.org >>>> >>>> On 2019/06/17 23:08, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>> >>>> Really good point, Sheetal. >>>> >>>> But it is actually a substantive one. You have pointed out that there >>>> are divergent perceptions of the discussion, and this is happening because >>>> the lists are not integrated. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So how can anyone seriously suggest that we do not need to merge these >>>> lists? How can anyone truly concerned with civil society influence favor >>>> maintaining this stupid barrier between the groups involved? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --MM >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Without wanting to weigh in on the substantive discussion being had >>>> here, I was just wondering if it was a purposeful decision to drop Bestbits >>>> in some of these replies. It seems there are two divergent perceptions of >>>> the discussion happening. Happy for IGC to have its discussion but at some >>>> point, those on Bestbits who are not on IGC will need to be updated as I >>>> believe there are some Bestbits members who have only seen one side of the >>>> conversation. Otherwise, I'm happy to loop Bestbits back in, and share the >>>> conversation that has already happened? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Sheetal. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:03, Carolina Rossini < >>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I did not say anybody was suggesting anything. It was just a reminder. >>>> >>>> Tks >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:42 AM farzaneh badii < >>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> @Carolina (Hello!) I don't think anyone here is suggesting that >>>> BestBits documents, materials etc will not be preserved. It is only a >>>> matter of how we should preserve them when we carry out the merge. (Jeremy >>>> has been wanting to transfer the domain name for the past I think around 3 >>>> years, no one wants to take over, so we definitely need a plan), we can for >>>> example decide on having the materials stored on future IGC website. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As to changes to the IGC charter, as Sheetal explained and it is in the >>>> proposal, the changes are going to be lightweight but if IGC charter >>>> recommends a process for amendment, then we should follow that. I still >>>> support forming a small group to look into these issues and let us know how >>>> we should proceed. Even if we don't agree to change the charter, we can >>>> consider what new features IGC should possess in order to address the needs >>>> of its members and those members that are migrating from BestBits and >>>> generally more engagement with IG processes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As to the poll among BestBits members, that is something you need to >>>> discuss with BestBits. Just a reminder that both groups have been in my >>>> opinion briefed and engaged with the conversation. We did not just have a >>>> meeting with 11 members. Since December 2018, IGC and BestBits held >>>> meetings about this, a survey was taken to see what BestBits members think >>>> (the average attendance in those meetings was something like 15 members, >>>> Sheetal shared a comprehensive result of the survey). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> @Sala thank you for your kind words. I believe in collective action and >>>> am glad that you found the briefings and reports useful. InternetNZ's help >>>> was crucial in making that happen. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Christchurch call was one instance when the civil society got together >>>> and showed its depth of expertise and knowledge about Internet governance >>>> issues. So we definitely can get it together and act collectively. It's >>>> just a matter of how, which I am sure we solve if we keep at it and have >>>> these conversations. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 3:42 AM Carolina Rossini < >>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> I disagree with you Ian. A pool is needed among the BB members. There >>>> are more than 11. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And for the BB folks, and it’s is not only the mailing list. BB site >>>> has a lot of good material and statements that should be captured and >>>> saved. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry I could not make to the meeting. You can only imagine how busy I >>>> am. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Tks Sheetal for moving this forward with all the delicate and sensitive >>>> touch it does deserve. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> C >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:20 AM ian.peter at ianpeter.com < >>>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> No poll needed. Best Bits closes down (their call). Former members join >>>> IGC individually. End of story. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But fixing the IGC constitution (a later step) is more complex as Sala >>>> points out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ian. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>> >>>> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >>>> >>>> To: "Sheetal Kumar" >>>> >>>> Cc: "Bakhtiyor Avezdjanov" ; "Lee W McKnight" < >>>> lmcknigh at syr.edu>; "Tapani Tarvainen" ; >>>> "Sivasubramanian M" <6.Internet at gmail.com>; "Akinremi Peter Taiwo" < >>>> compsoftnet at gmail.com>; "governance" >>>> >>>> Sent: 14/06/2019 11:40:49 AM >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging >>>> with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of >>>> Bestbits: next steps") >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The IGC usually takes a poll led by elected co-coordinators to >>>> determine consensus. If post discussion and debate, consensusnis reached to >>>> merge then by all means. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nobody speaks for the IGC unless there is consensus, if you want to >>>> change the Charter, then there is a process to follow. It is meant to >>>> protect us. Members of Best Bits are members of the IGC anyway unless they >>>> left or unsubscribed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> One of the challenges, I have seen is the loss of important IGC data >>>> from the old servers. Every organsiation has to evolve, advance but this >>>> has to be based on consensus, and papers for and against, proper discussion >>>> and debate. From the outset, all I have seen is a presumption where the IGC >>>> has been forcibly roped into discussing mergers without the consensus. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The co-coordinators have not set a strategic pathway for engagement in >>>> key international fora as the IGC in the HLP session although I was to see >>>> great geographical representation by some members of the IGC in the.forum >>>> in their individual capacity. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I would also like to see the IGC working with the World Economic Forum >>>> etc and participating in the UN New York meetings, although some members >>>> participate in their organisational capacity. It is also significant that >>>> UNDESA reviews the global SDG projects and has a >>>> monitoring/evaluation/audit type role which it uses to review and report >>>> back to the UNGA. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On another separate, note, whilst Arden (bless her heart), and others >>>> have been royally pissed about making a dent in how global MNCs like >>>> Facebook behave in crisis, these are not new issues as they are.similar to >>>> historical discussion on the list about Brits imposing a temporary ban over >>>> a certain radius of the London bombing just as the Egyptians and others >>>> have done during times of national security. The Tech Accord which >>>> represents the committment and negotiations between MNCs, Tech Giants and >>>> some government reps as was shared by the former French Ambassador on Cyber >>>> affairs and others, it is on a transcript at a main session from last year. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The most New Zealand can do is impose a law in New Zealand against >>>> these giants. Facebook's Mia in NZ who is based in the Sydney officer and >>>> global public policy counterparts have alot of work on their hands. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> One view is that the threat to freedom of expression (which the IGC has >>>> always talked about is no respecter of whether you are from the East, West, >>>> South, North. The principles are well established in International law and >>>> Frank La Rue's report to the UN General Assembly which was endorsed is >>>> relevant. On the other hand, threats that Jeremy Malcolm and others have >>>> been raising on wordings and semantics on child pornography by a UN >>>> Drafting.committee show an example of new and emergent threats. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Personally, even if Arden takes it to the UN, the UN is obliged and >>>> mandated not to duplicate work that is already done and to this end, the UN >>>> Secretary General's foresight in appointing the HLP and launching the >>>> report is key as geopolitical tensions are further heightened. I have yet >>>> to read the full HLP report, but if it is missing a FoX compoment, then a >>>> letter to the Co-Chairs, the UN Secretary General.may the faster non >>>> bureaucratic way to get traction. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> What giants like Facebook would fear is being broken up for regulation! >>>> Frankly Macron is hated in France just as Trump is hated in the US for >>>> imposing taxes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It would be great for the IGC to host and convene a panel to explore >>>> this. I would recommend Bertrand from Internet Jurisdiction to co >>>> facilitate and moderate a geographically diverse panel and a representative >>>> from the Geneva Internet Platform. I know Bertrand is speaking at a >>>> European Court of Human Rights with others. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We need to take a step back and reflect as a community how we want to >>>> engage. We cannot be reactive and we have to stay ahead of the curve. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2.36am so best be getting back to bed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Carolina Rossini * >>>> >>>> + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini >>>> >>>> PGP ID: 0xEC81015C >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Carolina Rossini * >>>> >>>> + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini >>>> >>>> PGP ID: 0xEC81015C >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *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| >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> *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 governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Jun 24 12:33:06 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Bruna Martins dos Santos (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 17:33:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Who are the IGC Co-coordinators? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Sala, Right now the co-coordinators are Arsene Tungali and myself. Best, Bruna On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 17:21 "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro", < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Dear All, > > Can someone advise me who the co-coordinators are? > > Many thanks, > Sala > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Jun 24 12:33:09 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 17:33:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] Who are the IGC Co-coordinators? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Bruna, Arsene, Thank you such a relief.Can you advise when (dates) in which you were both elected? Basically month and year. On another note, Sheetal and Farzaneh have raised issues that deserve discussion. Notably in the threads, there have been links provided on archived info so hoping you can consolidate and advise us what our current site is. Have you made an open call to the community to map areas of participation etc? Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 5:33 pm Bruna Martins dos Santos, < bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Sala, > > Right now the co-coordinators are Arsene Tungali and myself. > > Best, > Bruna > > On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 17:21 "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro", < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Can someone advise me who the co-coordinators are? >> >> Many thanks, >> Sala >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Jun 24 13:41:45 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Deirdre Williams (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 13:41:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") In-Reply-To: References: <9fd097236d0c42d5a6a54f768bd0b2d8@adcu.columbia.edu> <1a7c0747-9727-6ed7-0197-38ec56f79c7f@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear Sheetal and colleagues, Would it clarify matters to ask those who have been taking an interest in this process to identify themselves as being "members" of IGC, of Bestbits or of both? For myself I have signed up for both IGC and Bestbits, and consider myself to be a "member" of both in so far as I receive messages from both groups and from time to time post to discussions in both groups. We need to remember that there are other civil society groups in this interest area which have other criteria for membership. Best wishes to all Deirdre On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 12:29, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Hope you are well Sheetal. > > There is usually a list of members on the IGC website which describes > those who can vote or not as per charter depending on whether they > participated in the elections and voted. > > The IGC alongwith others should have a day 0 event at the IGF. > > > > On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 5:25 pm Sheetal Kumar, > wrote: > >> Dear Sala, all, >> >> Thanks for the reply! So we can continue the conversation on the proposal >> included at the beginning of this thread in the other thread which includes >> Bestbits members. I actually have no idea who is part of both as there are >> definitely members of Bestbits who are not members of IGC and vice versa, >> but I know there is some discrepancy. >> >> Best >> >> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 17:20, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Best Bits is dead. Members of Best Bits are also members on IGC and if >>> some are'nt there is nothing stopping them from joining the IGC, if they >>> wished to do so. >>> >>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 5:15 pm Sheetal Kumar, >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> Apologies for the delay in responding - I've been away for a week and I >>>> trust you received my OOO. Reading through the comments, it seems to me >>>> there is more or less agreement on some things but less on others. In >>>> essence: >>>> >>>> - There seems to be agreement that reviving IGC is a good thing >>>> because there's a lot of work to be done by CS on important IG issues on >>>> the global agenda/at global forums >>>> - There's some agreement that merging BB with IGC would be a good >>>> way forward to accomplish that but concern that the appropriate process >>>> hasn't been followed within IGC, albeit there is disagreement about what >>>> that process would/could be >>>> - There's agreement that all documents, from both lists, should be >>>> preserved and centralised for easy access by all members >>>> - There support for organising a day 0 event at the IGF in Berlin >>>> - There's less agreement that there's a need to review the IGC >>>> Charter >>>> >>>> Hopefully this captures the conversation so far? >>>> >>>> I've also read the responses on the thread which includes Bestbits and >>>> although there are only a few responses there, combined with the views of >>>> those who attended the meeting at RightsCon, I think we can say that there >>>> is general support from the Bestbits list members for merging so far. >>>> >>>> As such, I'd suggest the following as a way forward, interested to hear >>>> what others think if you don't agree: >>>> >>>> - If there isn't agreement on the diagnosis of the problem, we can >>>> start the discussion anew. It's important we all agree on the premise we're >>>> working on, otherwise we'll move forward leaving people behind and just >>>> recreate the current situation again. Currently the diagnosis of those >>>> engaged, and the basis of those who attended the meeting at RightsCon, is >>>> that civil society working on IG issues is split/fragmented and therefore >>>> less effective than it could be. If anyone disagrees with this diagnosis, I >>>> think they should express this on the thread with Bestbits included >>>> - If anyone is against the merger as a way of addressing this issue >>>> (i.e split/fragmentation as a key factor which explains our >>>> ineffectiveness) I think this should be expressed on the Bestbits thread >>>> too - mainly because of the general support for the idea of merging among >>>> members of both lists, and the main concern currently expressed about the >>>> merger being about process. Otherwise, the conversations will continue to >>>> be split and the current situation will be perpetuated. >>>> - If anyone is against the idea of reforming the Charter *in >>>> principle* they make that clear in the thread with Bestbits too - >>>> as there maybe Bestbits members who have opinions on that as well. This is >>>> just a conversation so if there is strong disagreement about reforming the >>>> Charter among anyone in either list, we could potentially agree not to >>>> reform it and revisit the idea in a year, for example. >>>> >>>> Unless there's disagreement, I'll send a reminder to the thread which >>>> includes Bestbits at the end of this week, and hopefully we can weave >>>> ourselves back together there? >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Sheetal >>>> >>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 22:45, Anriette Esterhuysen >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Agree completely with you on this Milton. And as Farzi pointed out, of >>>>> course we should preserve the documents on the Best Bits site, and the list >>>>> archives. >>>>> >>>>> By the way, if anyone wants the archives of the IGC lists I have >>>>> pretty complete records for 2009-2016. Probably earlier too but on a >>>>> back-up drive somewhere. I also think that the list archive of the list >>>>> when it was still hosted by APC is still available somewhere too. >>>>> >>>>> Anriette >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----------------------------- >>>>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>>>> Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning >>>>> Association for Progressive Communicationsapc.orgafrisig.organriette at apc.org >>>>> >>>>> On 2019/06/17 23:08, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Really good point, Sheetal. >>>>> >>>>> But it is actually a substantive one. You have pointed out that there >>>>> are divergent perceptions of the discussion, and this is happening because >>>>> the lists are not integrated. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So how can anyone seriously suggest that we do not need to merge these >>>>> lists? How can anyone truly concerned with civil society influence favor >>>>> maintaining this stupid barrier between the groups involved? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --MM >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Without wanting to weigh in on the substantive discussion being had >>>>> here, I was just wondering if it was a purposeful decision to drop Bestbits >>>>> in some of these replies. It seems there are two divergent perceptions of >>>>> the discussion happening. Happy for IGC to have its discussion but at some >>>>> point, those on Bestbits who are not on IGC will need to be updated as I >>>>> believe there are some Bestbits members who have only seen one side of the >>>>> conversation. Otherwise, I'm happy to loop Bestbits back in, and share the >>>>> conversation that has already happened? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:03, Carolina Rossini < >>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I did not say anybody was suggesting anything. It was just a reminder. >>>>> >>>>> Tks >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:42 AM farzaneh badii < >>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> @Carolina (Hello!) I don't think anyone here is suggesting that >>>>> BestBits documents, materials etc will not be preserved. It is only a >>>>> matter of how we should preserve them when we carry out the merge. (Jeremy >>>>> has been wanting to transfer the domain name for the past I think around 3 >>>>> years, no one wants to take over, so we definitely need a plan), we can for >>>>> example decide on having the materials stored on future IGC website. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As to changes to the IGC charter, as Sheetal explained and it is in >>>>> the proposal, the changes are going to be lightweight but if IGC charter >>>>> recommends a process for amendment, then we should follow that. I still >>>>> support forming a small group to look into these issues and let us know how >>>>> we should proceed. Even if we don't agree to change the charter, we can >>>>> consider what new features IGC should possess in order to address the needs >>>>> of its members and those members that are migrating from BestBits and >>>>> generally more engagement with IG processes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As to the poll among BestBits members, that is something you need to >>>>> discuss with BestBits. Just a reminder that both groups have been in my >>>>> opinion briefed and engaged with the conversation. We did not just have a >>>>> meeting with 11 members. Since December 2018, IGC and BestBits held >>>>> meetings about this, a survey was taken to see what BestBits members think >>>>> (the average attendance in those meetings was something like 15 members, >>>>> Sheetal shared a comprehensive result of the survey). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> @Sala thank you for your kind words. I believe in collective action >>>>> and am glad that you found the briefings and reports useful. InternetNZ's >>>>> help was crucial in making that happen. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Christchurch call was one instance when the civil society got together >>>>> and showed its depth of expertise and knowledge about Internet governance >>>>> issues. So we definitely can get it together and act collectively. It's >>>>> just a matter of how, which I am sure we solve if we keep at it and have >>>>> these conversations. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 3:42 AM Carolina Rossini < >>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I disagree with you Ian. A pool is needed among the BB members. There >>>>> are more than 11. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And for the BB folks, and it’s is not only the mailing list. BB site >>>>> has a lot of good material and statements that should be captured and >>>>> saved. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sorry I could not make to the meeting. You can only imagine how busy I >>>>> am. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Tks Sheetal for moving this forward with all the delicate and >>>>> sensitive touch it does deserve. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> C >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:20 AM ian.peter at ianpeter.com < >>>>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> No poll needed. Best Bits closes down (their call). Former members >>>>> join IGC individually. End of story. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But fixing the IGC constitution (a later step) is more complex as Sala >>>>> points out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ian. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>>> >>>>> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >>>>> >>>>> To: "Sheetal Kumar" >>>>> >>>>> Cc: "Bakhtiyor Avezdjanov" ; "Lee W McKnight" < >>>>> lmcknigh at syr.edu>; "Tapani Tarvainen" ; >>>>> "Sivasubramanian M" <6.Internet at gmail.com>; "Akinremi Peter Taiwo" < >>>>> compsoftnet at gmail.com>; "governance" >>>>> >>>>> Sent: 14/06/2019 11:40:49 AM >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and >>>>> merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of >>>>> Bestbits: next steps") >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The IGC usually takes a poll led by elected co-coordinators to >>>>> determine consensus. If post discussion and debate, consensusnis reached to >>>>> merge then by all means. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nobody speaks for the IGC unless there is consensus, if you want to >>>>> change the Charter, then there is a process to follow. It is meant to >>>>> protect us. Members of Best Bits are members of the IGC anyway unless they >>>>> left or unsubscribed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> One of the challenges, I have seen is the loss of important IGC data >>>>> from the old servers. Every organsiation has to evolve, advance but this >>>>> has to be based on consensus, and papers for and against, proper discussion >>>>> and debate. From the outset, all I have seen is a presumption where the IGC >>>>> has been forcibly roped into discussing mergers without the consensus. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The co-coordinators have not set a strategic pathway for engagement in >>>>> key international fora as the IGC in the HLP session although I was to see >>>>> great geographical representation by some members of the IGC in the.forum >>>>> in their individual capacity. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would also like to see the IGC working with the World Economic Forum >>>>> etc and participating in the UN New York meetings, although some members >>>>> participate in their organisational capacity. It is also significant that >>>>> UNDESA reviews the global SDG projects and has a >>>>> monitoring/evaluation/audit type role which it uses to review and report >>>>> back to the UNGA. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On another separate, note, whilst Arden (bless her heart), and others >>>>> have been royally pissed about making a dent in how global MNCs like >>>>> Facebook behave in crisis, these are not new issues as they are.similar to >>>>> historical discussion on the list about Brits imposing a temporary ban over >>>>> a certain radius of the London bombing just as the Egyptians and others >>>>> have done during times of national security. The Tech Accord which >>>>> represents the committment and negotiations between MNCs, Tech Giants and >>>>> some government reps as was shared by the former French Ambassador on Cyber >>>>> affairs and others, it is on a transcript at a main session from last year. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The most New Zealand can do is impose a law in New Zealand against >>>>> these giants. Facebook's Mia in NZ who is based in the Sydney officer and >>>>> global public policy counterparts have alot of work on their hands. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> One view is that the threat to freedom of expression (which the IGC >>>>> has always talked about is no respecter of whether you are from the East, >>>>> West, South, North. The principles are well established in International >>>>> law and Frank La Rue's report to the UN General Assembly which was endorsed >>>>> is relevant. On the other hand, threats that Jeremy Malcolm and others have >>>>> been raising on wordings and semantics on child pornography by a UN >>>>> Drafting.committee show an example of new and emergent threats. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Personally, even if Arden takes it to the UN, the UN is obliged and >>>>> mandated not to duplicate work that is already done and to this end, the UN >>>>> Secretary General's foresight in appointing the HLP and launching the >>>>> report is key as geopolitical tensions are further heightened. I have yet >>>>> to read the full HLP report, but if it is missing a FoX compoment, then a >>>>> letter to the Co-Chairs, the UN Secretary General.may the faster non >>>>> bureaucratic way to get traction. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What giants like Facebook would fear is being broken up for >>>>> regulation! Frankly Macron is hated in France just as Trump is hated in the >>>>> US for imposing taxes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It would be great for the IGC to host and convene a panel to explore >>>>> this. I would recommend Bertrand from Internet Jurisdiction to co >>>>> facilitate and moderate a geographically diverse panel and a representative >>>>> from the Geneva Internet Platform. I know Bertrand is speaking at a >>>>> European Court of Human Rights with others. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We need to take a step back and reflect as a community how we want to >>>>> engage. We cannot be reactive and we have to stay ahead of the curve. