From governance at lists.riseup.net  Mon Mar  4 16:59:06 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 23:59:06 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF 2019 Call for proposals is out
Message-ID: <CABDXvWrjBbf+b=71HwVwUv-ZN=4FhwD7YkQxszeYjCm+Q4QvHg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

Please note that the call for workshop proposals is out now and can be
accessed through the following link (Deadline: April 12):

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2019-call-for-workshop-proposals-0

Please note that this year things are a bit different and as the MAG,
we have worked and done our best to get to this, in a fairly short
time. Please do read carefully each section and use the Resources
section to better understand.

I am happy to answer any question or convey to the MAG any issues you
might be facing while going through this.

Bruna and I would like to know if there is any interest for the IGC to
send in a workshop proposal. As we have been doing for the past few
years, we can set up a small group to help draft something before the
deadline. If you are interested in being part of this small group,
please say it here or write privately.

Regards,
Arsene
------------------------
**Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
<http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
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
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
<https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Mon Mar 11 21:58:02 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 10:58:02 +0900
Subject: [governance] Policy and IG Updates of February 2019 from the
 Indian Perspective
In-Reply-To: <005d01d4d7c4$03c8f350$0b5ad9f0$@com>
References: <001e01d4bdd4$087e7a50$197b6ef0$@com> <005d01d4d7c4$03c8f350$0b5ad9f0$@com>
Message-ID: <CABDXvWqgPd5_MSfB2y0Jbue0eSH3QH0oS5kbKEYjKfiF1EULwg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amrita,

I am sure many members on this list seel the value of these updates
you are constantly sharing on this list, though many probably don't
reach or comment. I would like to take this opportunity to personally
thank you for the good work you are doing in compiling and sharing
these Indian perspectives.

I do believe this list is also for information sharing and this
information should foster some kind of conversation. So, i encourage
members to not hesitate to share any IG related news, update and
incite discussion.

Regards,
Arsene

2019-03-11 13:36 UTC+09:00, "Amrita" <governance at lists.riseup.net>:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Apologies for cross posting.
>
>
>
> For those who may be interested, read about the IG events and policy
> developments in February, from the Indian perspective, curated by CCAOI
> using this link
> <http://www.ccaoi.in/UI/links/fwnewsletter/CCAOI%20Newsletter%20February%202
> 019.pdf> .
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Amrita
>
>


-- 
------------------------
**Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
<http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
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
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
<https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Tue Mar 12 05:23:57 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 18:23:57 +0900
Subject: [governance] Reminder: IGF 2019 WS proposal
Message-ID: <CABDXvWpeFp3AzJzNRW4Hbux+UXwFOxO7zJg2JmnPanRhPSRyjg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi there,

This is a reminder that you have until April 12 (about a month) to
submit a workshop proposal. You can do this on a an individual basis
and we can decide to have an IGC workshop.

Details: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2019-call-for-workshop-proposals-0

Regards,
Arsene
------------------------
**Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
<http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
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
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
<https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Wed Mar 13 03:35:32 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (parminder (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 13:05:32 +0530
Subject: [governance] Research position at the ILO
Message-ID: <11981adc-0d39-e947-2150-1b39e7e2f51d@itforchange.net>

I was at a meeting at the ILO earlier this month, and they asked to
circulate this position on relevant elists... parminder


The position will contribute to the research programme on innovation,
digital technologies and decent work. This area of research explores
changes in production processes, production structure, productivity and
wage growth, changes in job profile and skills needs, among others as a
result of innovations and digital technologies, and how it impacts
economic, social and labour market outcomes at both the micro and macro
level. It will also evaluate working conditions, the role of unions and
social dialogue, and employment legislations in the changing world of
work. The research programme will analyse the issues from a
multidisciplinary lens including gender perspective using mixed methods
approach with the aim of developing policy objectives to achieve more
equitable outcomes. The position requires a strong ability to
conceptualise, analyse using innovative methods and techniques and
convey the main findings of the work in a clear, succinct manner to a
non-technical audience. It also includes building external networks with
researchers, academic and policy-oriented institutions to engage them in
the department's work and contribute to developing research proposals.