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2.36am so best be getting back to bed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Sala >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Carolina Rossini * >>>>> >>>>> + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini >>>>> >>>>> PGP ID: 0xEC81015C >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Carolina Rossini * >>>>> >>>>> + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini >>>>> >>>>> PGP ID: 0xEC81015C >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *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| >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> *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| >> >> --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- “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 governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Jun 24 13:54:25 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 18:54:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") In-Reply-To: References: <9fd097236d0c42d5a6a54f768bd0b2d8@adcu.columbia.edu> <1a7c0747-9727-6ed7-0197-38ec56f79c7f@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear all, I am glad we are discussing and that the discussion is moving in the right direction, based on what was discussed in Tunis two weeks ago. Looks like the majority of members are in agreement with the suggested ways forward, leading to the July 5 deadline. I would like to thank those who are participating and who are weighing to enrich the discussion. I am sure Sheetal who has kindly agreed to lead this discussion (on behalf of IGC Co coordinators) will be in a position to help us go past the deadline with concrete outcomes, by also making sure she captures the minority voices in the report. It is good to know that Avri and Anriette are keeping for us a bit of IGC archives. This will be useful to be shared and stored once the new platform is out as an outcome of this discussion. Moving forward, i would suggest anyone willing to discuss this topic to please do so under this very same thread so we keep everything in one place. Best regards, Arsene, IGC Co-co Sent from my iPhone > On 24 Jun 2019, at 17:21, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > > Hope you are well Sheetal. > > There is usually a list of members on the IGC website which describes those who can vote or not as per charter depending on whether they participated in the elections and voted. > > The IGC alongwith others should have a day 0 event at the IGF. > > > >> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 5:25 pm Sheetal Kumar, wrote: >> Dear Sala, all, >> >> Thanks for the reply! So we can continue the conversation on the proposal included at the beginning of this thread in the other thread which includes Bestbits members. I actually have no idea who is part of both as there are definitely members of Bestbits who are not members of IGC and vice versa, but I know there is some discrepancy. >> >> Best >> >>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 17:20, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> Best Bits is dead. Members of Best Bits are also members on IGC and if some are'nt there is nothing stopping them from joining the IGC, if they wished to do so. >>> >>>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 5:15 pm Sheetal Kumar, wrote: >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> Apologies for the delay in responding - I've been away for a week and I trust you received my OOO. Reading through the comments, it seems to me there is more or less agreement on some things but less on others. In essence: >>>> There seems to be agreement that reviving IGC is a good thing because there's a lot of work to be done by CS on important IG issues on the global agenda/at global forums >>>> There's some agreement that merging BB with IGC would be a good way forward to accomplish that but concern that the appropriate process hasn't been followed within IGC, albeit there is disagreement about what that process would/could be >>>> There's agreement that all documents, from both lists, should be preserved and centralised for easy access by all members >>>> There support for organising a day 0 event at the IGF in Berlin >>>> There's less agreement that there's a need to review the IGC Charter >>>> Hopefully this captures the conversation so far? >>>> >>>> I've also read the responses on the thread which includes Bestbits and although there are only a few responses there, combined with the views of those who attended the meeting at RightsCon, I think we can say that there is general support from the Bestbits list members for merging so far. >>>> >>>> As such, I'd suggest the following as a way forward, interested to hear what others think if you don't agree: >>>> If there isn't agreement on the diagnosis of the problem, we can start the discussion anew. It's important we all agree on the premise we're working on, otherwise we'll move forward leaving people behind and just recreate the current situation again. Currently the diagnosis of those engaged, and the basis of those who attended the meeting at RightsCon, is that civil society working on IG issues is split/fragmented and therefore less effective than it could be. If anyone disagrees with this diagnosis, I think they should express this on the thread with Bestbits included >>>> If anyone is against the merger as a way of addressing this issue (i.e split/fragmentation as a key factor which explains our ineffectiveness) I think this should be expressed on the Bestbits thread too - mainly because of the general support for the idea of merging among members of both lists, and the main concern currently expressed about the merger being about process. Otherwise, the conversations will continue to be split and the current situation will be perpetuated. >>>> If anyone is against the idea of reforming the Charter in principle they make that clear in the thread with Bestbits too - as there maybe Bestbits members who have opinions on that as well. This is just a conversation so if there is strong disagreement about reforming the Charter among anyone in either list, we could potentially agree not to reform it and revisit the idea in a year, for example. >>>> Unless there's disagreement, I'll send a reminder to the thread which includes Bestbits at the end of this week, and hopefully we can weave ourselves back together there? >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Sheetal >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 22:45, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>> Agree completely with you on this Milton. And as Farzi pointed out, of course we should preserve the documents on the Best Bits site, and the list archives. >>>>> >>>>> By the way, if anyone wants the archives of the IGC lists I have pretty complete records for 2009-2016. Probably earlier too but on a back-up drive somewhere. I also think that the list archive of the list when it was still hosted by APC is still available somewhere too. >>>>> >>>>> Anriette >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----------------------------- >>>>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>>>> Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning >>>>> Association for Progressive Communications >>>>> apc.org >>>>> afrisig.org >>>>> anriette at apc.org >>>>>> On 2019/06/17 23:08, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>>>> Really good point, Sheetal. >>>>>> >>>>>> But it is actually a substantive one. You have pointed out that there are divergent perceptions of the discussion, and this is happening because the lists are not integrated. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So how can anyone seriously suggest that we do not need to merge these lists? How can anyone truly concerned with civil society influence favor maintaining this stupid barrier between the groups involved? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --MM >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Without wanting to weigh in on the substantive discussion being had here, I was just wondering if it was a purposeful decision to drop Bestbits in some of these replies. It seems there are two divergent perceptions of the discussion happening. Happy for IGC to have its discussion but at some point, those on Bestbits who are not on IGC will need to be updated as I believe there are some Bestbits members who have only seen one side of the conversation. Otherwise, I'm happy to loop Bestbits back in, and share the conversation that has already happened? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:03, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I did not say anybody was suggesting anything. It was just a reminder. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tks >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:42 AM farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> @Carolina (Hello!) I don't think anyone here is suggesting that BestBits documents, materials etc will not be preserved. It is only a matter of how we should preserve them when we carry out the merge. (Jeremy has been wanting to transfer the domain name for the past I think around 3 years, no one wants to take over, so we definitely need a plan), we can for example decide on having the materials stored on future IGC website. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As to changes to the IGC charter, as Sheetal explained and it is in the proposal, the changes are going to be lightweight but if IGC charter recommends a process for amendment, then we should follow that. I still support forming a small group to look into these issues and let us know how we should proceed. Even if we don't agree to change the charter, we can consider what new features IGC should possess in order to address the needs of its members and those members that are migrating from BestBits and generally more engagement with IG processes. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As to the poll among BestBits members, that is something you need to discuss with BestBits. Just a reminder that both groups have been in my opinion briefed and engaged with the conversation. We did not just have a meeting with 11 members. Since December 2018, IGC and BestBits held meetings about this, a survey was taken to see what BestBits members think (the average attendance in those meetings was something like 15 members, Sheetal shared a comprehensive result of the survey). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> @Sala thank you for your kind words. I believe in collective action and am glad that you found the briefings and reports useful. InternetNZ's help was crucial in making that happen. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Christchurch call was one instance when the civil society got together and showed its depth of expertise and knowledge about Internet governance issues. So we definitely can get it together and act collectively. It's just a matter of how, which I am sure we solve if we keep at it and have these conversations. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 3:42 AM Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I disagree with you Ian. A pool is needed among the BB members. There are more than 11. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And for the BB folks, and it’s is not only the mailing list. BB site has a lot of good material and statements that should be captured and saved. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry I could not make to the meeting. You can only imagine how busy I am. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Tks Sheetal for moving this forward with all the delicate and sensitive touch it does deserve. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> C >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:20 AM ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> No poll needed. Best Bits closes down (their call). Former members join IGC individually. End of story. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But fixing the IGC constitution (a later step) is more complex as Sala points out. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ian. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>>>> >>>>>> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >>>>>> >>>>>> To: "Sheetal Kumar" >>>>>> >>>>>> Cc: "Bakhtiyor Avezdjanov" ; "Lee W McKnight" ; "Tapani Tarvainen" ; "Sivasubramanian M" <6.Internet at gmail.com>; "Akinremi Peter Taiwo" ; "governance" >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent: 14/06/2019 11:40:49 AM >>>>>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The IGC usually takes a poll led by elected co-coordinators to determine consensus. If post discussion and debate, consensusnis reached to merge then by all means. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nobody speaks for the IGC unless there is consensus, if you want to change the Charter, then there is a process to follow. It is meant to protect us. Members of Best Bits are members of the IGC anyway unless they left or unsubscribed. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> One of the challenges, I have seen is the loss of important IGC data from the old servers. Every organsiation has to evolve, advance but this has to be based on consensus, and papers for and against, proper discussion and debate. From the outset, all I have seen is a presumption where the IGC has been forcibly roped into discussing mergers without the consensus. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The co-coordinators have not set a strategic pathway for engagement in key international fora as the IGC in the HLP session although I was to see great geographical representation by some members of the IGC in the.forum in their individual capacity. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I would also like to see the IGC working with the World Economic Forum etc and participating in the UN New York meetings, although some members participate in their organisational capacity. It is also significant that UNDESA reviews the global SDG projects and has a monitoring/evaluation/audit type role which it uses to review and report back to the UNGA. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On another separate, note, whilst Arden (bless her heart), and others have been royally pissed about making a dent in how global MNCs like Facebook behave in crisis, these are not new issues as they are.similar to historical discussion on the list about Brits imposing a temporary ban over a certain radius of the London bombing just as the Egyptians and others have done during times of national security. The Tech Accord which represents the committment and negotiations between MNCs, Tech Giants and some government reps as was shared by the former French Ambassador on Cyber affairs and others, it is on a transcript at a main session from last year. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The most New Zealand can do is impose a law in New Zealand against these giants. Facebook's Mia in NZ who is based in the Sydney officer and global public policy counterparts have alot of work on their hands. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> One view is that the threat to freedom of expression (which the IGC has always talked about is no respecter of whether you are from the East, West, South, North. The principles are well established in International law and Frank La Rue's report to the UN General Assembly which was endorsed is relevant. On the other hand, threats that Jeremy Malcolm and others have been raising on wordings and semantics on child pornography by a UN Drafting.committee show an example of new and emergent threats. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Personally, even if Arden takes it to the UN, the UN is obliged and mandated not to duplicate work that is already done and to this end, the UN Secretary General's foresight in appointing the HLP and launching the report is key as geopolitical tensions are further heightened. I have yet to read the full HLP report, but if it is missing a FoX compoment, then a letter to the Co-Chairs, the UN Secretary General.may the faster non bureaucratic way to get traction. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What giants like Facebook would fear is being broken up for regulation! Frankly Macron is hated in France just as Trump is hated in the US for imposing taxes. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It would be great for the IGC to host and convene a panel to explore this. I would recommend Bertrand from Internet Jurisdiction to co facilitate and moderate a geographically diverse panel and a representative from the Geneva Internet Platform. I know Bertrand is speaking at a European Court of Human Rights with others. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We need to take a step back and reflect as a community how we want to engage. We cannot be reactive and we have to stay ahead of the curve. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2.36am so best be getting back to bed. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> Sala >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> List help: >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Carolina Rossini >>>>>> >>>>>> + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini >>>>>> >>>>>> PGP ID: 0xEC81015C >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> List help: >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Carolina Rossini >>>>>> >>>>>> + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini >>>>>> >>>>>> PGP ID: 0xEC81015C >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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| >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> List help: >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> 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| >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Jun 25 02:44:31 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 06:44:31 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] MAG 2020 Renewal Process In-Reply-To: <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1775795332.1529901.1561445071396@mail.yahoo.com> Just for reminder.....Deadline is ending soon..... Deadline for nominating candidates for the 2020 MAG Renewal is 30 June 2019 Regards Imran On Tuesday, 18 June 2019, 16:01:38 GMT+5, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: Dear Colleagues, Just to reminder that the deadline for nominating candidates for the 2020 MAG Renewal is 30 June 2019: Do we have CSCG activities for collection of Nominations, Sorting-out suitable candidates and further submission of names of finalized Candidates? MAG 2020 Renewal | | | | | | | | | | | MAG 2020 Renewal Announcement ‎ The Internet Governance Forum's Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) has been ‎instrumental in p... | | | The general guidance and notes to take into consideration regarding nominations for a position on the MAG are also available at the IGF website: MAG Renewal 2020: General guidance | | | | | | | | | | | MAG Renewal 2020: General guidance Internet Governance Forum (IGF)2020 Renewal of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) General guidance and no... | | | Whereas they were looking for 7 male candidates     3 from Africa, (2 Government, 1 Private Sector)     1 from Asia Pacific, (1 Government)     1 from Eastern Europe  (1 Private Sector)     2 from GRULAC.  (1 Private Sector and 1 Technical Community) Best regards, Imran Ahmed Shah [Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan][Youth Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan] --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Jun 25 05:44:29 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:44:29 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] [bestbits] MAG 2020 Renewal Process In-Reply-To: References: <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680@mail.yahoo.com> <1775795332.1529901.1561445071396@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <749405805.1589889.1561455869750@mail.yahoo.com> No, not as per the numbers of term rotation, but .... may be acceptable by the selection Team ..... or if they plan to increase or decrease the strength .... like few years ago, they reduced 1 CS seat ....   .....the overall composition depends on several considerations including the nominations received, as well as the final decision of the UN Secretary-General...... On Tuesday, 25 June 2019, 14:06:40 GMT+5, Sheetal Kumar wrote: Dear Imran, Arsene, all Thank you for sharing and the reminder. I just wanted to check, are there are civil society positions to fill this year? BestSheetal On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 07:44, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: Just for reminder.....Deadline is ending soon..... Deadline for nominating candidates for the 2020 MAG Renewal is 30 June 2019 Regards Imran On Tuesday, 18 June 2019, 16:01:38 GMT+5, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: Dear Colleagues, Just to reminder that the deadline for nominating candidates for the 2020 MAG Renewal is 30 June 2019: Do we have CSCG activities for collection of Nominations, Sorting-out suitable candidates and further submission of names of finalized Candidates? MAG 2020 Renewal | | | | | | | | | | | MAG 2020 Renewal Announcement ‎ The Internet Governance Forum's Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) has been ‎instrumental in p... | | | The general guidance and notes to take into consideration regarding nominations for a position on the MAG are also available at the IGF website: MAG Renewal 2020: General guidance | | | | | | | | | | | MAG Renewal 2020: General guidance Internet Governance Forum (IGF)2020 Renewal of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) General guidance and no... | | | Whereas they were looking for 7 male candidates     3 from Africa, (2 Government, 1 Private Sector)     1 from Asia Pacific, (1 Government)     1 from Eastern Europe  (1 Private Sector)     2 from GRULAC.  (1 Private Sector and 1 Technical Community) Best regards, Imran Ahmed Shah [Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan][Youth Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan] --- To unsubscribe: List help: ____________________________________________________________ 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| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Jun 25 06:04:54 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:04:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] MAG 2020 Renewal Process In-Reply-To: <749405805.1589889.1561455869750@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680@mail.yahoo.com> <1775795332.1529901.1561445071396@mail.yahoo.com> <749405805.1589889.1561455869750@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <02142E5B-465B-4D4F-959C-C6E2C8E1CFDB@gmail.com> Even though there is no explicit need for CS reps this year, please do send in nominations. Maybe there will be available slots? Such as if someone resigns? Sent from my iPhone > On 25 Jun 2019, at 10:44, Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > > No, > not as per the numbers of term rotation, but .... may be acceptable by the selection Team ..... or if they plan to increase or decrease the strength .... like few years ago, they reduced 1 CS seat .... > > .....the overall composition depends on several considerations including the nominations received, as well as the final decision of the UN Secretary-General...... > > On Tuesday, 25 June 2019, 14:06:40 GMT+5, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > > > Dear Imran, Arsene, all > > Thank you for sharing and the reminder. I just wanted to check, are there are civil society positions to fill this year? > > Best > Sheetal > > On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 07:44, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Just for reminder..... > Deadline is ending soon..... > > Deadline for nominating candidates for the 2020 MAG Renewal is 30 June 2019 > > Regards > > Imran > > On Tuesday, 18 June 2019, 16:01:38 GMT+5, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > > Dear Colleagues, > > Just to reminder that the deadline for nominating candidates for the 2020 MAG Renewal is 30 June 2019: > > Do we have CSCG activities for collection of Nominations, Sorting-out suitable candidates and further submission of names of finalized Candidates? > > MAG 2020 Renewal > > MAG 2020 Renewal > Announcement ‎ The Internet Governance Forum's Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) has been ‎instrumental in p... > > The general guidance and notes to take into consideration regarding nominations for a position on the MAG are also available at the IGF website: MAG Renewal 2020: General guidance > > MAG Renewal 2020: General guidance > Internet Governance Forum (IGF)2020 Renewal of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) General guidance and no... > > Whereas they were looking for 7 male candidates > 3 from Africa, (2 Government, 1 Private Sector) > 1 from Asia Pacific, (1 Government) > 1 from Eastern Europe (1 Private Sector) > 2 from GRULAC. (1 Private Sector and 1 Technical Community) > > > > Best regards, > > Imran Ahmed Shah > [Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan] > [Youth Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan] > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > ____________________________________________________________ > 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| > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jun 25 06:11:27 2019 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 10:11:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] MAG 2020 Renewal Process In-Reply-To: <02142E5B-465B-4D4F-959C-C6E2C8E1CFDB@gmail.com> References: <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680@mail.yahoo.com> <1775795332.1529901.1561445071396@mail.yahoo.com> <749405805.1589889.1561455869750@mail.yahoo.com> <02142E5B-465B-4D4F-959C-C6E2C8E1CFDB@gmail.com> Message-ID: The other thing is that in decision making for MAG membership geographic and gender balance will be taken into account, perhaps even more importantly than stakeholder groups. So if we have a CS candidate from a geographic area not covered adequately by current reps or candidates from other groups there is a fair chance they might be selected. Ian Peter ------ Original Message ------ From: "Arsène Tungali" To: ias_pk at yahoo.com Cc: "Sheetal Kumar" ; "BestBitsList" ; "governance at lists.riseup.net" Sent: 25/06/2019 8:04:54 PM Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] MAG 2020 Renewal Process >Even though there is no explicit need for CS reps this year, please do >send in nominations. Maybe there will be available slots? Such as if >someone resigns? > >Sent from my iPhone > >On 25 Jun 2019, at 10:44, Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing >List) wrote: > >>No, >>not as per the numbers of term rotation, but .... may be acceptable by >>the selection Team ..... or if they plan to increase or decrease the >>strength .... like few years ago, they reduced 1 CS seat .... >> >>.....the overall composition depends on several considerations >>including the nominations received, as well as the final decision of >>the UN Secretary-General...... >> >>On Tuesday, 25 June 2019, 14:06:40 GMT+5, Sheetal Kumar >> wrote: >> >> >>Dear Imran, Arsene, all >> >>Thank you for sharing and the reminder. I just wanted to check, are >>there are civil society positions to fill this year? >> >>Best >>Sheetal >> >>On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 07:44, Imran Ahmed Shah >> wrote: >>>Just for reminder..... >>>Deadline is ending soon..... >>> >>>Deadline for nominating candidates for the 2020 MAG Renewal is 30 >>>June 2019 >>> >>>Regards >>> >>>Imran >>> >>>On Tuesday, 18 June 2019, 16:01:38 GMT+5, Imran Ahmed Shah >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>Dear Colleagues, >>> >>>Just to reminder that the deadline for nominating candidates for the >>>2020 MAG Renewal is 30 June 2019: >>> >>>Do we have CSCG activities for collection of Nominations, Sorting-out >>>suitable candidates and further submission of names of finalized >>>Candidates? >>> >>>MAG 2020 Renewal >>> >>> >>>MAG 2020 Renewal >>>Announcement ‎ The Internet Governance Forum's Multistakeholder >>>Advisory Group (MAG) has been ‎instrumental in p... >>> >>> >>> >>>The general guidance and notes to take into consideration regarding >>>nominations for a position on the MAG are also available at the IGF >>>website: MAG Renewal 2020: General guidance >>> >>> >>>MAG Renewal 2020: General guidance >>>Internet Governance Forum (IGF)2020 Renewal of the Multistakeholder >>>Advisory Group (MAG) General guidance and no... >>> >>> >>> >>>Whereas they were looking for 7 male candidates >>> 3 from Africa, (2 Government, 1 Private Sector) >>> 1 from Asia Pacific, (1 Government) >>> 1 from Eastern Europe (1 Private Sector) >>> 2 from GRULAC. (1 Private Sector and 1 Technical Community) >>> >>> >>> >>>Best regards, >>> >>>Imran Ahmed Shah >>>[Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan] >>>[Youth Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan] >>> >>>--- >>>To unsubscribe: >>>List help: >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>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| >> >>--- >>To unsubscribe: >>List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Jun 5 05:25:57 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 09:25:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 to be held in Poland In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Good point, Abdeldjalil. Geneva, Paris, Berlin and now Poland (Varsovie/Warsaw, I guess?) That's four. The Schengen visa is such a hassle for so many people, and so time consuming! I'm not even talking about getting all the paperwork in order. One has to secure the interview appointment months and months in advance and that alone is sometimes enough to cause failure. And when you manage to get the visa, it only lasts the exact number of days planned for your meeting (or whatever the purpose of the visit.) And even if one knows there's another meeting (say, ICANN) coming up in the next few months still in the Schengen space which one needs to attend, one has to go through all of it again. They won't consider that even if the visa paperwork for the next meeting is ready. Certainly not if the two consecutive meetings are happening in two different Schengen countries, although any Schengen country visa applies to the whole of Schengen space. I'm not even sure they accept to issue an extended visa in the case the two meetings were to happen in the same country three or four months apart. The bureaucracy of sovereignty ! Okay, I guess that was my mid-week rant. Otherwise, I'm looking forward to seeing and enjoying Berlin and hopefully Warsaw. Mawaki On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 08:29 Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong wrote: > > Thanks Arsene for sharing. > > Congratulation for that innovation :knowing the date early . > After 3 round I'm Europe we hope that after Poland will be in AFRICA . > > > > ------------------------------- > > Cordialement > > ABDELDJALIL BACHAR BONG > > > ---------------------------------- > PRESIDENT & CEO > > > ASSOCIATION "HOUSE OF AFRICA" > E-mail: bachar at houseof.africa > Twitter: @HOUSEOFINTERNET > WEBSITE : www.houseof.africa > Whatsapp: +23566274284 > Skype: Bongbour > > ------------------------------------- > > Le Secrétaire Exécutif/Executive Secretary > > Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet au Tchad (FGI Tchad) / > Chad Internet Governance Forum > ------------------------------------- > > E-mail: Bachar at igf.td > Website: www.igf.td > Twitter :@IGFCHAD > https://twitter.com/bacharbong > Tél:0023566274284 > N'djaména(Tchad) > > > --------------------------------------------- > |AFRINIC Fellow|ISOC CHAD Member|ICANN/AFRALO Member|NEXTGEN > Fellow|GIVE1PROJECT MEMBER|IGFSA MEMBER|ACIEDD BOARD MEMBER|UN YOUTH > DELEGATE - CHAD 2016-2018|ICANN60 Fellow ||Youth Peacebuilder||| > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Jun 25 07:55:23 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (farzaneh badii (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 07:55:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] MAG 2020 Renewal Process In-Reply-To: References: <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680@mail.yahoo.com> <1775795332.1529901.1561445071396@mail.yahoo.com> <749405805.1589889.1561455869750@mail.yahoo.com> <02142E5B-465B-4D4F-959C-C6E2C8E1CFDB@gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree. It's too late. On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:51 AM Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Thanks all for the clarification. > > Unfortunately we only have 3.5 working days left to run the process and I > don't think this leaves adequate time for the setting up of the NomCom, the > sharing of the call, the collection of candidacies and the discussion among > CSCG reps to take place. From what I remember we normally leave at least a > week for people to send their nominations to the NomCom. > > In light of this, we can make the effort to publicise the call as widely > as possible among our networks, encouraging CS from underrepresented > regions and with a view to gender balance to apply. We can work on running > a meaningful process next year. > > What do you think? > > > > On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 11:12, ian.peter at ianpeter.com < > ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: > >> The other thing is that in decision making for MAG membership geographic >> and gender balance will be taken into account, perhaps even more >> importantly than stakeholder groups. So if we have a CS candidate from a >> geographic area not covered adequately by current reps or candidates from >> other groups there is a fair chance they might be selected. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: "Arsène Tungali" >> To: ias_pk at yahoo.com >> Cc: "Sheetal Kumar" ; "BestBitsList" < >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; "governance at lists.riseup.net" < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> >> Sent: 25/06/2019 8:04:54 PM >> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] MAG 2020 Renewal Process >> >> Even though there is no explicit need for CS reps this year, please do >> send in nominations. Maybe there will be available slots? Such as if >> someone resigns? >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 25 Jun 2019, at 10:44, Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List) < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >> >> No, >> not as per the numbers of term rotation, but .... may be acceptable by >> the selection Team ..... or if they plan to increase or decrease the >> strength .... like few years ago, they reduced 1 CS seat .... >> >> .....the overall composition *depends on several considerations >> including the nominations received, as well as the final decision of the UN >> Secretary-General*...... >> >> On Tuesday, 25 June 2019, 14:06:40 GMT+5, Sheetal Kumar < >> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >> >> >> Dear Imran, Arsene, all >> >> Thank you for sharing and the reminder. I just wanted to check, are there >> are civil society positions to fill this year? >> >> Best >> Sheetal >> >> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 07:44, Imran Ahmed Shah < >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> wrote: >> >> Just for reminder..... >> Deadline is ending soon..... >> >> Deadline for nominating candidates for the 2020 MAG Renewal is 30 June >> 2019 >> >> Regards >> >> Imran >> >> On Tuesday, 18 June 2019, 16:01:38 GMT+5, Imran Ahmed Shah < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >> >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> Just to reminder that the deadline for nominating candidates for the 2020 >> MAG Renewal is 30 June 2019: >> >> Do we have CSCG activities for collection of Nominations, Sorting-out >> suitable candidates and further submission of names of finalized >> Candidates? >> >> MAG 2020 Renewal >> >> >> MAG 2020 Renewal >> >> Announcement ‎ The Internet Governance Forum's Multistakeholder Advisory >> Group (MAG) has been ‎instrumental in p... >> >> >> The general guidance and notes to take into consideration regarding >> nominations for a position on the MAG are also available at the IGF >> website: MAG Renewal 2020: General guidance >> >> >> MAG Renewal 2020: General guidance >> >> Internet Governance Forum (IGF)2020 Renewal of the Multistakeholder >> Advisory Group (MAG) General guidance and no... >> >> >> >> Whereas they were looking for 7 male candidates >> 3 from Africa, (2 Government, 1 Private Sector) >> 1 from Asia Pacific, (1 Government) >> 1 from Eastern Europe (1 Private Sector) >> 2 from GRULAC. (1 Private Sector and 1 Technical Community) >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> [Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan] >> [Youth Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan] >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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| >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: > > >> List help: >> >> > > -- > > > *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 -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Jun 25 08:20:55 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Remmy Nweke (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 13:20:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] MAG 2020 Renewal Process In-Reply-To: References: <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680@mail.yahoo.com> <1775795332.1529901.1561445071396@mail.yahoo.com> <749405805.1589889.1561455869750@mail.yahoo.com> <02142E5B-465B-4D4F-959C-C6E2C8E1CFDB@gmail.com> Message-ID: I thought we have some representatives in MAG, why was this no shared earlier enough or may be with a timeline? ____ REMMY NWEKE, mNGE, Lead Consulting Strategist/Group Executive Editor, DigitalSENSE Africa Media [*Multiple-award winning medium*] (DigitalSENSE Business News ; ITREALMS , NaijaAgroNet ) Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria *2020 Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D & Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable * JOIN us!! *Vice President, African Civil Society on the Information Society (ACSIS ) _________________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:55 PM farzaneh badii wrote: > I agree. It's too late. > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:51 AM Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > >> Thanks all for the clarification. >> >> Unfortunately we only have 3.5 working days left to run the process and I >> don't think this leaves adequate time for the setting up of the NomCom, the >> sharing of the call, the collection of candidacies and the discussion among >> CSCG reps to take place. From what I remember we normally leave at least a >> week for people to send their nominations to the NomCom. >> >> In light of this, we can make the effort to publicise the call as widely >> as possible among our networks, encouraging CS from underrepresented >> regions and with a view to gender balance to apply. We can work on running >> a meaningful process next year. >> >> What do you think? >> >> >> >> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 11:12, ian.peter at ianpeter.com < >> ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: >> >>> The other thing is that in decision making for MAG membership geographic >>> and gender balance will be taken into account, perhaps even more >>> importantly than stakeholder groups. So if we have a CS candidate from a >>> geographic area not covered adequately by current reps or candidates from >>> other groups there is a fair chance they might be selected. >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: "Arsène Tungali" >>> To: ias_pk at yahoo.com >>> Cc: "Sheetal Kumar" ; "BestBitsList" < >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; "governance at lists.riseup.net" < >>> governance at lists.riseup.net> >>> Sent: 25/06/2019 8:04:54 PM >>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] MAG 2020 Renewal Process >>> >>> Even though there is no explicit need for CS reps this year, please do >>> send in nominations. Maybe there will be available slots? Such as if >>> someone resigns? >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On 25 Jun 2019, at 10:44, Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List) >>> wrote: >>> >>> No, >>> not as per the numbers of term rotation, but .... may be acceptable by >>> the selection Team ..... or if they plan to increase or decrease the >>> strength .... like few years ago, they reduced 1 CS seat .... >>> >>> .....the overall composition *depends on several considerations >>> including the nominations received, as well as the final decision of the UN >>> Secretary-General*...... >>> >>> On Tuesday, 25 June 2019, 14:06:40 GMT+5, Sheetal Kumar < >>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Dear Imran, Arsene, all >>> >>> Thank you for sharing and the reminder. I just wanted to check, are >>> there are civil society positions to fill this year? >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal >>> >>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 07:44, Imran Ahmed Shah < >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> wrote: >>> >>> Just for reminder..... >>> Deadline is ending soon..... >>> >>> Deadline for nominating candidates for the 2020 MAG Renewal is 30 June >>> 2019 >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Imran >>> >>> On Tuesday, 18 June 2019, 16:01:38 GMT+5, Imran Ahmed Shah < >>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Dear Colleagues, >>> >>> Just to reminder that the deadline for nominating candidates for the >>> 2020 MAG Renewal is 30 June 2019: >>> >>> Do we have CSCG activities for collection of Nominations, Sorting-out >>> suitable candidates and further submission of names of finalized >>> Candidates? >>> >>> MAG 2020 Renewal >>> >>> >>> MAG 2020 Renewal >>> >>> Announcement ‎ The Internet Governance Forum's Multistakeholder Advisory >>> Group (MAG) has been ‎instrumental in p... >>> >>> >>> The general guidance and notes to take into consideration regarding >>> nominations for a position on the MAG are also available at the IGF >>> website: MAG Renewal 2020: General guidance >>> >>> >>> MAG Renewal 2020: General guidance >>> >>> Internet Governance Forum (IGF)2020 Renewal of the Multistakeholder >>> Advisory Group (MAG) General guidance and no... >>> >>> >>> >>> Whereas they were looking for 7 male candidates >>> 3 from Africa, (2 Government, 1 Private Sector) >>> 1 from Asia Pacific, (1 Government) >>> 1 from Eastern Europe (1 Private Sector) >>> 2 from GRULAC. (1 Private Sector and 1 Technical Community) >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>> [Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan] >>> [Youth Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan] >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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| >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >> > >>> List help: >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> *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 > > -- > Farzaneh > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Jun 25 08:23:58 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (farzaneh badii (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 08:23:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] MAG 2020 Renewal Process In-Reply-To: References: <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680@mail.yahoo.com> <1775795332.1529901.1561445071396@mail.yahoo.com> <749405805.1589889.1561455869750@mail.yahoo.com> <02142E5B-465B-4D4F-959C-C6E2C8E1CFDB@gmail.com> Message-ID: Actually it was shared. But it was very recent. On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 8:21 AM Remmy Nweke wrote: > I thought we have some representatives in MAG, why was this no shared > earlier enough or may be with a timeline? > ____ > REMMY NWEKE, mNGE, > Lead Consulting Strategist/Group Executive Editor, > DigitalSENSE Africa Media [*Multiple-award winning medium*] > (DigitalSENSE Business News > ; ITREALMS > , NaijaAgroNet > ) > Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos > M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms > > Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria > > > *2020 Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D & Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable > * > JOIN us!! > > *Vice President, African Civil Society on the Information Society (ACSIS > ) > _________________________________________________________________ > *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments > are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended > only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal > responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended > recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do > not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make > any copies. Violators may face court persecution. > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:55 PM farzaneh badii < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > >> I agree. It's too late. >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:51 AM Sheetal Kumar >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks all for the clarification. >>> >>> Unfortunately we only have 3.5 working days left to run the process and >>> I don't think this leaves adequate time for the setting up of the NomCom, >>> the sharing of the call, the collection of candidacies and the discussion >>> among CSCG reps to take place. From what I remember we normally leave at >>> least a week for people to send their nominations to the NomCom. >>> >>> In light of this, we can make the effort to publicise the call as widely >>> as possible among our networks, encouraging CS from underrepresented >>> regions and with a view to gender balance to apply. We can work on running >>> a meaningful process next year. >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 11:12, ian.peter at ianpeter.com < >>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The other thing is that in decision making for MAG membership >>>> geographic and gender balance will be taken into account, perhaps even more >>>> importantly than stakeholder groups. So if we have a CS candidate from a >>>> geographic area not covered adequately by current reps or candidates from >>>> other groups there is a fair chance they might be selected. >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>> From: "Arsène Tungali" >>>> To: ias_pk at yahoo.com >>>> Cc: "Sheetal Kumar" ; "BestBitsList" < >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; "governance at lists.riseup.net" < >>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> >>>> Sent: 25/06/2019 8:04:54 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] MAG 2020 Renewal Process >>>> >>>> Even though there is no explicit need for CS reps this year, please do >>>> send in nominations. Maybe there will be available slots? Such as if >>>> someone resigns? >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On 25 Jun 2019, at 10:44, Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing >>>> List) wrote: >>>> >>>> No, >>>> not as per the numbers of term rotation, but .... may be acceptable by >>>> the selection Team ..... or if they plan to increase or decrease the >>>> strength .... like few years ago, they reduced 1 CS seat .... >>>> >>>> .....the overall composition *depends on several considerations >>>> including the nominations received, as well as the final decision of the UN >>>> Secretary-General*...... >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, 25 June 2019, 14:06:40 GMT+5, Sheetal Kumar < >>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Imran, Arsene, all >>>> >>>> Thank you for sharing and the reminder. I just wanted to check, are >>>> there are civil society positions to fill this year? >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Sheetal >>>> >>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 07:44, Imran Ahmed Shah < >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> Just for reminder..... >>>> Deadline is ending soon..... >>>> >>>> Deadline for nominating candidates for the 2020 MAG Renewal is 30 June >>>> 2019 >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Imran >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, 18 June 2019, 16:01:38 GMT+5, Imran Ahmed Shah < >>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Colleagues, >>>> >>>> Just to reminder that the deadline for nominating candidates for the >>>> 2020 MAG Renewal is 30 June 2019: >>>> >>>> Do we have CSCG activities for collection of Nominations, Sorting-out >>>> suitable candidates and further submission of names of finalized >>>> Candidates? >>>> >>>> MAG 2020 Renewal >>>> >>>> >>>> MAG 2020 Renewal >>>> >>>> Announcement ‎ The Internet Governance Forum's Multistakeholder >>>> Advisory Group (MAG) has been ‎instrumental in p... >>>> >>>> >>>> The general guidance and notes to take into consideration regarding >>>> nominations for a position on the MAG are also available at the IGF >>>> website: MAG Renewal 2020: General guidance >>>> >>>> >>>> MAG Renewal 2020: General guidance >>>> >>>> Internet Governance Forum (IGF)2020 Renewal of the Multistakeholder >>>> Advisory Group (MAG) General guidance and no... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Whereas they were looking for 7 male candidates >>>> 3 from Africa, (2 Government, 1 Private Sector) >>>> 1 from Asia Pacific, (1 Government) >>>> 1 from Eastern Europe (1 Private Sector) >>>> 2 from GRULAC. (1 Private Sector and 1 Technical Community) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>>> [Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan] >>>> [Youth Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan] >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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| >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>> > >>>> List help: >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> *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 >> >> -- >> Farzaneh >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Jun 25 08:43:44 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Bruna Martins dos Santos (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:43:44 -0300 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] MAG 2020 Renewal Process In-Reply-To: References: <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680@mail.yahoo.com> <1775795332.1529901.1561445071396@mail.yahoo.com> <749405805.1589889.1561455869750@mail.yahoo.com> <02142E5B-465B-4D4F-959C-C6E2C8E1CFDB@gmail.com> Message-ID: It was indeed shared! But, considering that the open positions were for other stakeholders I guess the majority interpreted as if there were no action to be taken regarding the call. Best, Bruna Le mar. 25 juin 2019 à 09:24, farzaneh badii a écrit : > Actually it was shared. But it was very recent. > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 8:21 AM Remmy Nweke wrote: > >> I thought we have some representatives in MAG, why was this no shared >> earlier enough or may be with a timeline? >> ____ >> REMMY NWEKE, mNGE, >> Lead Consulting Strategist/Group Executive Editor, >> DigitalSENSE Africa Media [*Multiple-award winning medium*] >> (DigitalSENSE Business News >> ; ITREALMS >> , NaijaAgroNet >> ) >> Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos >> M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms >> >> Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria >> >> >> *2020 Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D & Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable >> * >> JOIN us!! >> >> *Vice President, African Civil Society on the Information Society (ACSIS >> ) >> _________________________________________________________________ >> *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and >> attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is >> intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not >> accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not >> the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this >> document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other >> person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:55 PM farzaneh badii < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >> >>> I agree. It's too late. >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:51 AM Sheetal Kumar >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks all for the clarification. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately we only have 3.5 working days left to run the process and >>>> I don't think this leaves adequate time for the setting up of the NomCom, >>>> the sharing of the call, the collection of candidacies and the discussion >>>> among CSCG reps to take place. From what I remember we normally leave at >>>> least a week for people to send their nominations to the NomCom. >>>> >>>> In light of this, we can make the effort to publicise the call as >>>> widely as possible among our networks, encouraging CS from underrepresented >>>> regions and with a view to gender balance to apply. We can work on running >>>> a meaningful process next year. >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 11:12, ian.peter at ianpeter.com < >>>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The other thing is that in decision making for MAG membership >>>>> geographic and gender balance will be taken into account, perhaps even more >>>>> importantly than stakeholder groups. So if we have a CS candidate from a >>>>> geographic area not covered adequately by current reps or candidates from >>>>> other groups there is a fair chance they might be selected. >>>>> >>>>> Ian Peter >>>>> >>>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>>> From: "Arsène Tungali" >>>>> To: ias_pk at yahoo.com >>>>> Cc: "Sheetal Kumar" ; "BestBitsList" < >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; "governance at lists.riseup.net" < >>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> >>>>> Sent: 25/06/2019 8:04:54 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] MAG 2020 Renewal Process >>>>> >>>>> Even though there is no explicit need for CS reps this year, please do >>>>> send in nominations. Maybe there will be available slots? Such as if >>>>> someone resigns? >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On 25 Jun 2019, at 10:44, Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing >>>>> List) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> No, >>>>> not as per the numbers of term rotation, but .... may be acceptable by >>>>> the selection Team ..... or if they plan to increase or decrease the >>>>> strength .... like few years ago, they reduced 1 CS seat .... >>>>> >>>>> .....the overall composition *depends on several considerations >>>>> including the nominations received, as well as the final decision of the UN >>>>> Secretary-General*...... >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, 25 June 2019, 14:06:40 GMT+5, Sheetal Kumar < >>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear Imran, Arsene, all >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for sharing and the reminder. I just wanted to check, are >>>>> there are civil society positions to fill this year? >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> Sheetal >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 07:44, Imran Ahmed Shah < >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Just for reminder..... >>>>> Deadline is ending soon..... >>>>> >>>>> Deadline for nominating candidates for the 2020 MAG Renewal is 30 >>>>> June 2019 >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Imran >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, 18 June 2019, 16:01:38 GMT+5, Imran Ahmed Shah < >>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear Colleagues, >>>>> >>>>> Just to reminder that the deadline for nominating candidates for the >>>>> 2020 MAG Renewal is 30 June 2019: >>>>> >>>>> Do we have CSCG activities for collection of Nominations, Sorting-out >>>>> suitable candidates and further submission of names of finalized >>>>> Candidates? >>>>> >>>>> MAG 2020 Renewal >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> MAG 2020 Renewal >>>>> >>>>> Announcement ‎ The Internet Governance Forum's Multistakeholder >>>>> Advisory Group (MAG) has been ‎instrumental in p... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The general guidance and notes to take into consideration regarding >>>>> nominations for a position on the MAG are also available at the IGF >>>>> website: MAG Renewal 2020: General guidance >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> MAG Renewal 2020: General guidance >>>>> >>>>> Internet Governance Forum (IGF)2020 Renewal of the Multistakeholder >>>>> Advisory Group (MAG) General guidance and no... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Whereas they were looking for 7 male candidates >>>>> 3 from Africa, (2 Government, 1 Private Sector) >>>>> 1 from Asia Pacific, (1 Government) >>>>> 1 from Eastern Europe (1 Private Sector) >>>>> 2 from GRULAC. (1 Private Sector and 1 Technical Community) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>> [Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan] >>>>> [Youth Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan] >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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| >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> > >>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> *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 >>> >>> -- >>> Farzaneh >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> -- > Farzaneh > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -- *Bruna Martins dos Santos * Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos @boomartins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Jun 25 08:49:12 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Remmy Nweke (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 13:49:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] MAG 2020 Renewal Process In-Reply-To: References: <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680@mail.yahoo.com> <1775795332.1529901.1561445071396@mail.yahoo.com> <749405805.1589889.1561455869750@mail.yahoo.com> <02142E5B-465B-4D4F-959C-C6E2C8E1CFDB@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the clarification @farzaneh badii and @Bruna Martins ____ REMMY NWEKE, mNGE, Lead Consulting Strategist/Group Executive Editor, DigitalSENSE Africa Media [*Multiple-award winning medium*] (DigitalSENSE Business News ; ITREALMS , NaijaAgroNet ) Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria *2020 Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D & Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable * JOIN us!! *Vice President, African Civil Society on the Information Society (ACSIS ) _________________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 1:43 PM Bruna Martins dos Santos < bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote: > It was indeed shared! But, considering that the open positions were for > other stakeholders I guess the majority interpreted as if there were no > action to be taken regarding the call. > > Best, > Bruna > > Le mar. 25 juin 2019 à 09:24, farzaneh badii a > écrit : > >> Actually it was shared. But it was very recent. >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 8:21 AM Remmy Nweke wrote: >> >>> I thought we have some representatives in MAG, why was this no shared >>> earlier enough or may be with a timeline? >>> ____ >>> REMMY NWEKE, mNGE, >>> Lead Consulting Strategist/Group Executive Editor, >>> DigitalSENSE Africa Media [*Multiple-award winning medium*] >>> (DigitalSENSE Business News >>> ; ITREALMS >>> , NaijaAgroNet >>> ) >>> Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos >>> M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms >>> >>> Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria >>> >>> >>> *2020 Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D & Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable >>> * >>> JOIN us!! >>> >>> *Vice President, African Civil Society on the Information Society (ACSIS >>> ) >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and >>> attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is >>> intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not >>> accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not >>> the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this >>> document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other >>> person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:55 PM farzaneh badii < >>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>> >>>> I agree. It's too late. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:51 AM Sheetal Kumar >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks all for the clarification. >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately we only have 3.5 working days left to run the process >>>>> and I don't think this leaves adequate time for the setting up of the >>>>> NomCom, the sharing of the call, the collection of candidacies and the >>>>> discussion among CSCG reps to take place. From what I remember we normally >>>>> leave at least a week for people to send their nominations to the NomCom. >>>>> >>>>> In light of this, we can make the effort to publicise the call as >>>>> widely as possible among our networks, encouraging CS from underrepresented >>>>> regions and with a view to gender balance to apply. We can work on running >>>>> a meaningful process next year. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 11:12, ian.peter at ianpeter.com < >>>>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The other thing is that in decision making for MAG membership >>>>>> geographic and gender balance will be taken into account, perhaps even more >>>>>> importantly than stakeholder groups. So if we have a CS candidate from a >>>>>> geographic area not covered adequately by current reps or candidates from >>>>>> other groups there is a fair chance they might be selected. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ian Peter >>>>>> >>>>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>>>> From: "Arsène Tungali" >>>>>> To: ias_pk at yahoo.com >>>>>> Cc: "Sheetal Kumar" ; "BestBitsList" < >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; "governance at lists.riseup.net" < >>>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> >>>>>> Sent: 25/06/2019 8:04:54 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] MAG 2020 Renewal Process >>>>>> >>>>>> Even though there is no explicit need for CS reps this year, please >>>>>> do send in nominations. Maybe there will be available slots? Such as if >>>>>> someone resigns? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>> On 25 Jun 2019, at 10:44, Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing >>>>>> List) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> No, >>>>>> not as per the numbers of term rotation, but .... may be acceptable >>>>>> by the selection Team ..... or if they plan to increase or decrease the >>>>>> strength .... like few years ago, they reduced 1 CS seat .... >>>>>> >>>>>> .....the overall composition *depends on several considerations >>>>>> including the nominations received, as well as the final decision of the UN >>>>>> Secretary-General*...... >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tuesday, 25 June 2019, 14:06:40 GMT+5, Sheetal Kumar < >>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Imran, Arsene, all >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for sharing and the reminder. I just wanted to check, are >>>>>> there are civil society positions to fill this year? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> Sheetal >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 07:44, Imran Ahmed Shah < >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Just for reminder..... >>>>>> Deadline is ending soon..... >>>>>> >>>>>> Deadline for nominating candidates for the 2020 MAG Renewal is 30 >>>>>> June 2019 >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Imran >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tuesday, 18 June 2019, 16:01:38 GMT+5, Imran Ahmed Shah < >>>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Colleagues, >>>>>> >>>>>> Just to reminder that the deadline for nominating candidates for the >>>>>> 2020 MAG Renewal is 30 June 2019: >>>>>> >>>>>> Do we have CSCG activities for collection of Nominations, Sorting-out >>>>>> suitable candidates and further submission of names of finalized >>>>>> Candidates? >>>>>> >>>>>> MAG 2020 Renewal >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> MAG 2020 Renewal >>>>>> >>>>>> Announcement ‎ The Internet Governance Forum's Multistakeholder >>>>>> Advisory Group (MAG) has been ‎instrumental in p... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The general guidance and notes to take into consideration regarding >>>>>> nominations for a position on the MAG are also available at the IGF >>>>>> website: MAG Renewal 2020: General guidance >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> MAG Renewal 2020: General guidance >>>>>> >>>>>> Internet Governance Forum (IGF)2020 Renewal of the Multistakeholder >>>>>> Advisory Group (MAG) General guidance and no... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Whereas they were looking for 7 male candidates >>>>>> 3 from Africa, (2 Government, 1 Private Sector) >>>>>> 1 from Asia Pacific, (1 Government) >>>>>> 1 from Eastern Europe (1 Private Sector) >>>>>> 2 from GRULAC. (1 Private Sector and 1 Technical Community) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>>> [Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan] >>>>>> [Youth Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan] >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> List help: >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> 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| >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> > >>>>>> List help: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *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 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Farzaneh >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>> -- >> Farzaneh >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > -- > *Bruna Martins dos Santos * > > Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos > @boomartins > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Jun 25 10:13:14 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 02:13:14 +1200 Subject: [governance] Overdue IGC Co-coordinator Elections and Request for Update on Website/ Was Re: Who are the IGC Co-coordinators? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, 1. It would appear from a copy of the email to the IGC Mailing list that one of our co-coordinator's (Arsene) term would have lapsed last year in December, 2018 where the elections for a new co-coordinator should have been held to ensure rotation. IC co-coordinators serve for a term of 2 years. Arsene was elected and began serving in March 2016 following the February 2016 elections facilitated by Analia. 2. Bruna and Arsene should have started the Open Call for candidates in December and held the elections by February 2019. 3. The co-coordinators have been working with the community on migrating the content as you can see from the email below of April 27, 2017 and preparing a new website. The website mentioned in that email was www.igcaucus.org Moreover, on September, 2016, Arsene had informed the IGC that whilst he had received 3 statement of interests to do the website, he had accepted Akinremi Peter. In essence work on the website would have been from September 2016 and onwards. 4. Kindly advise what the new website is and whether the migration of content was completed. 5. An election should be held immediately to replace the vacancy that currently exists. I would encourage energetic and committed members to apply (looking at *Sheetal* and *Farzaneh*) and non-discriminately encouraging others too. 6. An update should be sent to all members about the status of the IGC, and strategic framework for engagement within the IGF, WEF, WTO and diverse fora. 7. There have been some content about a rudderless IGC and we have to encourage Bruna to get on with it as per the Charter and provide an update. Should any of the co-coordinators need assistance there are many past coordinators who can give advice offline. 8. There is need to align the IGC to the Charter and if the Charter needs changing and leadership needs revamping so be it! Sincerely, Sala ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Arsène Tungali Date: Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:07 AM Subject: [governance] New IGC Co-coordinator: Nominations open until May 10th! To: Internet Governance Dear colleagues, It is time to elect a new Co-coordinator for the Caucus, to replace Analía who has already completed her two-year term, and to work with me (Arsene). As you know, the IGC is operating with two volunteers called “Co-coordinators”. I would like to send my apologies for the time it took me to quick start this process; as you know, we have been busy with migrating our server but also I informed that I will be launching this once we have submitted our workshop proposal to the upcoming IGF (which we did today). This is an usual process and I beg you to bear with me. You will remember I did launch this call while we were still working on the server but so many of you only saw it later on when the system was restored back. We invite members of the IGC to nominate candidates (please check with them first about their willingness to serve), or to nominate themselves as Co-coordinator to serve for 2 years, from 2017-2019. All you need to do is to send TO THE LIST your statement of interest (in the body of an email and attached in a .doc file) with the following elements: - Your full name - Your country of origin and of residence - Anything we need to know about your work/involvement with IGC/IGF/Civil Society activities. (200 words max) - Why do you think you can be a good Co-coordinator for the IGC? (Max 200 words) - What’s your vision for the IGC during your term if elected? Pick up to 3 current issues we face in the group that you will consider as priority during your first year. (Max 200 words) The nomination period will be open until midnight UTC on May 10th, 2017. After this date, we will circulate a resume of candidate's profiles and enable a voting link to all IGC members in order to elect our new co-coordinator. You can check duties and responsibilities on our website (www.igcaucus.org) I do encourage all of you who wish to have a different experience with international advocacy or Internet public policy issues to consider applying. Also, we need to revitalize our group so we need someone very dynamic that will bring a push to support me. Kind regards, Arsene IGC Co-coordinator ------------------------ **Arsène Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum * Tel: +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil & Mexico ) - AFRISIG 2016 - Blogger - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles & Marrakech ). AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius ) * - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom. Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report To unsubscribe from this list, click here: http://lists.igcaucus.org/sympa/auto_signoff/governance/salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro%40gmail.com On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:33 AM Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Bruna, Arsene, > > Thank you such a relief.Can you advise when (dates) in which you were both > elected? Basically month and year. > > On another note, Sheetal and Farzaneh have raised issues that deserve > discussion. > > Notably in the threads, there have been links provided on archived info so > hoping you can consolidate and advise us what our current site is. > > Have you made an open call to the community to map areas of participation > etc? > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 5:33 pm Bruna Martins dos Santos, < > bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Sala, >> >> Right now the co-coordinators are Arsene Tungali and myself. >> >> Best, >> Bruna >> >> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 17:21 "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro", < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Can someone advise me who the co-coordinators are? >>> >>> Many thanks, >>> Sala >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> -- *Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala T* *P. O. Box 17862* *Suva* *Republic of Fiji* *Cell: +679 7656770; * *Home: +679 3362003* *Twitter: @SalanietaT* *"You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the greatest quality of the mind next to honour." Aristotle* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jun 26 18:27:51 2019 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 22:27:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] Overdue IGC Co-coordinator Elections and Request for Update on Website/ Was Re: Who are the IGC Co-coordinators? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just reiterating the importance (and urgency) of what Sala has pointed out in the message below. An election of a co-coordinator to replace Arsene should be held now as a matter of urgency: and if Bruna does not feel able to continue, maybe a double vacancy should be declared. Bruna, there are people here willing and able to help you move forward with this if it seems to difficult. Just ask. But doing nothing is not an option. IGC's credibility is at stake if it cannot manage simple processes and regularly elect co-coordinators as required in its Charter. Ian Peter ------ Original Message ------ From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" To: "Bruna Santos" Cc: "governance" Sent: 26/06/2019 12:13:14 AM Subject: [governance] Overdue IGC Co-coordinator Elections and Request for Update on Website/ Was Re: Who are the IGC Co-coordinators? >Dear Colleagues, > >It would appear from a copy of the email to the IGC Mailing list that >one of our co-coordinator's (Arsene) term would have lapsed last year >in December, 2018 where the elections for a new co-coordinator should >have been held to ensure rotation. IC co-coordinators serve for a term >of 2 years. Arsene was elected and began serving in March 2016 >following the February 2016 elections facilitated by Analia.Bruna and >Arsene should have started the Open Call for candidates in December and >held the elections by February 2019. The co-coordinators have been >working with the community on migrating the content as you can see from >the email below of April 27, 2017 and preparing a new website. The >website mentioned in that email was www.igcaucus.org Moreover, on >September, 2016, Arsene had informed the IGC that whilst he had >received 3 statement of interests to do the website, he had accepted >Akinremi Peter. In essence work on the website would have been from >September 2016 and onwards.Kindly advise what the new website is and >whether the migration of content was completed.An election should be >held immediately to replace the vacancy that currently exists. I would >encourage energetic and committed members to apply (looking at Sheetal >and Farzaneh) and non-discriminately encouraging others too.An update >should be sent to all members about the status of the IGC, and >strategic framework for engagement within the IGF, WEF, WTO and diverse >fora.There have been some content about a rudderless IGC and we have to >encourage Bruna to get on with it as per the Charter and provide an >update. Should any of the co-coordinators need assistance there are >many past coordinators who can give advice offline.There is need to >align the IGC to the Charter and if the Charter needs changing and >leadership needs revamping so be it! >Sincerely, >Sala > > > >---------- Forwarded message --------- >From: Arsène Tungali >Date: Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:07 AM >Subject: [governance] New IGC Co-coordinator: Nominations open until >May 10th! >To: Internet Governance > > >Dear colleagues, > > > >It is time to elect a new Co-coordinator for the Caucus, to replace >Analía who has already completed her two-year term, and to work with me >(Arsene). As you know, the IGC is operating with two volunteers called >“Co-coordinators”. > > > >I would like to send my apologies for the time it took me to quick >start this process; as you know, we have been busy with migrating our >server but also I informed that I will be launching this once we have >submitted our workshop proposal to the upcoming IGF (which we did >today). This is an usual process and I beg you to bear with me. You >will remember I did launch this call while we were still working on the >server but so many of you only saw it later on when the system was >restored back. > > > >We invite members of the IGC to nominate candidates (please check with >them first about their willingness to serve), or to nominate themselves >as Co-coordinator to serve for 2 years, from 2017-2019. All you need to >do is to send TO THE LIST your statement of interest (in the body of an >email and attached in a .doc file) with the following elements: > >- Your full name > >- Your country of origin and of residence > >- Anything we need to know about your work/involvement with >IGC/IGF/Civil Society activities. (200 words max) > >- Why do you think you can be a good Co-coordinator for the >IGC? (Max 200 words) > >- What’s your vision for the IGC during your term if elected? >Pick up to 3 current issues we face in the group that you will consider >as priority during your first year. (Max 200 words) > > > >The nomination period will be open until midnight UTC on May 10th, >2017. After this date, we will circulate a resume of candidate's >profiles and enable a voting link to all IGC members in order to elect >our new co-coordinator. > > > >You can check duties and responsibilities on our website >(www.igcaucus.org) > >I do encourage all of you who wish to have >a different experience with international advocacy or Internet public >policy issues to consider applying. Also, we need to revitalize our >group so we need someone very dynamic that will bring a push to support >me. > > > >Kind regards, > >Arsene > >IGC Co-coordinator > > > >------------------------ >*Arsène Tungali * >Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international >, >CEO, Smart Services Sarl , Mabingwa Forum > >Tel: +243 993810967 >GPG: 523644A0 >Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo > >2015 Mandela Washington Felllow > >(YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil > >& Mexico >) >- AFRISIG 2016 - >Blogger - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles > & Marrakech >). >AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius >) >- IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - Internet >Freedom. > >Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report > >To unsubscribe from this list, click here: >http://lists.igcaucus.org/sympa/auto_signoff/governance/salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro%40gmail.com > > > > >On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:33 AM Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >>Dear Bruna, Arsene, >> >>Thank you such a relief.Can you advise when (dates) in which you were >>both elected? Basically month and year. >> >>On another note, Sheetal and Farzaneh have raised issues that deserve >>discussion. >> >>Notably in the threads, there have been links provided on archived >>info so hoping you can consolidate and advise us what our current site >>is. >> >>Have you made an open call to the community to map areas of >>participation etc? >> >>Kind Regards, >>Sala >> >>On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 5:33 pm Bruna Martins dos Santos, >> wrote: >>>Dear Sala, >>> >>>Right now the co-coordinators are Arsene Tungali and myself. >>> >>>Best, >>>Bruna >>> >>>On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 17:21 "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro", >>> wrote: >>>>Dear All, >>>> >>>>Can someone advise me who the co-coordinators are? >>>> >>>>Many thanks, >>>>Sala >>>>--- >>>>To unsubscribe: >>>>List help: > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala T >P. O. Box 17862 >Suva >Republic of Fiji > >Cell: +679 7656770; >Home: +679 3362003 >Twitter: @SalanietaT > > >"You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the >greatest quality of the mind next to honour." > >Aristotle > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Jun 26 18:30:50 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (farzaneh badii (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 18:30:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Overdue IGC Co-coordinator Elections and Request for Update on Website/ Was Re: Who are the IGC Co-coordinators? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Sala As to the archive and bringing the website back, I can work with Bruna and others to bring the website back and revitalize archives etc. Farzaneh On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:13 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > > 1. It would appear from a copy of the email to the IGC Mailing list > that one of our co-coordinator's (Arsene) term would have lapsed last year > in December, 2018 where the elections for a new co-coordinator should have > been held to ensure rotation. IC co-coordinators serve for a term of 2 > years. Arsene was elected and began serving in March 2016 following the > February 2016 elections facilitated by Analia. > 2. Bruna and Arsene should have started the Open Call for candidates > in December and held the elections by February 2019. > 3. The co-coordinators have been working with the community on > migrating the content as you can see from the email below of April 27, 2017 > and preparing a new website. The website mentioned in that email was > www.igcaucus.org Moreover, on September, 2016, Arsene had informed the > IGC that whilst he had received 3 statement of interests to do the website, > he had accepted Akinremi Peter. In essence work on the website would have > been from September 2016 and onwards. > 4. Kindly advise what the new website is and whether the migration of > content was completed. > 5. An election should be held immediately to replace the vacancy that > currently exists. I would encourage energetic and committed members to > apply (looking at *Sheetal* and *Farzaneh*) and non-discriminately > encouraging others too. > 6. An update should be sent to all members about the status of the > IGC, and strategic framework for engagement within the IGF, WEF, WTO and > diverse fora. > 7. There have been some content about a rudderless IGC and we have to > encourage Bruna to get on with it as per the Charter and provide an update. > Should any of the co-coordinators need assistance there are many past > coordinators who can give advice offline. > 8. There is need to align the IGC to the Charter and if the Charter > needs changing and leadership needs revamping so be it! > > Sincerely, > Sala > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Arsène Tungali > Date: Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:07 AM > Subject: [governance] New IGC Co-coordinator: Nominations open until May > 10th! > To: Internet Governance > > > Dear colleagues, > > > It is time to elect a new Co-coordinator for the Caucus, to replace Analía > who has already completed her two-year term, and to work with me (Arsene). > As you know, the IGC is operating with two volunteers called > “Co-coordinators”. > > > I would like to send my apologies for the time it took me to quick start > this process; as you know, we have been busy with migrating our server but > also I informed that I will be launching this once we have submitted our > workshop proposal to the upcoming IGF (which we did today). This is an > usual process and I beg you to bear with me. You will remember I did launch > this call while we were still working on the server but so many of you only > saw it later on when the system was restored back. > > > We invite members of the IGC to nominate candidates (please check with > them first about their willingness to serve), or to nominate themselves as > Co-coordinator to serve for 2 years, from 2017-2019. All you need to do is > to send TO THE LIST your statement of interest (in the body of an email and > attached in a .doc file) with the following elements: > > - Your full name > > - Your country of origin and of residence > > - Anything we need to know about your work/involvement with > IGC/IGF/Civil Society activities. (200 words max) > > - Why do you think you can be a good Co-coordinator for the IGC? > (Max 200 words) > > - What’s your vision for the IGC during your term if elected? > Pick up to 3 current issues we face in the group that you will consider as > priority during your first year. (Max 200 words) > > > The nomination period will be open until midnight UTC on May 10th, > 2017. After this date, we will circulate a resume of candidate's profiles > and enable a voting link to all IGC members in order to elect our new > co-coordinator. > > > You can check duties and responsibilities on our website (www.igcaucus.org > ) > > I do encourage all of you who wish to have a > different experience with international advocacy or Internet public policy > issues to consider applying. Also, we need to revitalize our group so we > need someone very dynamic that will bring a push to support me. > > > Kind regards, > > Arsene > > IGC Co-coordinator > > > ------------------------ > **Arsène Tungali* * > Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international > *, > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum > * > Tel: +243 993810967 > GPG: 523644A0 > *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* > > 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow > (YALI) > - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil > > & Mexico > > ) - AFRISIG 2016 - > Blogger - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles > & Marrakech > > ). AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius > > )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - > Internet Freedom. > > Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report > > To unsubscribe from this list, click here: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/sympa/auto_signoff/governance/salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro%40gmail.com > > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:33 AM Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Bruna, Arsene, >> >> Thank you such a relief.Can you advise when (dates) in which you were >> both elected? Basically month and year. >> >> On another note, Sheetal and Farzaneh have raised issues that deserve >> discussion. >> >> Notably in the threads, there have been links provided on archived info >> so hoping you can consolidate and advise us what our current site is. >> >> Have you made an open call to the community to map areas of participation >> etc? >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 5:33 pm Bruna Martins dos Santos, < >> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear Sala, >>> >>> Right now the co-coordinators are Arsene Tungali and myself. >>> >>> Best, >>> Bruna >>> >>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 17:21 "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro", < >>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Can someone advise me who the co-coordinators are? >>>> >>>> Many thanks, >>>> Sala >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>> > > -- > > *Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala T* > > *P. O. Box 17862* > > *Suva* > > > *Republic of Fiji* > > *Cell: +679 7656770; * > > *Home: +679 3362003* > *Twitter: @SalanietaT* > > > > > *"You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the > greatest quality of the mind next to honour." Aristotle* > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Jun 26 19:39:37 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 00:39:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Overdue IGC Co-coordinator Elections and Request for Update on Website/ Was Re: Who are the IGC Co-coordinators? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That's fantastic Farzaneh. In total agreement with Ian, doing nothing is not an option. On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, 11:31 pm farzaneh badii, wrote: > Hello Sala > > As to the archive and bringing the website back, I can work with Bruna and > others to bring the website back and revitalize archives etc. > > > > > Farzaneh > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:13 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> >> 1. It would appear from a copy of the email to the IGC Mailing list >> that one of our co-coordinator's (Arsene) term would have lapsed last year >> in December, 2018 where the elections for a new co-coordinator should have >> been held to ensure rotation. IC co-coordinators serve for a term of 2 >> years. Arsene was elected and began serving in March 2016 following the >> February 2016 elections facilitated by Analia. >> 2. Bruna and Arsene should have started the Open Call for candidates >> in December and held the elections by February 2019. >> 3. The co-coordinators have been working with the community on >> migrating the content as you can see from the email below of April 27, 2017 >> and preparing a new website. The website mentioned in that email was >> www.igcaucus.org Moreover, on September, 2016, Arsene had informed >> the IGC that whilst he had received 3 statement of interests to do the >> website, he had accepted Akinremi Peter. In essence work on the website >> would have been from September 2016 and onwards. >> 4. Kindly advise what the new website is and whether the migration of >> content was completed. >> 5. An election should be held immediately to replace the vacancy that >> currently exists. I would encourage energetic and committed members to >> apply (looking at *Sheetal* and *Farzaneh*) and non-discriminately >> encouraging others too. >> 6. An update should be sent to all members about the status of the >> IGC, and strategic framework for engagement within the IGF, WEF, WTO and >> diverse fora. >> 7. There have been some content about a rudderless IGC and we have to >> encourage Bruna to get on with it as per the Charter and provide an update. >> Should any of the co-coordinators need assistance there are many past >> coordinators who can give advice offline. >> 8. There is need to align the IGC to the Charter and if the Charter >> needs changing and leadership needs revamping so be it! >> >> Sincerely, >> Sala >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Arsène Tungali >> Date: Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:07 AM >> Subject: [governance] New IGC Co-coordinator: Nominations open until May >> 10th! >> To: Internet Governance >> >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> >> It is time to elect a new Co-coordinator for the Caucus, to replace >> Analía who has already completed her two-year term, and to work with me >> (Arsene). As you know, the IGC is operating with two volunteers called >> “Co-coordinators”. >> >> >> I would like to send my apologies for the time it took me to quick start >> this process; as you know, we have been busy with migrating our server but >> also I informed that I will be launching this once we have submitted our >> workshop proposal to the upcoming IGF (which we did today). This is an >> usual process and I beg you to bear with me. You will remember I did launch >> this call while we were still working on the server but so many of you only >> saw it later on when the system was restored back. >> >> >> We invite members of the IGC to nominate candidates (please check with >> them first about their willingness to serve), or to nominate themselves as >> Co-coordinator to serve for 2 years, from 2017-2019. All you need to do is >> to send TO THE LIST your statement of interest (in the body of an email and >> attached in a .doc file) with the following elements: >> >> - Your full name >> >> - Your country of origin and of residence >> >> - Anything we need to know about your work/involvement with >> IGC/IGF/Civil Society activities. (200 words max) >> >> - Why do you think you can be a good Co-coordinator for the >> IGC? (Max 200 words) >> >> - What’s your vision for the IGC during your term if elected? >> Pick up to 3 current issues we face in the group that you will consider as >> priority during your first year. (Max 200 words) >> >> >> The nomination period will be open until midnight UTC on May 10th, >> 2017. After this date, we will circulate a resume of candidate's profiles >> and enable a voting link to all IGC members in order to elect our new >> co-coordinator. >> >> >> You can check duties and responsibilities on our website ( >> www.igcaucus.org) >> >> I do encourage all of you who wish to have >> a different experience with international advocacy or Internet public >> policy issues to consider applying. Also, we need to revitalize our group >> so we need someone very dynamic that will bring a push to support me. >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Arsene >> >> IGC Co-coordinator >> >> >> ------------------------ >> **Arsène Tungali* * >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >> *, >> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa Forum >> * >> Tel: +243 993810967 >> GPG: 523644A0 >> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* >> >> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow >> (YALI) >> - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil >> >> & Mexico >> >> ) - AFRISIG 2016 - >> Blogger - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles >> & Marrakech >> >> ). AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius >> >> )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - >> Internet Freedom. >> >> Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report >> >> To unsubscribe from this list, click here: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/sympa/auto_signoff/governance/salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro%40gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:33 AM Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear Bruna, Arsene, >>> >>> Thank you such a relief.Can you advise when (dates) in which you were >>> both elected? Basically month and year. >>> >>> On another note, Sheetal and Farzaneh have raised issues that deserve >>> discussion. >>> >>> Notably in the threads, there have been links provided on archived info >>> so hoping you can consolidate and advise us what our current site is. >>> >>> Have you made an open call to the community to map areas of >>> participation etc? >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 5:33 pm Bruna Martins dos Santos, < >>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Sala, >>>> >>>> Right now the co-coordinators are Arsene Tungali and myself. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Bruna >>>> >>>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 17:21 "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro", < >>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> Can someone advise me who the co-coordinators are? >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks, >>>>> Sala >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>> >> >> -- >> >> *Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala T* >> >> *P. O. Box 17862* >> >> *Suva* >> >> >> *Republic of Fiji* >> >> *Cell: +679 7656770; * >> >> *Home: +679 3362003* >> *Twitter: @SalanietaT* >> >> >> >> >> *"You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the >> greatest quality of the mind next to honour." Aristotle* >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Jun 27 04:08:36 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Bruna Martins dos Santos (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 05:08:36 -0300 Subject: [governance] Overdue IGC Co-coordinator Elections and Request for Update on Website/ Was Re: Who are the IGC Co-coordinators? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Sala, Thank you very much for your email. I agree with many of the points raised here by you and Ian. I will chat with Arsene this week just so we can kick off a new election process and will be referring back to the list asap. As for the website, I think we will take on @farzaneh badii offer in order to revitalize it and bring back the archives and so on. I also hope we can take this very fortunate event in which there is a considerable amount of consensus around the need for more CS coordination and manage to arrange a Day Zero meeting for Berlin. These spaces and coordination made a lot of difference in the past and I do think we have been missing it as a stakeholder group. Best, Bruna Le mer. 26 juin 2019 à 20:47, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> a écrit : > That's fantastic Farzaneh. > In total agreement with Ian, doing nothing is not an option. > > On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, 11:31 pm farzaneh badii, > wrote: > >> Hello Sala >> >> As to the archive and bringing the website back, I can work with Bruna >> and others to bring the website back and revitalize archives etc. >> >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:13 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >> >>> Dear Colleagues, >>> >>> >>> 1. It would appear from a copy of the email to the IGC Mailing list >>> that one of our co-coordinator's (Arsene) term would have lapsed last year >>> in December, 2018 where the elections for a new co-coordinator should have >>> been held to ensure rotation. IC co-coordinators serve for a term of 2 >>> years. Arsene was elected and began serving in March 2016 following the >>> February 2016 elections facilitated by Analia. >>> 2. Bruna and Arsene should have started the Open Call for candidates >>> in December and held the elections by February 2019. >>> 3. The co-coordinators have been working with the community on >>> migrating the content as you can see from the email below of April 27, 2017 >>> and preparing a new website. The website mentioned in that email was >>> www.igcaucus.org Moreover, on September, 2016, Arsene had informed >>> the IGC that whilst he had received 3 statement of interests to do the >>> website, he had accepted Akinremi Peter. In essence work on the website >>> would have been from September 2016 and onwards. >>> 4. Kindly advise what the new website is and whether the migration >>> of content was completed. >>> 5. An election should be held immediately to replace the vacancy >>> that currently exists. I would encourage energetic and committed members to >>> apply (looking at *Sheetal* and *Farzaneh*) and non-discriminately >>> encouraging others too. >>> 6. An update should be sent to all members about the status of the >>> IGC, and strategic framework for engagement within the IGF, WEF, WTO and >>> diverse fora. >>> 7. There have been some content about a rudderless IGC and we have >>> to encourage Bruna to get on with it as per the Charter and provide an >>> update. Should any of the co-coordinators need assistance there are many >>> past coordinators who can give advice offline. >>> 8. There is need to align the IGC to the Charter and if the Charter >>> needs changing and leadership needs revamping so be it! >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> Sala >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: Arsène Tungali >>> Date: Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:07 AM >>> Subject: [governance] New IGC Co-coordinator: Nominations open until May >>> 10th! >>> To: Internet Governance >>> >>> >>> Dear colleagues, >>> >>> >>> It is time to elect a new Co-coordinator for the Caucus, to replace >>> Analía who has already completed her two-year term, and to work with me >>> (Arsene). As you know, the IGC is operating with two volunteers called >>> “Co-coordinators”. >>> >>> >>> I would like to send my apologies for the time it took me to quick start >>> this process; as you know, we have been busy with migrating our server but >>> also I informed that I will be launching this once we have submitted our >>> workshop proposal to the upcoming IGF (which we did today). This is an >>> usual process and I beg you to bear with me. You will remember I did launch >>> this call while we were still working on the server but so many of you only >>> saw it later on when the system was restored back. >>> >>> >>> We invite members of the IGC to nominate candidates (please check with >>> them first about their willingness to serve), or to nominate themselves as >>> Co-coordinator to serve for 2 years, from 2017-2019. All you need to do is >>> to send TO THE LIST your statement of interest (in the body of an email and >>> attached in a .doc file) with the following elements: >>> >>> - Your full name >>> >>> - Your country of origin and of residence >>> >>> - Anything we need to know about your work/involvement with >>> IGC/IGF/Civil Society activities. (200 words max) >>> >>> - Why do you think you can be a good Co-coordinator for the >>> IGC? (Max 200 words) >>> >>> - What’s your vision for the IGC during your term if elected? >>> Pick up to 3 current issues we face in the group that you will consider as >>> priority during your first year. (Max 200 words) >>> >>> >>> The nomination period will be open until midnight UTC on May 10th, >>> 2017. After this date, we will circulate a resume of candidate's profiles >>> and enable a voting link to all IGC members in order to elect our new >>> co-coordinator. >>> >>> >>> You can check duties and responsibilities on our website ( >>> www.igcaucus.org) >>> >>> I do encourage all of you who wish to have >>> a different experience with international advocacy or Internet public >>> policy issues to consider applying. Also, we need to revitalize our group >>> so we need someone very dynamic that will bring a push to support me. >>> >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Arsene >>> >>> IGC Co-coordinator >>> >>> >>> ------------------------ >>> **Arsène Tungali* * >>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >>> *, >>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, *Mabingwa >>> Forum * >>> Tel: +243 993810967 >>> GPG: 523644A0 >>> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo* >>> >>> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow >>> (YALI) >>> - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil >>> >>> & Mexico >>> >>> ) - AFRISIG 2016 - >>> Blogger - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles >>> & Marrakech >>> >>> ). AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius >>> >>> )* - *IGFSA Member - Internet Governance - >>> Internet Freedom. >>> >>> Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report >>> >>> To unsubscribe from this list, click here: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/sympa/auto_signoff/governance/salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro%40gmail.