 

You can access the job opening in the following link below:

https://jobs.ilo.org/job/Geneva-Research-Officer-1200/513495501/



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190313/05e2edc4/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Wed Mar 13 04:26:10 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (parminder (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 13:56:10 +0530
Subject: [governance] Research position at the ILO
In-Reply-To: <11981adc-0d39-e947-2150-1b39e7e2f51d@itforchange.net>
References: <11981adc-0d39-e947-2150-1b39e7e2f51d@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <273659b2-7e31-36a5-3f62-b6574f851cc1@itforchange.net>

PL ignore the earlier email... It seems that ILO either filled up the
post or changed their mind since when they sent it to me for circulation
about a week back. The link now says the position is no longer
open..parminder

On 13/03/19 1:05 PM, parminder wrote:
>
> I was at a meeting at the ILO earlier this month, and they asked to
> circulate this position on relevant elists... parminder
>
>
> The position will contribute to the research programme on innovation,
> digital technologies and decent work. This area of research explores
> changes in production processes, production structure, productivity
> and wage growth, changes in job profile and skills needs, among others
> as a result of innovations and digital technologies, and how it
> impacts economic, social and labour market outcomes at both the micro
> and macro level. It will also evaluate working conditions, the role of
> unions and social dialogue, and employment legislations in the
> changing world of work. The research programme will analyse the issues
> from a multidisciplinary lens including gender perspective using mixed
> methods approach with the aim of developing policy objectives to
> achieve more equitable outcomes. The position requires a strong
> ability to conceptualise, analyse using innovative methods and
> techniques and convey the main findings of the work in a clear,
> succinct manner to a non-technical audience. It also includes building
> external networks with researchers, academic and policy-oriented
> institutions to engage them in the department's work and contribute to
> developing research proposals.
>
>  
>
> You can access the job opening in the following link below:
>
> https://jobs.ilo.org/job/Geneva-Research-Officer-1200/513495501/
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190313/9875488a/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Wed Mar 13 06:34:26 2019
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 06:34:26 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Research position at the ILO
In-Reply-To: <273659b2-7e31-36a5-3f62-b6574f851cc1@itforchange.net>
References: <11981adc-0d39-e947-2150-1b39e7e2f51d@itforchange.net> <273659b2-7e31-36a5-3f62-b6574f851cc1@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3r+Vy50TQFhikGYORyNuUwBQ=mTGY-ds9tytCf5Ht8Zg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Parminder,

By coincidence I went to a party of some of my rock music friends at Xmas,
and ran into an old associate who is now a big cheese at the ILO. He clued
me in a bit on their current efforts on their Centenary to come to terms
with the Digital Economy.

They were just about to launch a report at this NYC event.

https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/new-world-of-work

Alas I was otherwise engaged that day, but there is a livestream
https://youtu.be/GK7L3-wV2fo

More

By the numbers: 'Work for a brighter future'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksTaeGJ9LoU

Work for a brighter future – Global Commission on the Future of Work
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---cabinet/documents/publication/wcms_662410.pdf


joly



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190313/dd2e3a49/attachment.htm>

From LB at lucabelli.net  Thu Mar 14 15:22:36 2019
From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 12:22:36 -0700
Subject: [governance] First CyberBRICS Resources
Message-ID: <20190314122236.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.3f5cd561a7.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com>

 Dear all, (apologies for cross-posting)
  
 It is a great pleasure to announce that we have finally launched the CyberBRICS website with the first set of resources, including:
  