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:33 AM Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Bruna, Arsene, >>>> >>>> Thank you such a relief.Can you advise when (dates) in which you were >>>> both elected? Basically month and year. >>>> >>>> On another note, Sheetal and Farzaneh have raised issues that deserve >>>> discussion. >>>> >>>> Notably in the threads, there have been links provided on archived info >>>> so hoping you can consolidate and advise us what our current site is. >>>> >>>> Have you made an open call to the community to map areas of >>>> participation etc? >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 5:33 pm Bruna Martins dos Santos, < >>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Sala, >>>>> >>>>> Right now the co-coordinators are Arsene Tungali and myself. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Bruna >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 17:21 "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro", < >>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> >>>>>> Can someone advise me who the co-coordinators are? >>>>>> >>>>>> Many thanks, >>>>>> Sala >>>>>> --- >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> List help: >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala T* >>> >>> *P. O. Box 17862* >>> >>> *Suva* >>> >>> >>> *Republic of Fiji* >>> >>> *Cell: +679 7656770; * >>> >>> *Home: +679 3362003* >>> *Twitter: @SalanietaT* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *"You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the >>> greatest quality of the mind next to honour." Aristotle* >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> -- *Bruna Martins dos Santos * Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos @boomartins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Jun 5 05:34:42 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Michael J. Oghia" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 11:34:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 to be held in Poland In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Mawaki, all: No need to apologise or call it a rant. It's a very fair point, and I appreciate your articulation. As someone who lives in Europe and undoubtedly benefits from having the IGF hosted on the continent, I am also frustrated that – assuming it's already been decided – the IGF would be held yet again in Europe. I know that the country where it's held mainly rests on which government is willing to host it, so I do understand if the options are limited. What are the solutions to this? Best, -Michael On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:26 AM Mawaki Chango wrote: > Good point, Abdeldjalil. Geneva, Paris, Berlin and now Poland > (Varsovie/Warsaw, I guess?) That's four. > The Schengen visa is such a hassle for so many people, and so time > consuming! I'm not even talking about getting all the paperwork in order. > One has to secure the interview appointment months and months in advance > and that alone is sometimes enough to cause failure. > > And when you manage to get the visa, it only lasts the exact number of > days planned for your meeting (or whatever the purpose of the visit.) And > even if one knows there's another meeting (say, ICANN) coming up in the > next few months still in the Schengen space which one needs to attend, one > has to go through all of it again. They won't consider that even if the > visa paperwork for the next meeting is ready. Certainly not if the two > consecutive meetings are happening in two different Schengen countries, > although any Schengen country visa applies to the whole of Schengen space. > I'm not even sure they accept to issue an extended visa in the case the two > meetings were to happen in the same country three or four months apart. The > bureaucracy of sovereignty ! > > Okay, I guess that was my mid-week rant. Otherwise, I'm looking forward to > seeing and enjoying Berlin and hopefully Warsaw. > > Mawaki > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 08:29 Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong wrote: > >> >> Thanks Arsene for sharing. >> >> Congratulation for that innovation :knowing the date early . >> After 3 round I'm Europe we hope that after Poland will be in AFRICA . >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> >> Cordialement >> >> ABDELDJALIL BACHAR BONG >> >> >> ---------------------------------- >> PRESIDENT & CEO >> >> >> ASSOCIATION "HOUSE OF AFRICA" >> E-mail: bachar at houseof.africa >> Twitter: @HOUSEOFINTERNET >> WEBSITE : www.houseof.africa >> Whatsapp: +23566274284 >> Skype: Bongbour >> >> ------------------------------------- >> >> Le Secrétaire Exécutif/Executive Secretary >> >> Forum sur la Gouvernance de l'Internet au Tchad (FGI Tchad) / >> Chad Internet Governance Forum >> ------------------------------------- >> >> E-mail: Bachar at igf.td >> Website: www.igf.td >> Twitter :@IGFCHAD >> https://twitter.com/bacharbong >> Tél:0023566274284 >> N'djaména(Tchad) >> >> >> --------------------------------------------- >> |AFRINIC Fellow|ISOC CHAD Member|ICANN/AFRALO Member|NEXTGEN >> Fellow|GIVE1PROJECT MEMBER|IGFSA MEMBER|ACIEDD BOARD MEMBER|UN YOUTH >> DELEGATE - CHAD 2016-2018|ICANN60 Fellow ||Youth Peacebuilder||| >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Thu Jun 27 09:28:26 2019 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 13:28:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") In-Reply-To: References: <20190410131012.GA17542@auk.tarvainen.info> <9fd097236d0c42d5a6a54f768bd0b2d8@adcu.columbia.edu> Message-ID: Hello Sheetal, I concur accordingly and have no objections at all to the proposal so I have no further inputs. Poncelet Kind Regards Poncelet On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 13:24, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > Thanks to all those who have inputted so far! It's great to see support > for the proposal shared earlier this month. This is just a gentle reminder > to weigh in on the proposal before *July 5th*, which I've recopied in > italics below. > > Best > Sheetal. > > *Meeting of IGC & BB participants, June 11th, 2019, RightsCon, Tunis* > > *Following a discussion of the history of coordination efforts from those > who had been involved in the early set up of the IGC, and a discussion of > what is needed to address challenges to information sharing & coordination, > those present agreed that the proposal for combining, or consolidating, > efforts should be taken forward (this was one of the four options suggested > in a survey to Bestbits members earlier this year - see attached). This > discussion also draws on and continues a series of online conversations > facilitated by members of IGC and Bestbits, which you can see a summary of > here: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture > . There was a need > identified for more streamlined information sharing and expectation that > opportunities to collaborate around common priorities or issues will arise > from more structured and streamlined information sharing. It was also > agreed that the current IGC Charter could form a basis for a future > document but that it should be revisited and a more lightweight and general > framework should be developed.* > > > *Therefore, the group proposes that those interested in civil society > coordination efforts related to the original vision of the IGC Charter (see > attached), join the IGC and that Bestbits is closed, with an automatic > response instituted for those posting on Bestbits, redirecting them to join > IGC. Within IGC, following this merger, we propose that those interested > form a small drafting group to draft a revised and more lightweight version > of the Charter. Those present also agreed to work towards the organisation > of a day 0 event before the global IGF this year in Berlin, in concert with > German civil society groups. The day 0 event will be dedicated to > finalising the revised Charter and sharing updates on relevant global > processes (the UN High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation & the UN First > Committee processes on cybersecurity). * > > > *If you have strong concerns or if you oppose the merger proposal as > outlined above, please share your perspectives by 05 July. Should there be > no objections, we suggest the process as outlined is implemented after July > 05. If you have any questions at all about the process so far, please do > get in touch with us.* > > *Participants: Leena Romppainen (Effi), Gayatri Khandhadai (APC), Pavitra > Ramanujam (APC), Sheetal Kumar (GPD), Anriette Esterhuysen (APC), Milton > Mueller (Georgia Tech), Jamila Venturini (Derechos Digitales), Peter Micek > (Access Now), Rafik Dammak, Bruna Martins dos Santos (Coding Rights), > Nadira Alaraj, Bach Avezdjanov (Columbia Global Freedom of Expression), > Arsene Tungali (Rudi International)* > > > *Agenda followed:* > > > > *1) Introductions 2) Context/background: bringing everyone up to speed 3) > Organising a day 0 event: what would we want to get out of it? Why organise > the event? Can we set outcomes? How ambitious do we want to be? 4) > Practicalities of organising the event: steering committee? Agreement on > roles and responsibilities, further outreach, next steps * > > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 14:53, Remmy Nweke wrote: > >> Thanks >> A better option. >> Regards >> Remmy Nweke >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 18:57 Sheetal Kumar wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I am writing here on behalf of the thirteen members of IGC and/or >>> Bestbits which met on June 11, day 0 of RightsCon in Tunis to take forward >>> our discussion on how to better coordinate civil society efforts (see >>> agenda & participants at bottom of this email). Please see our proposal >>> below. >>> >>> Following a discussion of the history of coordination efforts from those >>> who had been involved in the early set up of the IGC, and a discussion of >>> what is needed to address challenges to information sharing & coordination, >>> those present agreed that the proposal for combining, or consolidating, >>> efforts should be taken forward (this was one of the four options suggested >>> in a survey to Bestbits members earlier this year - see attached). This >>> discussion also draws on and continues a series of online conversations >>> facilitated by members of IGC and Bestbits, which you can see a summary of >>> here: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture. There was a >>> need identified for more streamlined information sharing and expectation >>> that opportunities to collaborate around common priorities or issues will >>> arise from more structured and streamlined information sharing. It was also >>> agreed that the current IGC Charter could form a basis for a future >>> document but that it should be revisited and a more lightweight and general >>> framework should be developed. >>> >>> Therefore, the group proposes that those interested in civil society >>> coordination efforts related to the original vision of the IGC Charter (see >>> attached), join the IGC and that Bestbits is closed, with an automatic >>> response instituted for those posting on Bestbits, redirecting them to join >>> IGC. Within IGC, following this merger, we propose that those interested >>> form a small drafting group to draft a revised and more lightweight version >>> of the Charter. Those present also agreed to work towards the organisation >>> of a day 0 event before the global IGF this year in Berlin, in concert with >>> German civil society groups. The day 0 event will be dedicated to >>> finalising the revised Charter and sharing updates on relevant global >>> processes (the UN High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation & the UN First >>> Committee processes on cybersecurity). >>> >>> If you have strong concerns or if you oppose the merger proposal as >>> outlined above, please share your perspectives by *05 July*. Should >>> there be no objections, we suggest the process as outlined is implemented >>> after July 05. If you have any questions at all about the process so far, >>> please do get in touch with us. >>> >>> Participants: Leena Romppainen (Effi), Gayatri Khandhadai (APC), Pavitra >>> Ramanujam (APC), Sheetal Kumar (GPD), Anriette Esterhuysen (APC), >>> Milton Mueller (Georgia Tech), Jamila Venturini (Derechos Digitales), Peter >>> Micek (Access Now), Rafik Dammak, Bruna Martins dos Santos (Coding Rights), >>> Nadira Alaraj, Bach Avezdjanov (Columbia Global Freedom of Expression), >>> Arsene Tungali (Rudi International) >>> >>> Agenda followed: >>> 1) Introductions >>> 2) Context/background: bringing everyone up to speed >>> 3) Organising a day 0 event: what would we want to get out of it? Why >>> organise the event? Can we set outcomes? How ambitious do we want to be? >>> 4) Practicalities of organising the event: steering committee? Agreement >>> on roles and responsibilities, further outreach, next steps >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 16:36, Sheetal Kumar >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Looking forward to seeing those of you who can make it to our meeting >>>> in Tunis tomorrow. >>>> >>>> If you're attending to come but haven't yet let me know, please drop me >>>> a line if you can. >>>> >>>> Please find the details below: >>>> >>>> *Where:* Room DOUGGA on Tuesday, June 11th from 9am-12:30pm >>>> >>>> *Why/Aims/intended outcome:* >>>> >>>> - >>>> *Agreed next steps for organising a day 0 event * >>>> >>>> >>>> *What/the agenda: * >>>> >>>> *1) Introductions (15 minutes)* >>>> >>>> *2) Context/background: bringing everyone up to speed (15 minutes)* >>>> >>>> *3) Organising a day 0 event: what would we want to get out of it? Why >>>> organise the event? Can we set outcomes? How ambitious do we want to be? >>>> (1-1.5 hours)* >>>> *4) Practicalities of organising the event: steering committee? >>>> Agreement on roles and responsibilities, further outreach, next steps (45 >>>> minutes) * >>>> >>>> Do let me know if you have any questions! >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> *Best* >>>> >>>> *Sheetal.* >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 10:24, Sheetal Kumar >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> Following on from my previous email, we will have our meeting to plan >>>>> the IGF day 0 event on Day 0 of RightsCon. See the details below: >>>>> >>>>> - Room Dougga >>>>> - June 11, *9am-12:30pm * >>>>> - Hôtel LAICO, Ave Mohamed V, Tunis, Tunisia >>>>> >>>>> If you can't make it but will be at RightsCon and would like to be >>>>> part of the discussions, let me know as I we can find time to meet >>>>> before/after the event. I've set up a thread for those who expressed >>>>> interest in this effort so I can add you to that too. >>>>> >>>>> Hope to see many of you soon! >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 11:30, Sheetal Kumar >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for your replies. I've also received a few replies >>>>>> off-thread expressing interest in the effort. >>>>>> >>>>>> @Bach - thank you for the kind offer! We've secured a space at the >>>>>> RightsCon venue but that would have been very helpful if not! Will you be >>>>>> at RightsCon? >>>>>> >>>>>> On the way forward: >>>>>> >>>>>> - Please let me know if you are at RightsCon and would like to >>>>>> attend that first meeting as there is limited space but of course we'd like >>>>>> to accommodate everyone who can attend >>>>>> - If you are not at RightsCon and still interested then please do >>>>>> get in touch anyway, as we will be keeping everyone updated and you can >>>>>> input into the meeting agenda (and maybe even the discussions if we have >>>>>> good wifi) >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 20:19, Bakhtiyor Avezdjanov < >>>>>> ba2482 at columbia.edu> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Columbia University has a center in Tunis, and I could inquire if we >>>>>>> could use it for a Day 0 meeting, if it takes place. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please let me know. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bach Avezdjanov >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Program Officer, Columbia Global Freedom of Expression >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Email: ba2482 at columbia.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Phone: 212 854 1591 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Twitter: @ColumbiaGFOE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Columbia Global Freedom of Expression >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Subscribe to our Weekly News Letter! >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: >>>>>>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Lee W McKnight >>>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2019 3:07 PM >>>>>>> *To:* Tapani Tarvainen; sivasubramanian muthusamy; Akinremi Peter >>>>>>> Taiwo; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; governance; Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Follow-on from survey on the >>>>>>> future of Bestbits: next steps >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for this. I agree with the Day 0 meeting idea. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For me this feels quite deja vu-ish of the (2nd?) IGF in Hyderabad >>>>>>> where the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and the DC on Internet >>>>>>> Principles had a joint meeting to discuss overlaps; we left with a Dynamic >>>>>>> Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles. Which eventually led to the >>>>>>> creation and translation of the Charter on Internet Rights and Principles >>>>>>> among other positive outcomes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, I am optimistic an IGC-CSCG (sp?) can move forward out of this; >>>>>>> ie among IGC's tasks going forward is to help energize also the cross-CS >>>>>>> coordination right? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which has to be done with BestBits 'Get it done' mindset and methods >>>>>>> embedded; vs IGC's at its worst eternal faculty meeting feel (at times to >>>>>>> this prof). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net < >>>>>>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> on behalf of Sheetal Kumar < >>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> >>>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, May 13, 2019 12:40:53 PM >>>>>>> *To:* Tapani Tarvainen; Sheetal Kumar; sivasubramanian muthusamy; >>>>>>> Akinremi Peter Taiwo; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; governance >>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Follow-on from survey on the >>>>>>> future of Bestbits: next steps >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Following our discussions, and some discussions among some of those >>>>>>> of us who attended the last call four weeks ago (notes & participants >>>>>>> here: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture), see >>>>>>> below what some of us propose as a hopefully straightforward plan going >>>>>>> forward. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - IGC and Bestbits list members work together to organise a day >>>>>>> 0 event at IGF >>>>>>> - Volunteers from both lists come together in an informal >>>>>>> steering committee to organise the event - you don't have to identify as >>>>>>> 'Bestbits'/IGC necessarily and can agree how to approach the organisation >>>>>>> of the event however they see fit >>>>>>> - Members of other lists are invited to join once an informal >>>>>>> agenda has been put together >>>>>>> - Those who are present at RightsCon and interested in this >>>>>>> effort come together to discuss preliminary ideas - to include the idea of >>>>>>> focusing the day 0 event on reviving IGC (and many others that have already >>>>>>> been proposed) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Although after all this to-ing and fro-ing it may sound like we've >>>>>>> now decided to just organise a meeting again I hope you will agree that the >>>>>>> discussions had so far, the interest and commitment to global level >>>>>>> coordination, would be usefully served by collectively putting together an >>>>>>> agenda that responds to the interests of those committed to these efforts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please provide your views on this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 17:30, Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for those who joined the call yesterday. Once I have the >>>>>>> recording I'll send it around. In the meantime, you can see a short summary >>>>>>> at the top of the etherpad. Apologies for its staccato nature but it should >>>>>>> provide an overview of what we discussed: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In essence, we discussed the reasons that these discussions about >>>>>>> civil society coordination have recently re-surfaced and those on the call >>>>>>> reiterated the commitment to global-level coordination and the need to work >>>>>>> together in a less fragmented way. We looked at the survey results and >>>>>>> discussed the fact that although about half of the respondents supported >>>>>>> exploring a 'merger' with IGC, around half also thought expanding the >>>>>>> mandate of the CSCG could be an option. However, those on the call >>>>>>> mentioned that the historical standing of the IGC is important to leverage >>>>>>> and there is complementary between Bestbits and IGCs mandates. Therefore, >>>>>>> we shouldn't lose that in whatever we choose to do going forward. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We discussed that proposing something more concrete to the IGC would >>>>>>> be helpful in terms of how a 'merger' could work. We were cognizant of the >>>>>>> limited number of the people on the call, so we agreed to put something >>>>>>> short together and then to share it with you for your feedback before >>>>>>> sharing it with IGC. At the moment, we're working on that simple proposal >>>>>>> to share with you. I'll share it shortly. If anyone else on the call wants >>>>>>> to chime in with more information please do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you have any questions, please do let us know! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 14:10, Tapani Tarvainen < >>>>>>> tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I couldn't get bluejeans to work for me. I trust someone will >>>>>>> report on the meeting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On huhti 10 13:11, Sheetal Kumar (sheetal at gp-digital.org) wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > Dear all, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > This is just a quick reminder that we'll be meeting in under an >>>>>>> hour at 1 >>>>>>> > PM UTC (see the link below). >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Looking forward to speaking to you then! >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Best >>>>>>> > Sheetal. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Meeting room details >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > *Meeting URL* >>>>>>> > https://bluejeans.com/524189381?src=join_info >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Meeting ID >>>>>>> > 524 189 381 >>>>>>> > Want to dial in from a phone? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Dial one of the following numbers: >>>>>>> > +1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose)) >>>>>>> > +1.408.317.9253 (US (Primary, San Jose)) >>>>>>> > (see all numbers - https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers) >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Enter the meeting ID and passcode followed by # >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Connecting from a room system? >>>>>>> > Dial: bjn.vc or 199.48.152.152 and enter your meeting ID & >>>>>>> passcode >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 at 13:39, Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > > Dear all >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > As promised, please find below the details for meeting us on >>>>>>> *Wednesday, >>>>>>> > > April 10 at 1 PM UTC*. I've included the agenda further below >>>>>>> too. >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > Looking forward to speaking to you then! >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > Best >>>>>>> > > Sheetal. >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > Meeting room details >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > *Meeting URL* >>>>>>> > > https://bluejeans.com/524189381?src=join_info >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > Meeting ID >>>>>>> > > 524 189 381 >>>>>>> > > Want to dial in from a phone? >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > Dial one of the following numbers: >>>>>>> > > +1.408.740.7256 (US (San Jose)) >>>>>>> > > +1.408.317.9253 (US (Primary, San Jose)) >>>>>>> > > (see all numbers - https://www.bluejeans.com/premium-numbers) >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > Enter the meeting ID and passcode followed by # >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > Connecting from a room system? >>>>>>> > > Dial: bjn.vc or 199.48.152.152 and enter your meeting ID & >>>>>>> passcode >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > Any civil society stakeholders interested in the discussion >>>>>>> around >>>>>>> > > improving coordination are welcome so please share with anyone >>>>>>> relevant. >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > Suggested agenda >>>>>>> > > 1) Grounding: why are we having this discussion/a recap of >>>>>>> what's happened >>>>>>> > > so far >>>>>>> > > 1) Responses to the survey: a discussion >>>>>>> > > 2) Suggestion of concrete ways forward >>>>>>> > > 3) Meeting at RightsCon? >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 at 08:55, sivasubramanian muthusamy < >>>>>>> > > 6.internet at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> Dear Akinremi, >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> I was wondering if the discussion so far has reached the >>>>>>> participants of >>>>>>> > >> the Governance list, especially the thinking that "discussion >>>>>>> about >>>>>>> > >> merging should be limited to each group". If riseup.net is >>>>>>> working, >>>>>>> > >> then I do not have concerns. >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> Thank you. >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> Sivasubramanian M < >>>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> >>>>>>> > >> twitter.com/shivaindia >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 1:05 PM Akinremi Peter Taiwo < >>>>>>> > >> compsoftnet at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >>> Hi Sivasubramanian, >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> I don't understand what you mean by saying igcaucus.org >>>>>>> mailbox is not >>>>>>> > >>> receiving messages. IGC is currently hosted on riseup.net >>>>>>> mailing-list. >>>>>>> > >>> Please can you help me understand what you are trying to do so >>>>>>> as to be >>>>>>> > >>> able to help. >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> Regards. >>>>>>> > >>> Peter >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 4:12 AM sivasubramanian muthusamy < >>>>>>> > >>> 6.internet at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> I wasn't aware that it was formally decided by the Bestbits >>>>>>> list to >>>>>>> > >>>> discuss this list-wise. Posting a note here on a different >>>>>>> problem. The >>>>>>> > >>>> igcaucus. org mailbox is NOT receiving messages, who is >>>>>>> managing the >>>>>>> > >>>> Governance lists please? >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> Sivasubramanian M < >>>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> >>>>>>> > >>>> twitter.com/shivaindia >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 8:03 PM Akinremi Peter Taiwo < >>>>>>> > >>>> compsoftnet at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>> Hi Sivasubramanian, >>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>> I think what was agreed was that the survey should be >>>>>>> limited to >>>>>>> > >>>>> Bestbit only and that the discussion about merging should be >>>>>>> limited to >>>>>>> > >>>>> each group. This would enable each group to do a kind of an >>>>>>> independent >>>>>>> > >>>>> assessment that would inform the decision of whether the >>>>>>> group should cease >>>>>>> > >>>>> or merge. Also, I could remember that some folks on the IGC >>>>>>> group wants IGC >>>>>>> > >>>>> to remain as it is. >>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>> @Deirdre Williams I remembered I openly shared some contacts >>>>>>> on the >>>>>>> > >>>>> IGC list back then, which might be the privacy issue you are >>>>>>> referring to. >>>>>>> > >>>>> Aside of that, I don't think I was in the picture of any >>>>>>> privacy issue that >>>>>>> > >>>>> affected the group. Maybe Jeremy could throw more light on >>>>>>> this. >>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>> I could also remembered during the review of CSCG, part of >>>>>>> our >>>>>>> > >>>>> discussion was to accommodate regional civil society >>>>>>> organization in the >>>>>>> > >>>>> sphere of IG but the challenge of the individual wearing >>>>>>> many hat remains. >>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>> Regards. >>>>>>> > >>>>> Peter >>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 9:41 PM Sivasubramanian M < >>>>>>> > >>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> With apologies for cross-posting, I see a limited response, >>>>>>> only >>>>>>> > >>>>>> about 8 respondents. >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Is there a corresponding message on the IGC list? Possibly >>>>>>> the poll >>>>>>> > >>>>>> announcement hasn't reached those who are subscribed only >>>>>>> to the IGC list. >>>>>>> > >>>>>> (or because the title of the message says "future of >>>>>>> Bestbits" rather than >>>>>>> > >>>>>> say "future of IG Civil Society". >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Sivasubramanian M >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:41 PM Sheetal Kumar < >>>>>>> > >>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It's been really great to see the level of engagement in >>>>>>> these >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> conversations about strengthening civil society >>>>>>> coordination, and I know >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> there's a lot of interest in not losing motivation. The >>>>>>> conversations have >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> been premised on a general interest in changing the >>>>>>> current situation >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> (namely Bestbits being inactive as a coordination >>>>>>> network), and >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> collectively finding ways to strengthen global civil >>>>>>> society coordination >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> on the issues we work on. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hopefully the conversations so far, and the survey which >>>>>>> gathered a >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> broader array of views, have been helpful. I attached a >>>>>>> summary report of >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> the survey in my last email. At the last IGF in Paris >>>>>>> there was discussion >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> of holding a meeting at RightsCon this year. Before we do >>>>>>> that however, it >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> would be good to discuss the responses to the survey and >>>>>>> agree a way >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> forward. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm including a doodle below, with a suggested agenda. It >>>>>>> would be >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> great if you could fill it out by 29 March so I can >>>>>>> confirm the date and >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> set up a room. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> https://doodle.com/poll/vyfn2zdxzt8wqzis >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> *Suggested agenda* >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 1) Responses to the survey: a discussion >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2) Suggestion of concrete ways forward >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 3) Meeting at RightsCon? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Looking forward to building on your energy and >>>>>>> contributions so far! >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 13:43, Sheetal Kumar < >>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thank you very much to those who completed the survey. I >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> attached the anonymised results as a text document, with >>>>>>> a summary included >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> at the top in case useful. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> As a next step I would suggest a split call, with the >>>>>>> first half >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> spent discussing the results and suggesting a way forward >>>>>>> (45 minutes-1 >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> hour) and the second half, if deemed necessary, with IGC >>>>>>> founders and other >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> key members of IGC. We could arrange that as a separate >>>>>>> call too. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The aim of the calls so far and the survey have been to >>>>>>> find a way >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> to promote *more* civil society coordination, and thus to >>>>>>> change >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> the current state of affairs. I hope that they help in >>>>>>> finding a way >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> forward which does this and in so doing, responds to the >>>>>>> widest possible >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> range of opinion. Should you have any other suggestions >>>>>>> on how to proceed, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> please do chime in! Otherwise, I'll send around a doodle >>>>>>> for a follow up >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> call. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks again. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 15:02, Sheetal Kumar < >>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We've received a useful number of responses but it would >>>>>>> be great >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> to hear from more people about the future of Bestbits. >>>>>>> If you could fill >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> out the survey by COB this Friday that would be much >>>>>>> appreciated. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/ >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> < >>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/ >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> < >>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> index&sid=528319 >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> < >>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'll then likely send out a doodle for another call to >>>>>>> decide next >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> steps next week. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 11:58, Sheetal Kumar < >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> We've got some great responses to the survey so thank >>>>>>> you to >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> those who have responded already. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The survey is still open so please do lend your views >>>>>>> if you can, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> by using the link below. The survey responses will feed >>>>>>> into the next set >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> of discussions on the future of Bestbits. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/ >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> < >>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/ >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> < >>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> index&sid=528319 >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> < >>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 09:37, Sheetal Kumar < >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Following a call and discussion on this thread, please >>>>>>> see a >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> survey below to gather your views on the future of >>>>>>> Bestbits. Following a >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> call on February 11 with members of Bestbits, as well >>>>>>> as members of IGC, it >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> was agreed that a survey would be circulated to gather >>>>>>> views of all members. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The survey is preceded by a background information >>>>>>> note which >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> includes a summary of the discussions so far, and >>>>>>> links to the summaries of >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> calls. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319&lang=en >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> As a member of the Bestbits mailing list, you are >>>>>>> invited to >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> complete the survey. To inform future discussions in a >>>>>>> timely way, please >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> complete the survey *by 08 March*. Should you have any >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> questions at all, don't hesitate to get in touch. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to hearing your views! >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 20:08, Sheetal Kumar < >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you to those who participated in the call >>>>>>> yesterday. For >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> those who couldn't attend the call, you'll find the >>>>>>> list of participants >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> and notes here: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> We had a rich discussion about the possible ways >>>>>>> forward for >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Bestbits, building on the previous conversation in >>>>>>> December and the >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> discussion on this thread since. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> In essence, there was general agreement that both >>>>>>> Bestbits and >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> IGC have been facing challenges in fulfilling their >>>>>>> objectives, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> particularly when it comes to coordination and we >>>>>>> agreed to circulate a >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> survey to both lists to gather perspectives on four >>>>>>> suggested ways forward >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> which were discussed on the call. It was suggested >>>>>>> that this survey with >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> the broader communities feed into a decision on the >>>>>>> future of the >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> platforms. The survey will be circulated shortly to >>>>>>> both lists shortly, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> and your participation would be greatly appreciated. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 16:47, Sheetal Kumar < >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is just a gentle reminder that the call on next >>>>>>> steps is >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> this coming Monday, 11 February from* 4- 6 PM UTC*. >>>>>>> The full >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> details are included in my previous email and I've >>>>>>> updated the >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> etherpad < >>>>>>> https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with those planning to attend. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to speaking to you then! >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sheetal. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 10:07, Sheetal Kumar < >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 < >>>>>>> http://worldtimebuddy.com/> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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 >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> < >>>>>>> https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture>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 < >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> 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 < >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> 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 < >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jeremy at malcolm.id.au> 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| >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *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| >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> *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| >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> *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| >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> *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 >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> -- >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Sivasubramanian M >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Please send all replies to 6.Internet at gmail.com >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> --- >>>>>>> > >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>> > >>>>>> List help: >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>> -- >>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>> < >>>>>>> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> Peter Taiwo Akinremi >>>>>>> > >>>>> about.me/petertaiwoakinremi >>>>>>> > >>>>> < >>>>>>> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> -- >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> < >>>>>>> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> Peter Taiwo Akinremi >>>>>>> > >>> about.me/petertaiwoakinremi >>>>>>> > >>> < >>>>>>> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > -- >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > *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| >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> > 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| >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *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| >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *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| >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> *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| >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> > > -- > > > *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 -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ * *https://www.netfreedompioneers.org/ * *www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From helani at lirneasia.net Fri Jun 28 05:26:22 2019 From: helani at lirneasia.net (Helani Galpaya) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:26:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Aresene and others: Where is the discussion and nomination process taking place for the Civil Society nomination(s) for MAG chair? I mean in which list? Apologies if these questions were answered elsewhere and I'm just not seeing it. Thanks. Helani Helani Galpaya LIRNEasia www.lirneasia.net +94 77 3600 766 (m-LK); +44 7415 865222 (m-UK) On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 7:39 PM Arsène Tungali wrote: > Dear all, > > As you know, the current MAG Chair is Lynn St Amour, she is ending her > term this year! > > There is a need to have another chair starting right after IGF Berlin. Was > wondering, maybe we need to discuss the profile of a good MAG Chair? > > Though we will not choose on this list, but wanted to share that > consultations are going on within different stakeholder groups within the > MAG, each one of them being asked to suggest a name (s) to the IGF > Secretariat. > > Just throwing this out here. > > Arsene > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Fri Jun 28 06:52:10 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 11:52:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Helani, Arsene, all Thanks for sharing this information. Is there any information on the process for selection? Is there a timeline in mind? We could request CSCG to run this, Best On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 10:27, Helani Galpaya wrote: > Dear Aresene and others: > Where is the discussion and nomination process taking place for the Civil > Society nomination(s) for MAG chair? > I mean in which list? > Apologies if these questions were answered elsewhere and I'm just not > seeing it. > Thanks. > Helani > > > > Helani Galpaya > LIRNEasia > www.lirneasia.net > +94 77 3600 766 (m-LK); +44 7415 865222 (m-UK) > > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 7:39 PM Arsène Tungali > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> As you know, the current MAG Chair is Lynn St Amour, she is ending her >> term this year! >> >> There is a need to have another chair starting right after IGF Berlin. >> Was wondering, maybe we need to discuss the profile of a good MAG Chair? >> >> Though we will not choose on this list, but wanted to share that >> consultations are going on within different stakeholder groups within the >> MAG, each one of them being asked to suggest a name (s) to the IGF >> Secretariat. >> >> Just throwing this out here. >> >> Arsene >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- *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 governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Jun 28 06:58:46 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 11:58:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3971E26F-A3F4-4F9C-B210-6DC2511E510D@gmail.com> MAG Chair selection has always been the responsibility of the UN, through the UNDESA as far as i know. This year, MAG members have been asked to discuss and suggest names. There is no point for this to go through any formal CS consultation Sent from my iPhone > On 28 Jun 2019, at 11:52, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > > Dear Helani, Arsene, all > > Thanks for sharing this information. Is there any information on the process for selection? Is there a timeline in mind? We could request CSCG to run this, > > Best > >> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 10:27, Helani Galpaya wrote: >> Dear Aresene and others: >> Where is the discussion and nomination process taking place for the Civil Society nomination(s) for MAG chair? >> I mean in which list? >> Apologies if these questions were answered elsewhere and I'm just not seeing it. >> Thanks. >> Helani >> >> >> >> Helani Galpaya >> LIRNEasia >> www.lirneasia.net >> +94 77 3600 766 (m-LK); +44 7415 865222 (m-UK) >> >> >> >>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 7:39 PM Arsène Tungali wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> As you know, the current MAG Chair is Lynn St Amour, she is ending her term this year! >>> >>> There is a need to have another chair starting right after IGF Berlin. Was wondering, maybe we need to discuss the profile of a good MAG Chair? >>> >>> Though we will not choose on this list, but wanted to share that consultations are going on within different stakeholder groups within the MAG, each one of them being asked to suggest a name (s) to the IGF Secretariat. >>> >>> Just throwing this out here. >>> >>> Arsene >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: > > > -- > > > 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 governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Jun 28 07:04:22 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Fouad Bajwa (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:04:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF MAG Chair In-Reply-To: <3971E26F-A3F4-4F9C-B210-6DC2511E510D@gmail.com> References: <3971E26F-A3F4-4F9C-B210-6DC2511E510D@gmail.com> Message-ID: Is there a particular announcement against which one can send name suggestions? Best Fouad On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:59 AM Arsène Tungali wrote: > MAG Chair selection has always been the responsibility of the UN, through > the UNDESA as far as i know. This year, MAG members have been asked to > discuss and suggest names. There is no point for this to go through any > formal CS consultation > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 28 Jun 2019, at 11:52, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > > Dear Helani, Arsene, all > > Thanks for sharing this information. Is there any information on the > process for selection? Is there a timeline in mind? We could request CSCG > to run this, > > Best > > On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 10:27, Helani Galpaya wrote: > >> Dear Aresene and others: >> Where is the discussion and nomination process taking place for the Civil >> Society nomination(s) for MAG chair? >> I mean in which list? >> Apologies if these questions were answered elsewhere and I'm just not >> seeing it. >> Thanks. >> Helani >> >> >> >> Helani Galpaya >> LIRNEasia >> www.lirneasia.net >> +94 77 3600 766 (m-LK); +44 7415 865222 (m-UK) >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 7:39 PM Arsène Tungali < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> As you know, the current MAG Chair is Lynn St Amour, she is ending her >>> term this year! >>> >>> There is a need to have another chair starting right after IGF Berlin. >>> Was wondering, maybe we need to discuss the profile of a good MAG Chair? >>> >>> Though we will not choose on this list, but wanted to share that >>> consultations are going on within different stakeholder groups within the >>> MAG, each one of them being asked to suggest a name (s) to the IGF >>> Secretariat. >>> >>> Just throwing this out here. >>> >>> Arsene >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > > > -- > > > *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| > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Public Policy Analyst Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Jun 28 07:07:21 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:07:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: <3971E26F-A3F4-4F9C-B210-6DC2511E510D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6D3E1A53-FAD7-4C70-94D0-366EEDDE844F@gmail.com> It would have been through MAG members but it is too late at this stage as many have already made their minds on the candidate per stakeholder group. For CS, we have made our mind on one name that was communicated to the Secretariat. My apologies for brievity and typo, boarding a flight now Sent from my iPhone > On 28 Jun 2019, at 12:04, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > Is there a particular announcement against which one can send name suggestions? > > Best > > Fouad > >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:59 AM Arsène Tungali wrote: >> MAG Chair selection has always been the responsibility of the UN, through the UNDESA as far as i know. This year, MAG members have been asked to discuss and suggest names. There is no point for this to go through any formal CS consultation >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 28 Jun 2019, at 11:52, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>> >>> Dear Helani, Arsene, all >>> >>> Thanks for sharing this information. Is there any information on the process for selection? Is there a timeline in mind? We could request CSCG to run this, >>> >>> Best >>> >>>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 10:27, Helani Galpaya wrote: >>>> Dear Aresene and others: >>>> Where is the discussion and nomination process taking place for the Civil Society nomination(s) for MAG chair? >>>> I mean in which list? >>>> Apologies if these questions were answered elsewhere and I'm just not seeing it. >>>> Thanks. >>>> Helani >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Helani Galpaya >>>> LIRNEasia >>>> www.lirneasia.net >>>> +94 77 3600 766 (m-LK); +44 7415 865222 (m-UK) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 7:39 PM Arsène Tungali wrote: >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> As you know, the current MAG Chair is Lynn St Amour, she is ending her term this year! >>>>> >>>>> There is a need to have another chair starting right after IGF Berlin. Was wondering, maybe we need to discuss the profile of a good MAG Chair? >>>>> >>>>> Though we will not choose on this list, but wanted to share that consultations are going on within different stakeholder groups within the MAG, each one of them being asked to suggest a name (s) to the IGF Secretariat. >>>>> >>>>> Just throwing this out here. >>>>> >>>>> Arsene >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> 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| >>> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > Public Policy Analyst > Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Jun 28 07:20:59 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (farzaneh badii (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 07:20:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF MAG Chair In-Reply-To: <3971E26F-A3F4-4F9C-B210-6DC2511E510D@gmail.com> References: <3971E26F-A3F4-4F9C-B210-6DC2511E510D@gmail.com> Message-ID: Arsene and Helani While I agree there is no need for formality.UN can appoint (but is not obliged) based on the names it receives. MAG members have to have strong ties with their stakeholder group. This has been the problem we have been having all along that some.civil society MAG members don't even inform the community about the issues or how they make decisions. This is why every year we see irrelevant workshops or duplicates are held at IGF by civil society orgs This is why we are somehow powerless in influencing the MAG civil soc decision at IGF. Everyone has her/his own agenda. Arsene, you have been consulting with us and that is nice but we need to be better informed and if you are discussing appointment of MAG chair within civil society at IGF MAG I'd be grateful if you could let us know what the process is how you are advancing and what names if any are being discussed. You are the decision makers (can put whatever name forward) but consultation with the community should happen. And I mean full consultation not just what criteria we want. This also keeps happening for the closing ceremony and opening ceremony civil society speakers. We are not informed and someone out of the blue is chosen. (Not addresed to current MAG) Helani and Arsene, please keep us in the loop if something is happening that is related to MAG chair appointment. Also about other evelopments IGF. Thanks On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 6:59 AM Arsène Tungali wrote: > MAG Chair selection has always been the responsibility of the UN, through > the UNDESA as far as i know. This year, MAG members have been asked to > discuss and suggest names. There is no point for this to go through any > formal CS consultation > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 28 Jun 2019, at 11:52, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > > Dear Helani, Arsene, all > > Thanks for sharing this information. Is there any information on the > process for selection? Is there a timeline in mind? We could request CSCG > to run this, > > Best > > On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 10:27, Helani Galpaya wrote: > >> Dear Aresene and others: >> Where is the discussion and nomination process taking place for the Civil >> Society nomination(s) for MAG chair? >> I mean in which list? >> Apologies if these questions were answered elsewhere and I'm just not >> seeing it. >> Thanks. >> Helani >> >> >> >> Helani Galpaya >> LIRNEasia >> www.lirneasia.net >> +94 77 3600 766 (m-LK); +44 7415 865222 (m-UK) >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 7:39 PM Arsène Tungali < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> As you know, the current MAG Chair is Lynn St Amour, she is ending her >>> term this year! >>> >>> There is a need to have another chair starting right after IGF Berlin. >>> Was wondering, maybe we need to discuss the profile of a good MAG Chair? >>> >>> Though we will not choose on this list, but wanted to share that >>> consultations are going on within different stakeholder groups within the >>> MAG, each one of them being asked to suggest a name (s) to the IGF >>> Secretariat. >>> >>> Just throwing this out here. >>> >>> Arsene >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > > > -- > > > *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| > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Jun 28 07:30:24 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Deirdre Williams (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 07:30:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: <3971E26F-A3F4-4F9C-B210-6DC2511E510D@gmail.com> Message-ID: I strongly agree with Farza. However there are two major issues (among many others) that we (civil society) need to do something about - 1. How to we manage and winnow priorities from the sheer volume of information and initiatives that are bombarding us all of the time? 2. How do we establish a mechanism for appropriate consultation and decision-making (takes time) in a world where, increasingly, those decisions are demanded NOW! Deirdre On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 07:21, farzaneh badii wrote: > Arsene and Helani > > While I agree there is no need for formality.UN can appoint (but is not > obliged) based on the names it receives. > MAG members have to have strong ties with their stakeholder group. This > has been the problem we have been having all along that some.civil society > MAG members don't even inform the community about the issues or how they > make decisions. This is why every year we see irrelevant workshops or > duplicates are held at IGF by civil society orgs This is why we are > somehow powerless in influencing the MAG civil soc decision at IGF. > Everyone has her/his own agenda. > Arsene, you have been consulting with us and that is nice but we need to > be better informed and if you are discussing appointment of MAG chair > within civil society at IGF MAG I'd be grateful if you could let us know > what the process is how you are advancing and what names if any are being > discussed. You are the decision makers (can put whatever name forward) but > consultation with the community should happen. And I mean full consultation > not just what criteria we want. > > This also keeps happening for the closing ceremony and opening ceremony > civil society speakers. We are not informed and someone out of the blue is > chosen. (Not addresed to current MAG) > > Helani and Arsene, please keep us in the loop if something is happening > that is related to MAG chair appointment. Also about other evelopments IGF. > Thanks > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 6:59 AM Arsène Tungali < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > >> MAG Chair selection has always been the responsibility of the UN, through >> the UNDESA as far as i know. This year, MAG members have been asked to >> discuss and suggest names. There is no point for this to go through any >> formal CS consultation >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 28 Jun 2019, at 11:52, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >> >> Dear Helani, Arsene, all >> >> Thanks for sharing this information. Is there any information on the >> process for selection? Is there a timeline in mind? We could request CSCG >> to run this, >> >> Best >> >> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 10:27, Helani Galpaya >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Aresene and others: >>> Where is the discussion and nomination process taking place for the >>> Civil Society nomination(s) for MAG chair? >>> I mean in which list? >>> Apologies if these questions were answered elsewhere and I'm just not >>> seeing it. >>> Thanks. >>> Helani >>> >>> >>> >>> Helani Galpaya >>> LIRNEasia >>> www.lirneasia.net >>> +94 77 3600 766 (m-LK); +44 7415 865222 (m-UK) >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 7:39 PM Arsène Tungali < >>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> As you know, the current MAG Chair is Lynn St Amour, she is ending her >>>> term this year! >>>> >>>> There is a need to have another chair starting right after IGF Berlin. >>>> Was wondering, maybe we need to discuss the profile of a good MAG Chair? >>>> >>>> Though we will not choose on this list, but wanted to share that >>>> consultations are going on within different stakeholder groups within the >>>> MAG, each one of them being asked to suggest a name (s) to the IGF >>>> Secretariat. >>>> >>>> Just throwing this out here. >>>> >>>> Arsene >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> *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| >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > -- > Farzaneh > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- “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 anriette at apc.org Fri Jun 28 07:50:09 2019 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:50:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: <3971E26F-A3F4-4F9C-B210-6DC2511E510D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <84313959-26e7-632b-83c4-b4b4e13657e6@apc.org> Dear all This is a good moment to share with you all that I have made myself available for selection for the position  of MAG chair. My understanding of the process is that the Secretariat asked MAG members from the different stakeholder groups on the MAG to discuss amongst themselves recommendations (no more than three recommendations) for the 2020 MAG Chair. The names they forward can be from any stakeholder group. The deadline is 30 June. These names are then forwarded to the Secretary General's office. That is all I know. I don't know who the other civil society nominees are, but I do know of several good candidates from other stakeholder groups. As I am a candidate I don't want to comment on the process other than saying that I agree it should be clear and as transparent as possible. I am happy to answer any questions that any of you have as to why I made myself available, and I will share a statement of intent in the next few days. Warmly Anriette ----------------------------- Anriette Esterhuysen Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning Association for Progressive Communications apc.org afrisig.org anriette at apc.org On 2019/06/28 13:30, Deirdre Williams (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > I strongly agree with Farza.  > However there are two major issues (among many others) that we (civil > society) need to do something about - > 1. How to we manage and winnow priorities from the sheer volume of > information and initiatives that are bombarding us all of the time? > 2. How do we establish a mechanism for appropriate consultation and > decision-making (takes time) in a world where, increasingly, those > decisions are demanded NOW! > Deirdre > > On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 07:21, farzaneh badii > > wrote: > > Arsene and Helani > > While I agree there is no need for formality.UN  can appoint  (but > is not obliged)  based on the names it receives.  > MAG members have to have strong ties with their stakeholder group. > This has been the problem we have been having all along that > some.civil society MAG members don't even inform the community > about the issues or how they make decisions. This is why every > year we see irrelevant workshops or duplicates are held at IGF by > civil society orgs  This is why we are somehow powerless in > influencing the MAG civil soc decision at IGF.   Everyone has > her/his own agenda.  > Arsene, you have been consulting with us and that is nice but we > need to be better informed and if you are discussing appointment > of MAG chair within civil society at IGF MAG I'd be grateful if > you could let us know what the process is how you are advancing > and what names if any are being discussed. You are the decision > makers (can put whatever name forward) but consultation with the > community should happen. And I mean full consultation not just > what criteria we want.  > > This also keeps happening for the closing ceremony and opening > ceremony civil society speakers. We are not informed and someone > out of the blue is chosen. (Not addresed to current MAG)  > > Helani and Arsene, please keep us in the loop if something is > happening that is related to MAG chair appointment. Also about > other evelopments IGF. Thanks  > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 6:59 AM Arsène Tungali > > > wrote: > > MAG Chair selection has always been the responsibility of the > UN, through the UNDESA as far as i know. This year, MAG > members have been asked to discuss and suggest names. There is > no point for this to go through any formal CS consultation  > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 28 Jun 2019, at 11:52, Sheetal Kumar > > wrote: > >> Dear Helani, Arsene, all >> >> Thanks for sharing this information. Is there any information >> on the process for selection? Is there a timeline in mind? We >> could request CSCG to run this, >> >> Best >> >> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 10:27, Helani Galpaya >> > wrote: >> >> Dear Aresene and others:  >> Where is the discussion and nomination process taking >> place for the Civil Society nomination(s) for MAG chair?  >> I mean in which list?  >> Apologies if these questions were answered elsewhere and >> I'm just not seeing it.  >> Thanks.  >> Helani >> >> >> >> Helani Galpaya >> LIRNEasia >> www.lirneasia.net >> +94 77 3600 766 (m-LK); +44 7415 865222 (m-UK) >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 7:39 PM Arsène Tungali >> > > wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> As you know, the current MAG Chair is Lynn St Amour, >> she is ending her term this year! >> >> There is a need to have another chair starting right >> after IGF Berlin. Was wondering, maybe we need to >> discuss the profile of a good MAG Chair? >> >> Though we will not choose on this list, but wanted to >> share that consultations are going on within >> different stakeholder groups within the MAG, each one >> of them being asked to suggest a name (s) to the IGF >> Secretariat. >> >> Just throwing this out here. >> >> Arsene >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> > > >> List help: >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: > > >> List help: >> >> >> >> -- >> >> * >> * >> *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| >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > -- > Farzaneh > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Jun 28 08:25:50 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (farzaneh badii (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 08:25:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF MAG Chair In-Reply-To: <84313959-26e7-632b-83c4-b4b4e13657e6@apc.org> References: <3971E26F-A3F4-4F9C-B210-6DC2511E510D@gmail.com> <84313959-26e7-632b-83c4-b4b4e13657e6@apc.org> Message-ID: Certainly, you are a great candidate Anriette. Thanks for letting us know. Though nominating a great candidate does not lessen the Civil Soc individuals on MAG responsibility to let us know what processes they used and how open and transparent they were. Just because the processes are happening at the UN doesn't legitimize the lack of transparency and top-down approach. MAG is actually there to consult with the community and not to bring forward their own individual agenda. Otherwise, why would we even need them and why hold so many public consultations? The holy UN could select the sessions. De those are great questions. If we are informed and we don't act upon them our loss. But if we don't know what is going on then there is no way for us to react. And I can't find a simple link on IGF website on MAG Chair appointment. We have MAG members there to lessen the transaction costs of participation. Had Arsene not told us, in the beginning, we would have not even known about this to argue over it. Farzaneh On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 7:51 AM Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > This is a good moment to share with you all that I have made myself > available for selection for the position of MAG chair. My understanding of > the process is that the Secretariat asked MAG members from the different > stakeholder groups on the MAG to discuss amongst themselves recommendations > (no more than three recommendations) for the 2020 MAG Chair. The names they > forward can be from any stakeholder group. The deadline is 30 June. These > names are then forwarded to the Secretary General's office. > > That is all I know. I don't know who the other civil society nominees are, > but I do know of several good candidates from other stakeholder groups. As > I am a candidate I don't want to comment on the process other than saying > that I agree it should be clear and as transparent as possible. I am happy > to answer any questions that any of you have as to why I made myself > available, and I will share a statement of intent in the next few days. > > Warmly > > Anriette > > ----------------------------- > Anriette Esterhuysen > Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning > Association for Progressive Communicationsapc.orgafrisig.organriette at apc.org > > On 2019/06/28 13:30, Deirdre Williams (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > > I strongly agree with Farza. > However there are two major issues (among many others) that we (civil > society) need to do something about - > 1. How to we manage and winnow priorities from the sheer volume of > information and initiatives that are bombarding us all of the time? > 2. How do we establish a mechanism for appropriate consultation and > decision-making (takes time) in a world where, increasingly, those > decisions are demanded NOW! > Deirdre > > On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 07:21, farzaneh badii > wrote: > >> Arsene and Helani >> >> While I agree there is no need for formality.UN can appoint (but is not >> obliged) based on the names it receives. >> MAG members have to have strong ties with their stakeholder group. This >> has been the problem we have been having all along that some.civil society >> MAG members don't even inform the community about the issues or how they >> make decisions. This is why every year we see irrelevant workshops or >> duplicates are held at IGF by civil society orgs This is why we are >> somehow powerless in influencing the MAG civil soc decision at IGF. >> Everyone has her/his own agenda. >> Arsene, you have been consulting with us and that is nice but we need to >> be better informed and if you are discussing appointment of MAG chair >> within civil society at IGF MAG I'd be grateful if you could let us know >> what the process is how you are advancing and what names if any are being >> discussed. You are the decision makers (can put whatever name forward) but >> consultation with the community should happen. And I mean full consultation >> not just what criteria we want. >> >> This also keeps happening for the closing ceremony and opening ceremony >> civil society speakers. We are not informed and someone out of the blue is >> chosen. (Not addresed to current MAG) >> >> Helani and Arsene, please keep us in the loop if something is happening >> that is related to MAG chair appointment. Also about other evelopments IGF. >> Thanks >> >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 6:59 AM Arsène Tungali < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >> >>> MAG Chair selection has always been the responsibility of the UN, >>> through the UNDESA as far as i know. This year, MAG members have been asked >>> to discuss and suggest names. There is no point for this to go through any >>> formal CS consultation >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On 28 Jun 2019, at 11:52, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>> >>> Dear Helani, Arsene, all >>> >>> Thanks for sharing this information. Is there any information on the >>> process for selection? Is there a timeline in mind? We could request CSCG >>> to run this, >>> >>> Best >>> >>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 10:27, Helani Galpaya >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Aresene and others: >>>> Where is the discussion and nomination process taking place for the >>>> Civil Society nomination(s) for MAG chair? >>>> I mean in which list? >>>> Apologies if these questions were answered elsewhere and I'm just not >>>> seeing it. >>>> Thanks. >>>> Helani >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Helani Galpaya >>>> LIRNEasia >>>> www.lirneasia.net >>>> +94 77 3600 766 (m-LK); +44 7415 865222 (m-UK) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 7:39 PM Arsène Tungali < >>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> As you know, the current MAG Chair is Lynn St Amour, she is ending her >>>>> term this year! >>>>> >>>>> There is a need to have another chair starting right after IGF Berlin. >>>>> Was wondering, maybe we need to discuss the profile of a good MAG Chair? >>>>> >>>>> Though we will not choose on this list, but wanted to share that >>>>> consultations are going on within different stakeholder groups within the >>>>> MAG, each one of them being asked to suggest a name (s) to the IGF >>>>> Secretariat. >>>>> >>>>> Just throwing this out here. >>>>> >>>>> Arsene >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> *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| >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> -- >> Farzaneh >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Mon Jun 24 12:24:49 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 17:24:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") In-Reply-To: References: <9fd097236d0c42d5a6a54f768bd0b2d8@adcu.columbia.edu> <1a7c0747-9727-6ed7-0197-38ec56f79c7f@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear Sala, all, Thanks for the reply! So we can continue the conversation on the proposal included at the beginning of this thread in the other thread which includes Bestbits members. I actually have no idea who is part of both as there are definitely members of Bestbits who are not members of IGC and vice versa, but I know there is some discrepancy. Best On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 17:20, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Best Bits is dead. Members of Best Bits are also members on IGC and if > some are'nt there is nothing stopping them from joining the IGC, if they > wished to do so. > > On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 5:15 pm Sheetal Kumar, > wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> Apologies for the delay in responding - I've been away for a week and I >> trust you received my OOO. Reading through the comments, it seems to me >> there is more or less agreement on some things but less on others. In >> essence: >> >> - There seems to be agreement that reviving IGC is a good thing >> because there's a lot of work to be done by CS on important IG issues on >> the global agenda/at global forums >> - There's some agreement that merging BB with IGC would be a good way >> forward to accomplish that but concern that the appropriate process hasn't >> been followed within IGC, albeit there is disagreement about what that >> process would/could be >> - There's agreement that all documents, from both lists, should be >> preserved and centralised for easy access by all members >> - There support for organising a day 0 event at the IGF in Berlin >> - There's less agreement that there's a need to review the IGC >> Charter >> >> Hopefully this captures the conversation so far? >> >> I've also read the responses on the thread which includes Bestbits and >> although there are only a few responses there, combined with the views of >> those who attended the meeting at RightsCon, I think we can say that there >> is general support from the Bestbits list members for merging so far. >> >> As such, I'd suggest the following as a way forward, interested to hear >> what others think if you don't agree: >> >> - If there isn't agreement on the diagnosis of the problem, we can >> start the discussion anew. It's important we all agree on the premise we're >> working on, otherwise we'll move forward leaving people behind and just >> recreate the current situation again. Currently the diagnosis of those >> engaged, and the basis of those who attended the meeting at RightsCon, is >> that civil society working on IG issues is split/fragmented and therefore >> less effective than it could be. If anyone disagrees with this diagnosis, I >> think they should express this on the thread with Bestbits included >> - If anyone is against the merger as a way of addressing this issue >> (i.e split/fragmentation as a key factor which explains our >> ineffectiveness) I think this should be expressed on the Bestbits thread >> too - mainly because of the general support for the idea of merging among >> members of both lists, and the main concern currently expressed about the >> merger being about process. Otherwise, the conversations will continue to >> be split and the current situation will be perpetuated. >> - If anyone is against the idea of reforming the Charter *in >> principle* they make that clear in the thread with Bestbits too - as >> there maybe Bestbits members who have opinions on that as well. This is >> just a conversation so if there is strong disagreement about reforming the >> Charter among anyone in either list, we could potentially agree not to >> reform it and revisit the idea in a year, for example. >> >> Unless there's disagreement, I'll send a reminder to the thread which >> includes Bestbits at the end of this week, and hopefully we can weave >> ourselves back together there? >> >> Best >> Sheetal >> >> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 22:45, Anriette Esterhuysen >> wrote: >> >>> Agree completely with you on this Milton. And as Farzi pointed out, of >>> course we should preserve the documents on the Best Bits site, and the list >>> archives. >>> >>> By the way, if anyone wants the archives of the IGC lists I have pretty >>> complete records for 2009-2016. Probably earlier too but on a back-up drive >>> somewhere. I also think that the list archive of the list when it was still >>> hosted by APC is still available somewhere too. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>> Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning >>> Association for Progressive Communicationsapc.orgafrisig.organriette at apc.org >>> >>> On 2019/06/17 23:08, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>> >>> Really good point, Sheetal. >>> >>> But it is actually a substantive one. You have pointed out that there >>> are divergent perceptions of the discussion, and this is happening because >>> the lists are not integrated. >>> >>> >>> >>> So how can anyone seriously suggest that we do not need to merge these >>> lists? How can anyone truly concerned with civil society influence favor >>> maintaining this stupid barrier between the groups involved? >>> >>> >>> >>> --MM >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> >>> Without wanting to weigh in on the substantive discussion being had >>> here, I was just wondering if it was a purposeful decision to drop Bestbits >>> in some of these replies. It seems there are two divergent perceptions of >>> the discussion happening. Happy for IGC to have its discussion but at some >>> point, those on Bestbits who are not on IGC will need to be updated as I >>> believe there are some Bestbits members who have only seen one side of the >>> conversation. Otherwise, I'm happy to loop Bestbits back in, and share the >>> conversation that has already happened? >>> >>> >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Sheetal. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:03, Carolina Rossini < >>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I did not say anybody was suggesting anything. It was just a reminder. >>> >>> Tks >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:42 AM farzaneh badii >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> @Carolina (Hello!) I don't think anyone here is suggesting that BestBits >>> documents, materials etc will not be preserved. It is only a matter of how >>> we should preserve them when we carry out the merge. (Jeremy has been >>> wanting to transfer the domain name for the past I think around 3 years, >>> no one wants to take over, so we definitely need a plan), we can for >>> example decide on having the materials stored on future IGC website. >>> >>> >>> >>> As to changes to the IGC charter, as Sheetal explained and it is in the >>> proposal, the changes are going to be lightweight but if IGC charter >>> recommends a process for amendment, then we should follow that. I still >>> support forming a small group to look into these issues and let us know how >>> we should proceed. Even if we don't agree to change the charter, we can >>> consider what new features IGC should possess in order to address the needs >>> of its members and those members that are migrating from BestBits and >>> generally more engagement with IG processes. >>> >>> >>> >>> As to the poll among BestBits members, that is something you need to >>> discuss with BestBits. Just a reminder that both groups have been in my >>> opinion briefed and engaged with the conversation. We did not just have a >>> meeting with 11 members. Since December 2018, IGC and BestBits held >>> meetings about this, a survey was taken to see what BestBits members think >>> (the average attendance in those meetings was something like 15 members, >>> Sheetal shared a comprehensive result of the survey). >>> >>> >>> >>> @Sala thank you for your kind words. I believe in collective action and >>> am glad that you found the briefings and reports useful. InternetNZ's help >>> was crucial in making that happen. >>> >>> >>> >>> Christchurch call was one instance when the civil society got together >>> and showed its depth of expertise and knowledge about Internet governance >>> issues. So we definitely can get it together and act collectively. It's >>> just a matter of how, which I am sure we solve if we keep at it and have >>> these conversations. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 3:42 AM Carolina Rossini < >>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>> >>> I disagree with you Ian. A pool is needed among the BB members. There >>> are more than 11. >>> >>> >>> >>> And for the BB folks, and it’s is not only the mailing list. BB site has >>> a lot of good material and statements that should be captured and saved. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sorry I could not make to the meeting. You can only imagine how busy I >>> am. >>> >>> >>> >>> Tks Sheetal for moving this forward with all the delicate and sensitive >>> touch it does deserve. >>> >>> >>> >>> C >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:20 AM ian.peter at ianpeter.com < >>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: >>> >>> No poll needed. Best Bits closes down (their call). Former members join >>> IGC individually. End of story. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> But fixing the IGC constitution (a later step) is more complex as Sala >>> points out. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian. >>> >>> >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> >>> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >>> >>> To: "Sheetal Kumar" >>> >>> Cc: "Bakhtiyor Avezdjanov" ; "Lee W McKnight" < >>> lmcknigh at syr.edu>; "Tapani Tarvainen" ; >>> "Sivasubramanian M" <6.Internet at gmail.com>; "Akinremi Peter Taiwo" < >>> compsoftnet at gmail.com>; "governance" >>> >>> Sent: 14/06/2019 11:40:49 AM >>> >>> Subject: Re: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging >>> with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of >>> Bestbits: next steps") >>> >>> >>> >>> The IGC usually takes a poll led by elected co-coordinators to determine >>> consensus. If post discussion and debate, consensusnis reached to merge >>> then by all means. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nobody speaks for the IGC unless there is consensus, if you want to >>> change the Charter, then there is a process to follow. It is meant to >>> protect us. Members of Best Bits are members of the IGC anyway unless they >>> left or unsubscribed. >>> >>> >>> >>> One of the challenges, I have seen is the loss of important IGC data >>> from the old servers. Every organsiation has to evolve, advance but this >>> has to be based on consensus, and papers for and against, proper discussion >>> and debate. From the outset, all I have seen is a presumption where the IGC >>> has been forcibly roped into discussing mergers without the consensus. >>> >>> >>> >>> The co-coordinators have not set a strategic pathway for engagement in >>> key international fora as the IGC in the HLP session although I was to see >>> great geographical representation by some members of the IGC in the.forum >>> in their individual capacity. >>> >>> >>> >>> I would also like to see the IGC working with the World Economic Forum >>> etc and participating in the UN New York meetings, although some members >>> participate in their organisational capacity. It is also significant that >>> UNDESA reviews the global SDG projects and has a >>> monitoring/evaluation/audit type role which it uses to review and report >>> back to the UNGA. >>> >>> >>> >>> On another separate, note, whilst Arden (bless her heart), and others >>> have been royally pissed about making a dent in how global MNCs like >>> Facebook behave in crisis, these are not new issues as they are.similar to >>> historical discussion on the list about Brits imposing a temporary ban over >>> a certain radius of the London bombing just as the Egyptians and others >>> have done during times of national security. The Tech Accord which >>> represents the committment and negotiations between MNCs, Tech Giants and >>> some government reps as was shared by the former French Ambassador on Cyber >>> affairs and others, it is on a transcript at a main session from last year. >>> >>> >>> >>> The most New Zealand can do is impose a law in New Zealand against these >>> giants. Facebook's Mia in NZ who is based in the Sydney officer and global >>> public policy counterparts have alot of work on their hands. >>> >>> >>> >>> One view is that the threat to freedom of expression (which the IGC has >>> always talked about is no respecter of whether you are from the East, West, >>> South, North. The principles are well established in International law and >>> Frank La Rue's report to the UN General Assembly which was endorsed is >>> relevant. On the other hand, threats that Jeremy Malcolm and others have >>> been raising on wordings and semantics on child pornography by a UN >>> Drafting.committee show an example of new and emergent threats. >>> >>> >>> >>> Personally, even if Arden takes it to the UN, the UN is obliged and >>> mandated not to duplicate work that is already done and to this end, the UN >>> Secretary General's foresight in appointing the HLP and launching the >>> report is key as geopolitical tensions are further heightened. I have yet >>> to read the full HLP report, but if it is missing a FoX compoment, then a >>> letter to the Co-Chairs, the UN Secretary General.may the faster non >>> bureaucratic way to get traction. >>> >>> >>> >>> What giants like Facebook would fear is being broken up for regulation! >>> Frankly Macron is hated in France just as Trump is hated in the US for >>> imposing taxes. >>> >>> >>> >>> It would be great for the IGC to host and convene a panel to explore >>> this. I would recommend Bertrand from Internet Jurisdiction to co >>> facilitate and moderate a geographically diverse panel and a representative >>> from the Geneva Internet Platform. I know Bertrand is speaking at a >>> European Court of Human Rights with others. >>> >>> >>> >>> We need to take a step back and reflect as a community how we want to >>> engage. We cannot be reactive and we have to stay ahead of the curve. >>> >>> >>> >>> 2.36am so best be getting back to bed. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Sala >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> *Carolina Rossini * >>> >>> + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini >>> >>> PGP ID: 0xEC81015C >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> *Carolina Rossini * >>> >>> + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini >>> >>> PGP ID: 0xEC81015C >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *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| >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> *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 sheetal at gp-digital.org Mon Jun 24 12:14:57 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 17:14:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") In-Reply-To: <1a7c0747-9727-6ed7-0197-38ec56f79c7f@apc.org> References: <9fd097236d0c42d5a6a54f768bd0b2d8@adcu.columbia.edu> <1a7c0747-9727-6ed7-0197-38ec56f79c7f@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear all Apologies for the delay in responding - I've been away for a week and I trust you received my OOO. Reading through the comments, it seems to me there is more or less agreement on some things but less on others. In essence: - There seems to be agreement that reviving IGC is a good thing because there's a lot of work to be done by CS on important IG issues on the global agenda/at global forums - There's some agreement that merging BB with IGC would be a good way forward to accomplish that but concern that the appropriate process hasn't been followed within IGC, albeit there is disagreement about what that process would/could be - There's agreement that all documents, from both lists, should be preserved and centralised for easy access by all members - There support for organising a day 0 event at the IGF in Berlin - There's less agreement that there's a need to review the IGC Charter Hopefully this captures the conversation so far? I've also read the responses on the thread which includes Bestbits and although there are only a few responses there, combined with the views of those who attended the meeting at RightsCon, I think we can say that there is general support from the Bestbits list members for merging so far. As such, I'd suggest the following as a way forward, interested to hear what others think if you don't agree: - If there isn't agreement on the diagnosis of the problem, we can start the discussion anew. It's important we all agree on the premise we're working on, otherwise we'll move forward leaving people behind and just recreate the current situation again. Currently the diagnosis of those engaged, and the basis of those who attended the meeting at RightsCon, is that civil society working on IG issues is split/fragmented and therefore less effective than it could be. If anyone disagrees with this diagnosis, I think they should express this on the thread with Bestbits included - If anyone is against the merger as a way of addressing this issue (i.e split/fragmentation as a key factor which explains our ineffectiveness) I think this should be expressed on the Bestbits thread too - mainly because of the general support for the idea of merging among members of both lists, and the main concern currently expressed about the merger being about process. Otherwise, the conversations will continue to be split and the current situation will be perpetuated. - If anyone is against the idea of reforming the Charter *in principle* they make that clear in the thread with Bestbits too - as there maybe Bestbits members who have opinions on that as well. This is just a conversation so if there is strong disagreement about reforming the Charter among anyone in either list, we could potentially agree not to reform it and revisit the idea in a year, for example. Unless there's disagreement, I'll send a reminder to the thread which includes Bestbits at the end of this week, and hopefully we can weave ourselves back together there? Best Sheetal On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 22:45, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Agree completely with you on this Milton. And as Farzi pointed out, of > course we should preserve the documents on the Best Bits site, and the list > archives. > > By the way, if anyone wants the archives of the IGC lists I have pretty > complete records for 2009-2016. Probably earlier too but on a back-up drive > somewhere. I also think that the list archive of the list when it was still > hosted by APC is still available somewhere too. > > Anriette > > > ----------------------------- > Anriette Esterhuysen > Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning > Association for Progressive Communicationsapc.orgafrisig.organriette at apc.org > > On 2019/06/17 23:08, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Really good point, Sheetal. > > But it is actually a substantive one. You have pointed out that there are > divergent perceptions of the discussion, and this is happening because the > lists are not integrated. > > > > So how can anyone seriously suggest that we do not need to merge these > lists? How can anyone truly concerned with civil society influence favor > maintaining this stupid barrier between the groups involved? > > > > --MM > > > > Dear all, > > > > Without wanting to weigh in on the substantive discussion being had here, > I was just wondering if it was a purposeful decision to drop Bestbits in > some of these replies. It seems there are two divergent perceptions of the > discussion happening. Happy for IGC to have its discussion but at some > point, those on Bestbits who are not on IGC will need to be updated as I > believe there are some Bestbits members who have only seen one side of the > conversation. Otherwise, I'm