+ the first issue of our bimonthly CyberBRICS Observatory bulletin [in English and in Portuguese] 
+ a brief analysis of the Russian Bill on Digital Sovereignty [in English and in Russian] 
+ a brief analysis of the emerging Brazilian data Protection Framework [in English and in Portuguese] 
+ and the video recording of our session dedicated to CyberBRICS: challenges and opportunities for data protection in the BRICS, organised at the Computer Privacy and Data Protection Conference (CPDP 2019) 

  
 We are planning to publish brief analyses on digital policy issues in the BRICS on a weekly basis and to share them via our newsletter every two weeks. If you are interested in becoming a CyberBRICS Associated Scholar and publish brief analyses to provide a succinct overview of your publications/works on digital policies in the BRICS, please feel free to write me a private message or to follow the instructions at the end of the ABOUT US page of the Website. 
  
 Feel free to share this email through your networks and, should you be interested, feel free to check the CyberBRICS twitter account that we will use to share updates on a variety of CyberBRICS-related topics.
  
 All the best
 Luca
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luca Belli, PhD 
Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Rio de Janeiro Law School 
Chercheur Associ&eacute;, Centre de Droit Public Compar&eacute;, Universit&eacute; Paris 2

www.internet-governance.fgv.br
@1lucabelli 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message, as well as any attached document, may contain information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190314/b0ed5c84/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Sun Mar 17 12:31:26 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (parminder (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 22:01:26 +0530
Subject: [governance] Urgent: Request for organizational endorsement
In-Reply-To: <LYRIS-110484977-5294299-2019.03.17-10.38.13--parminder#itforchange.net@listserver.citizen.org>
References: <LYRIS-110484977-5294299-2019.03.17-10.38.13--parminder#itforchange.net@listserver.citizen.org>
Message-ID: <2a0304ea-e317-19e1-d5b3-e0f375c9f456@itforchange.net>


	

	

	

	

	

	

	

The below is self explanatory. See if your organisation will like to
sign it. Please do also forward to your networks. Thanks, parminder





Here is an updated English version of the sign-on letter, for you to
circulate to your networks.

 

*THANKS to the 166 organizations which have already endorsed. PLEASE
check out this urgent action and endorse through the form.
<https://form.jotform.com/90508616440151> More info in the attachment &
below! *

 

Urgent: Request for organizational endorsement    *   Spanish below  * 
Français ci-dessous

 

Dear all, 

 

We are facing an unprecedented fight in the struggle against inequality
and corporate globalization: the urgent need to stop the launch of talks
for a WTO 2.0! 

 

U.S.-based Big Tech are now the largest corporations in the world. Their
increasing power over our communications, information, media, elections,
commerce, transportation, education, agriculture, and more – basically
all aspects of our jobs, livelihoods and economies – is becoming more
obvious by the day. Now they are using their monopoly profits to try to
fundamentally transform the rules of the global economy, to fully
liberalize every aspect of the economy, all of which will have a digital
aspect in the future. Their goal is to gain new rights to operate in
markets across the globe, while handcuffing public interest oversight
and regulation; maintaining their monopoly powers and control over data;
accessing an unlimited supply of labor stripped of its rights; and
non-payment of taxes. They are disguising these efforts as promoting
“e-commerce for development” but the proposals would go far beyond
“e-commerce” and are antithetical to any future development or shared
prosperity for workers and consumers around the world. 

 

/_On January 25, 2019, at the World Economic Forum, they announced the
intention to start negotiations on “e-commerce” in the World Trade
Organization! _/

 

These proposed negotiations _must be stopped_. We urge your
organizational endorsement of the attached statement, by March 27, 2019
at the latest. We will send the letter to governments, media and the
public on April 1 when a big conference on e-commerce will take place in
Geneva. 

 

*PLEASE register your organization’s support by endorsing the
statement here: **https://form.jotform.com/90508616440151 **by March 27th. *

 

Thank you and thank you for your efforts for a just, sustainable and
democratic global economy!

 

Best wishes, 

Deborah James

Our World Is Not for Sale (OWINFS) global network

Short background: In July 2016, at the request of the Big Tech industry,
the United States tabled a proposal for disciplines on digital trade
(also called e-commerce) in the World Trade WTO. Since then, dozens have
proposals have circulated. The existing mandate within the WTO is to
have discussions on e-commerce in the WTO, but not to have negotiations
on potential binding rules. At the same time, there is a mandate since
the launch of the Doha Round in 2001 to reduce WTO constraints to
development policy space in developing countries, but developed country
members have refused to agree to the necessary changes. (In addition,
developed countries have also blocked reforms to the agriculture rules
that have been demanded by developing countries for decades, because
they constrain poor countries from providing subsidized food to their
own impoverished populations.)

Nevertheless 2017, the goal of rich countries was to set aside the
development agenda permanently, and instead launch new negotiations on
e-commerce in the WTO. They are trying sell these new talks by
portraying e-commerce as good for development, women, and micro, small
and medium enterprises (MSMEs). However, by this time, many African
officials had come to the understanding that the proposals went far
beyond “e-commerce” and were really intending a full and complete
liberalization of all aspects of the future digital economy. 

OWINFS members have argued that, among other fundamental problems:

·       this new e-commerce agenda would permanently consolidate the
first-mover status and monopoly control of developed country high tech
firms in their countries, particularly through the control of data; 

·       it would also foreclose the development policy space for
countries to develop their own digital industrialization;

·       using e-commerce for development is completely different than
negotiating binding rules that were developed by lawyers of U.S.-based
high-tech companies;

·       prosed disciplines in the WTO would give multinationals market
access rights while limiting the role of the state in regulation;

·       there would be a massive negative fiscal impact of agreeing to
the five different ways Big Tech had invented in the proposals to avoid
paying taxes, while non-digital businesses would still be needed to
contribute to the fiscal base;

·       developed countries have ignored the needs of developing
countries for closing the digital divide, for infrastructure, access to
electricity and broadband, skills upgrading, and other prerequisites;

·       developed countries wanted the new negotiations “for free,”
without agreeing to any of the decades-old demands for more development
policy space that would result in jobs, development and poverty
reduction worldwide. 

With tremendous support from civil society, developing countries, led by
the Africa Group, refused this bait-and-switch, and refused to agree to
new talks in the WTO on e-commerce (now called “digital trade”) at the
December 2017 WTO Ministerial meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina. 

The e-commerce agenda is still in the form of discussions, not
negotiations, in the WTO. And developing countries have the policy space
to promote digital trade by domestic firms, and to build up their
digital industrialization through various policies, performance
requirements, subsidies, incentives and the like. 

But Big Tech and its advocates in the WTO are still pushing for this
anti-development agenda with the goal of wearing down the resistance and
gaining agreement to be accepted at the next Ministerial.  (They do so
with support from some developing countries in an attempt to reduce the
glaringly anti-development appearance of the agenda.) 

*At the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 25, 2019, proponents
announced their intention to commence negotiations*.

Extensive research by civil society experts is available
on _www.ourworldisnotforsale.net <http://www.ourworldisnotforsale.net>_. 

 

 

Urgente: Solicitud de adhesiones de organizaciones   *   Francés a
continuación

 

Estimad at s:

 

Nos encontramos ante una batalla sin precedentes en la lucha contra la
desigualdad y la globalización agenciada por las empresas
transnacionales: ¡la necesidad urgente de detener el inicio de
negociaciones por una OMC 2.0!

 

Las grandes empresas de tecnología con sede en Estados Unidos son hoy
las mayores empresas del mundo. Su poder creciente sobre nuestras
comunicaciones, información, medios, elecciones, comercio, transporte,
educación, agricultura y más -básicamente todos los aspectos de nuestros
empleos, medios de sustento y economías, es cada día más evidente. Ahora
están usando sus ganancias monopólicas para intentar transformar
fundamentalmente las normas de la economía global para liberalizar por
completo todos los aspectos de la economía, que