happy to loop Bestbits back in, and share the > conversation that has already happened? > > > > Best > > Sheetal. > > > > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:03, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > > I did not say anybody was suggesting anything. It was just a reminder. > > Tks > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:42 AM farzaneh badii > wrote: > > > > @Carolina (Hello!) I don't think anyone here is suggesting that BestBits > documents, materials etc will not be preserved. It is only a matter of how > we should preserve them when we carry out the merge. (Jeremy has been > wanting to transfer the domain name for the past I think around 3 years, > no one wants to take over, so we definitely need a plan), we can for > example decide on having the materials stored on future IGC website. > > > > As to changes to the IGC charter, as Sheetal explained and it is in the > proposal, the changes are going to be lightweight but if IGC charter > recommends a process for amendment, then we should follow that. I still > support forming a small group to look into these issues and let us know how > we should proceed. Even if we don't agree to change the charter, we can > consider what new features IGC should possess in order to address the needs > of its members and those members that are migrating from BestBits and > generally more engagement with IG processes. > > > > As to the poll among BestBits members, that is something you need to > discuss with BestBits. Just a reminder that both groups have been in my > opinion briefed and engaged with the conversation. We did not just have a > meeting with 11 members. Since December 2018, IGC and BestBits held > meetings about this, a survey was taken to see what BestBits members think > (the average attendance in those meetings was something like 15 members, > Sheetal shared a comprehensive result of the survey). > > > > @Sala thank you for your kind words. I believe in collective action and am > glad that you found the briefings and reports useful. InternetNZ's help was > crucial in making that happen. > > > > Christchurch call was one instance when the civil society got together and > showed its depth of expertise and knowledge about Internet governance > issues. So we definitely can get it together and act collectively. It's > just a matter of how, which I am sure we solve if we keep at it and have > these conversations. > > > > > > Farzaneh > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 3:42 AM Carolina Rossini < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > > I disagree with you Ian. A pool is needed among the BB members. There are > more than 11. > > > > And for the BB folks, and it’s is not only the mailing list. BB site has a > lot of good material and statements that should be captured and saved. > > > > Sorry I could not make to the meeting. You can only imagine how busy I am. > > > > Tks Sheetal for moving this forward with all the delicate and sensitive > touch it does deserve. > > > > C > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:20 AM ian.peter at ianpeter.com < > ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: > > No poll needed. Best Bits closes down (their call). Former members join > IGC individually. End of story. > > > > > > But fixing the IGC constitution (a later step) is more complex as Sala > points out. > > > > Ian. > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > > From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > To: "Sheetal Kumar" > > Cc: "Bakhtiyor Avezdjanov" ; "Lee W McKnight" < > lmcknigh at syr.edu>; "Tapani Tarvainen" ; > "Sivasubramanian M" <6.Internet at gmail.com>; "Akinremi Peter Taiwo" < > compsoftnet at gmail.com>; "governance" > > Sent: 14/06/2019 11:40:49 AM > > Subject: Re: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging > with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of > Bestbits: next steps") > > > > The IGC usually takes a poll led by elected co-coordinators to determine > consensus. If post discussion and debate, consensusnis reached to merge > then by all means. > > > > Nobody speaks for the IGC unless there is consensus, if you want to change > the Charter, then there is a process to follow. It is meant to protect us. > Members of Best Bits are members of the IGC anyway unless they left or > unsubscribed. > > > > One of the challenges, I have seen is the loss of important IGC data from > the old servers. Every organsiation has to evolve, advance but this has to > be based on consensus, and papers for and against, proper discussion and > debate. From the outset, all I have seen is a presumption where the IGC has > been forcibly roped into discussing mergers without the consensus. > > > > The co-coordinators have not set a strategic pathway for engagement in key > international fora as the IGC in the HLP session although I was to see > great geographical representation by some members of the IGC in the.forum > in their individual capacity. > > > > I would also like to see the IGC working with the World Economic Forum etc > and participating in the UN New York meetings, although some members > participate in their organisational capacity. It is also significant that > UNDESA reviews the global SDG projects and has a > monitoring/evaluation/audit type role which it uses to review and report > back to the UNGA. > > > > On another separate, note, whilst Arden (bless her heart), and others have > been royally pissed about making a dent in how global MNCs like Facebook > behave in crisis, these are not new issues as they are.similar to > historical discussion on the list about Brits imposing a temporary ban over > a certain radius of the London bombing just as the Egyptians and others > have done during times of national security. The Tech Accord which > represents the committment and negotiations between MNCs, Tech Giants and > some government reps as was shared by the former French Ambassador on Cyber > affairs and others, it is on a transcript at a main session from last year. > > > > The most New Zealand can do is impose a law in New Zealand against these > giants. Facebook's Mia in NZ who is based in the Sydney officer and global > public policy counterparts have alot of work on their hands. > > > > One view is that the threat to freedom of expression (which the IGC has > always talked about is no respecter of whether you are from the East, West, > South, North. The principles are well established in International law and > Frank La Rue's report to the UN General Assembly which was endorsed is > relevant. On the other hand, threats that Jeremy Malcolm and others have > been raising on wordings and semantics on child pornography by a UN > Drafting.committee show an example of new and emergent threats. > > > > Personally, even if Arden takes it to the UN, the UN is obliged and > mandated not to duplicate work that is already done and to this end, the UN > Secretary General's foresight in appointing the HLP and launching the > report is key as geopolitical tensions are further heightened. I have yet > to read the full HLP report, but if it is missing a FoX compoment, then a > letter to the Co-Chairs, the UN Secretary General.may the faster non > bureaucratic way to get traction. > > > > What giants like Facebook would fear is being broken up for regulation! > Frankly Macron is hated in France just as Trump is hated in the US for > imposing taxes. > > > > It would be great for the IGC to host and convene a panel to explore this. > I would recommend Bertrand from Internet Jurisdiction to co facilitate and > moderate a geographically diverse panel and a representative from the > Geneva Internet Platform. I know Bertrand is speaking at a European Court > of Human Rights with others. > > > > We need to take a step back and reflect as a community how we want to > engage. We cannot be reactive and we have to stay ahead of the curve. > > > > 2.36am so best be getting back to bed. > > > > Cheers, > > Sala > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > -- > > > > *Carolina Rossini * > > + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini > > PGP ID: 0xEC81015C > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > -- > > > > *Carolina Rossini * > > + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini > > PGP ID: 0xEC81015C > > > > -- > > > > > > *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| > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > -- *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 sheetal at gp-digital.org Mon Jun 24 12:32:23 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 17:32:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps") In-Reply-To: References: <9fd097236d0c42d5a6a54f768bd0b2d8@adcu.columbia.edu> <1a7c0747-9727-6ed7-0197-38ec56f79c7f@apc.org> Message-ID: My understanding is that there isn't a functioning website, but if it has been reinstated it would be great to get the link. Thanks! On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 17:28, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Hope you are well Sheetal. > > There is usually a list of members on the IGC website which describes > those who can vote or not as per charter depending on whether they > participated in the elections and voted. > > The IGC alongwith others should have a day 0 event at the IGF. > > > > On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 5:25 pm Sheetal Kumar, > wrote: > >> Dear Sala, all, >> >> Thanks for the reply! So we can continue the conversation on the proposal >> included at the beginning of this thread in the other thread which includes >> Bestbits members. I actually have no idea who is part of both as there are >> definitely members of Bestbits who are not members of IGC and vice versa, >> but I know there is some discrepancy. >> >> Best >> >> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 17:20, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Best Bits is dead. Members of Best Bits are also members on IGC and if >>> some are'nt there is nothing stopping them from joining the IGC, if they >>> wished to do so. >>> >>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 5:15 pm Sheetal Kumar, >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> Apologies for the delay in responding - I've been away for a week and I >>>> trust you received my OOO. Reading through the comments, it seems to me >>>> there is more or less agreement on some things but less on others. In >>>> essence: >>>> >>>> - There seems to be agreement that reviving IGC is a good thing >>>> because there's a lot of work to be done by CS on important IG issues on >>>> the global agenda/at global forums >>>> - There's some agreement that merging BB with IGC would be a good >>>> way forward to accomplish that but concern that the appropriate process >>>> hasn't been followed within IGC, albeit there is disagreement about what >>>> that process would/could be >>>> - There's agreement that all documents, from both lists, should be >>>> preserved and centralised for easy access by all members >>>> - There support for organising a day 0 event at the IGF in Berlin >>>> - There's less agreement that there's a need to review the IGC >>>> Charter >>>> >>>> Hopefully this captures the conversation so far? >>>> >>>> I've also read the responses on the thread which includes Bestbits and >>>> although there are only a few responses there, combined with the views of >>>> those who attended the meeting at RightsCon, I think we can say that there >>>> is general support from the Bestbits list members for merging so far. >>>> >>>> As such, I'd suggest the following as a way forward, interested to hear >>>> what others think if you don't agree: >>>> >>>> - If there isn't agreement on the diagnosis of the problem, we can >>>> start the discussion anew. It's important we all agree on the premise we're >>>> working on, otherwise we'll move forward leaving people behind and just >>>> recreate the current situation again. Currently the diagnosis of those >>>> engaged, and the basis of those who attended the meeting at RightsCon, is >>>> that civil society working on IG issues is split/fragmented and therefore >>>> less effective than it could be. If anyone disagrees with this diagnosis, I >>>> think they should express this on the thread with Bestbits included >>>> - If anyone is against the merger as a way of addressing this issue >>>> (i.e split/fragmentation as a key factor which explains our >>>> ineffectiveness) I think this should be expressed on the Bestbits thread >>>> too - mainly because of the general support for the idea of merging among >>>> members of both lists, and the main concern currently expressed about the >>>> merger being about process. Otherwise, the conversations will continue to >>>> be split and the current situation will be perpetuated. >>>> - If anyone is against the idea of reforming the Charter *in >>>> principle* they make that clear in the thread with Bestbits too - >>>> as there maybe Bestbits members who have opinions on that as well. This is >>>> just a conversation so if there is strong disagreement about reforming the >>>> Charter among anyone in either list, we could potentially agree not to >>>> reform it and revisit the idea in a year, for example. >>>> >>>> Unless there's disagreement, I'll send a reminder to the thread which >>>> includes Bestbits at the end of this week, and hopefully we can weave >>>> ourselves back together there? >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Sheetal >>>> >>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 22:45, Anriette Esterhuysen >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Agree completely with you on this Milton. And as Farzi pointed out, of >>>>> course we should preserve the documents on the Best Bits site, and the list >>>>> archives. >>>>> >>>>> By the way, if anyone wants the archives of the IGC lists I have >>>>> pretty complete records for 2009-2016. Probably earlier too but on a >>>>> back-up drive somewhere. I also think that the list archive of the list >>>>> when it was still hosted by APC is still available somewhere too. >>>>> >>>>> Anriette >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----------------------------- >>>>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>>>> Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning >>>>> Association for Progressive Communicationsapc.orgafrisig.organriette at apc.org >>>>> >>>>> On 2019/06/17 23:08, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Really good point, Sheetal. >>>>> >>>>> But it is actually a substantive one. You have pointed out that there >>>>> are divergent perceptions of the discussion, and this is happening because >>>>> the lists are not integrated. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So how can anyone seriously suggest that we do not need to merge these >>>>> lists? How can anyone truly concerned with civil society influence favor >>>>> maintaining this stupid barrier between the groups involved? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --MM >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Without wanting to weigh in on the substantive discussion being had >>>>> here, I was just wondering if it was a purposeful decision to drop Bestbits >>>>> in some of these replies. It seems there are two divergent perceptions of >>>>> the discussion happening. Happy for IGC to have its discussion but at some >>>>> point, those on Bestbits who are not on IGC will need to be updated as I >>>>> believe there are some Bestbits members who have only seen one side of the >>>>> conversation. Otherwise, I'm happy to loop Bestbits back in, and share the >>>>> conversation that has already happened? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:03, Carolina Rossini < >>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I did not say anybody was suggesting anything. It was just a reminder. >>>>> >>>>> Tks >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:42 AM farzaneh badii < >>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> @Carolina (Hello!) I don't think anyone here is suggesting that >>>>> BestBits documents, materials etc will not be preserved. It is only a >>>>> matter of how we should preserve them when we carry out the merge. (Jeremy >>>>> has been wanting to transfer the domain name for the past I think around 3 >>>>> years, no one wants to take over, so we definitely need a plan), we can for >>>>> example decide on having the materials stored on future IGC website. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As to changes to the IGC charter, as Sheetal explained and it is in >>>>> the proposal, the changes are going to be lightweight but if IGC charter >>>>> recommends a process for amendment, then we should follow that. I still >>>>> support forming a small group to look into these issues and let us know how >>>>> we should proceed. Even if we don't agree to change the charter, we can >>>>> consider what new features IGC should possess in order to address the needs >>>>> of its members and those members that are migrating from BestBits and >>>>> generally more engagement with IG processes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As to the poll among BestBits members, that is something you need to >>>>> discuss with BestBits. Just a reminder that both groups have been in my >>>>> opinion briefed and engaged with the conversation. We did not just have a >>>>> meeting with 11 members. Since December 2018, IGC and BestBits held >>>>> meetings about this, a survey was taken to see what BestBits members think >>>>> (the average attendance in those meetings was something like 15 members, >>>>> Sheetal shared a comprehensive result of the survey). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> @Sala thank you for your kind words. I believe in collective action >>>>> and am glad that you found the briefings and reports useful. InternetNZ's >>>>> help was crucial in making that happen. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Christchurch call was one instance when the civil society got together >>>>> and showed its depth of expertise and knowledge about Internet governance >>>>> issues. So we definitely can get it together and act collectively. It's >>>>> just a matter of how, which I am sure we solve if we keep at it and have >>>>> these conversations. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 3:42 AM Carolina Rossini < >>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I disagree with you Ian. A pool is needed among the BB members. There >>>>> are more than 11. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And for the BB folks, and it’s is not only the mailing list. BB site >>>>> has a lot of good material and statements that should be captured and >>>>> saved. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sorry I could not make to the meeting. You can only imagine how busy I >>>>> am. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Tks Sheetal for moving this forward with all the delicate and >>>>> sensitive touch it does deserve. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> C >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:20 AM ian.peter at ianpeter.com < >>>>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> No poll needed. Best Bits closes down (their call). Former members >>>>> join IGC individually. End of story. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But fixing the IGC constitution (a later step) is more complex as Sala >>>>> points out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ian. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>>> >>>>> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >>>>> >>>>> To: "Sheetal Kumar" >>>>> >>>>> Cc: "Bakhtiyor Avezdjanov" ; "Lee W McKnight" < >>>>> lmcknigh at syr.edu>; "Tapani Tarvainen" ; >>>>> "Sivasubramanian M" <6.Internet at gmail.com>; "Akinremi Peter Taiwo" < >>>>> compsoftnet at gmail.com>; "governance" >>>>> >>>>> Sent: 14/06/2019 11:40:49 AM >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and >>>>> merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of >>>>> Bestbits: next steps") >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The IGC usually takes a poll led by elected co-coordinators to >>>>> determine consensus. If post discussion and debate, consensusnis reached to >>>>> merge then by all means. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nobody speaks for the IGC unless there is consensus, if you want to >>>>> change the Charter, then there is a process to follow. It is meant to >>>>> protect us. Members of Best Bits are members of the IGC anyway unless they >>>>> left or unsubscribed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> One of the challenges, I have seen is the loss of important IGC data >>>>> from the old servers. Every organsiation has to evolve, advance but this >>>>> has to be based on consensus, and papers for and against, proper discussion >>>>> and debate. From the outset, all I have seen is a presumption where the IGC >>>>> has been forcibly roped into discussing mergers without the consensus. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The co-coordinators have not set a strategic pathway for engagement in >>>>> key international fora as the IGC in the HLP session although I was to see >>>>> great geographical representation by some members of the IGC in the.forum >>>>> in their individual capacity. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would also like to see the IGC working with the World Economic Forum >>>>> etc and participating in the UN New York meetings, although some members >>>>> participate in their organisational capacity. It is also significant that >>>>> UNDESA reviews the global SDG projects and has a >>>>> monitoring/evaluation/audit type role which it uses to review and report >>>>> back to the UNGA. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On another separate, note, whilst Arden (bless her heart), and others >>>>> have been royally pissed about making a dent in how global MNCs like >>>>> Facebook behave in crisis, these are not new issues as they are.similar to >>>>> historical discussion on the list about Brits imposing a temporary ban over >>>>> a certain radius of the London bombing just as the Egyptians and others >>>>> have done during times of national security. The Tech Accord which >>>>> represents the committment and negotiations between MNCs, Tech Giants and >>>>> some government reps as was shared by the former French Ambassador on Cyber >>>>> affairs and others, it is on a transcript at a main session from last year. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The most New Zealand can do is impose a law in New Zealand against >>>>> these giants. Facebook's Mia in NZ who is based in the Sydney officer and >>>>> global public policy counterparts have alot of work on their hands. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> One view is that the threat to freedom of expression (which the IGC >>>>> has always talked about is no respecter of whether you are from the East, >>>>> West, South, North. The principles are well established in International >>>>> law and Frank La Rue's report to the UN General Assembly which was endorsed >>>>> is relevant. On the other hand, threats that Jeremy Malcolm and others have >>>>> been raising on wordings and semantics on child pornography by a UN >>>>> Drafting.committee show an example of new and emergent threats. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Personally, even if Arden takes it to the UN, the UN is obliged and >>>>> mandated not to duplicate work that is already done and to this end, the UN >>>>> Secretary General's foresight in appointing the HLP and launching the >>>>> report is key as geopolitical tensions are further heightened. I have yet >>>>> to read the full HLP report, but if it is missing a FoX compoment, then a >>>>> letter to the Co-Chairs, the UN Secretary General.may the faster non >>>>> bureaucratic way to get traction. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What giants like Facebook would fear is being broken up for >>>>> regulation! Frankly Macron is hated in France just as Trump is hated in the >>>>> US for imposing taxes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It would be great for the IGC to host and convene a panel to explore >>>>> this. I would recommend Bertrand from Internet Jurisdiction to co >>>>> facilitate and moderate a geographically diverse panel and a representative >>>>> from the Geneva Internet Platform. I know Bertrand is speaking at a >>>>> European Court of Human Rights with others. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We need to take a step back and reflect as a community how we want to >>>>> engage. We cannot be reactive and we have to stay ahead of the curve. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2.36am so best be getting back to bed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Sala >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Carolina Rossini * >>>>> >>>>> + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini >>>>> >>>>> PGP ID: 0xEC81015C >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Carolina Rossini * >>>>> >>>>> + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini >>>>> >>>>> PGP ID: 0xEC81015C >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *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| >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> *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| >> >> -- *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 sheetal at gp-digital.org Tue Jun 25 05:06:24 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 10:06:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] MAG 2020 Renewal Process In-Reply-To: <1775795332.1529901.1561445071396@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680@mail.yahoo.com> <1775795332.1529901.1561445071396@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Imran, Arsene, all Thank you for sharing and the reminder. I just wanted to check, are there are civil society positions to fill this year? Best Sheetal On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 07:44, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Just for reminder..... > Deadline is ending soon..... > > Deadline for nominating candidates for the 2020 MAG Renewal is 30 June > 2019 > > Regards > > Imran > > On Tuesday, 18 June 2019, 16:01:38 GMT+5, Imran Ahmed Shah < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > > > Dear Colleagues, > > Just to reminder that the deadline for nominating candidates for the 2020 > MAG Renewal is 30 June 2019: > > Do we have CSCG activities for collection of Nominations, Sorting-out > suitable candidates and further submission of names of finalized > Candidates? > > MAG 2020 Renewal > > > MAG 2020 Renewal > > Announcement ‎ The Internet Governance Forum's Multistakeholder Advisory > Group (MAG) has been ‎instrumental in p... > > > The general guidance and notes to take into consideration regarding > nominations for a position on the MAG are also available at the IGF > website: MAG Renewal 2020: General guidance > > > MAG Renewal 2020: General guidance > > Internet Governance Forum (IGF)2020 Renewal of the Multistakeholder > Advisory Group (MAG) General guidance and no... > > > > Whereas they were looking for 7 male candidates > 3 from Africa, (2 Government, 1 Private Sector) > 1 from Asia Pacific, (1 Government) > 1 from Eastern Europe (1 Private Sector) > 2 from GRULAC. (1 Private Sector and 1 Technical Community) > > > > Best regards, > > Imran Ahmed Shah > [Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan] > [Youth Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan] > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 sheetal at gp-digital.org Tue Jun 25 06:51:30 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:51:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] MAG 2020 Renewal Process In-Reply-To: References: <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1851302610.3018407.1560855669680@mail.yahoo.com> <1775795332.1529901.1561445071396@mail.yahoo.com> <749405805.1589889.1561455869750@mail.yahoo.com> <02142E5B-465B-4D4F-959C-C6E2C8E1CFDB@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks all for the clarification. Unfortunately we only have 3.5 working days left to run the process and I don't think this leaves adequate time for the setting up of the NomCom, the sharing of the call, the collection of candidacies and the discussion among CSCG reps to take place. From what I remember we normally leave at least a week for people to send their nominations to the NomCom. In light of this, we can make the effort to publicise the call as widely as possible among our networks, encouraging CS from underrepresented regions and with a view to gender balance to apply. We can work on running a meaningful process next year. What do you think? On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 11:12, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: > The other thing is that in decision making for MAG membership geographic > and gender balance will be taken into account, perhaps even more > importantly than stakeholder groups. So if we have a CS candidate from a > geographic area not covered adequately by current reps or candidates from > other groups there is a fair chance they might be selected. > > Ian Peter > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Arsène Tungali" > To: ias_pk at yahoo.com > Cc: "Sheetal Kumar" ; "BestBitsList" < > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; "governance at lists.riseup.net" < > governance at lists.riseup.net> > Sent: 25/06/2019 8:04:54 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] MAG 2020 Renewal Process > > Even though there is no explicit need for CS reps this year, please do > send in nominations. Maybe there will be available slots? Such as if > someone resigns? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 25 Jun 2019, at 10:44, Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List) < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > > No, > not as per the numbers of term rotation, but .... may be acceptable by the > selection Team ..... or if they plan to increase or decrease the strength > .... like few years ago, they reduced 1 CS seat .... > > .....the overall composition *depends on several considerations including > the nominations received, as well as the final decision of the UN > Secretary-General*...... > > On Tuesday, 25 June 2019, 14:06:40 GMT+5, Sheetal Kumar < > sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: > > > Dear Imran, Arsene, all > > Thank you for sharing and the reminder. I just wanted to check, are there > are civil society positions to fill this year? > > Best > Sheetal > > On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 07:44, Imran Ahmed Shah < > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> wrote: > > Just for reminder..... > Deadline is ending soon..... > > Deadline for nominating candidates for the 2020 MAG Renewal is 30 June > 2019 > > Regards > > Imran > > On Tuesday, 18 June 2019, 16:01:38 GMT+5, Imran Ahmed Shah < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > > > Dear Colleagues, > > Just to reminder that the deadline for nominating candidates for the 2020 > MAG Renewal is 30 June 2019: > > Do we have CSCG activities for collection of Nominations, Sorting-out > suitable candidates and further submission of names of finalized > Candidates? > > MAG 2020 Renewal > > > MAG 2020 Renewal > > Announcement ‎ The Internet Governance Forum's Multistakeholder Advisory > Group (MAG) has been ‎instrumental in p... > > > The general guidance and notes to take into consideration regarding > nominations for a position on the MAG are also available at the IGF > website: MAG Renewal 2020: General guidance > > > MAG Renewal 2020: General guidance > > Internet Governance Forum (IGF)2020 Renewal of the Multistakeholder > Advisory Group (MAG) General guidance and no... > > > > Whereas they were looking for 7 male candidates > 3 from Africa, (2 Government, 1 Private Sector) > 1 from Asia Pacific, (1 Government) > 1 from Eastern Europe (1 Private Sector) > 2 from GRULAC. (1 Private Sector and 1 Technical Community) > > > > Best regards, > > Imran Ahmed Shah > [Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan] > [Youth Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan] > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > ____________________________________________________________ > 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| > > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > -- *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: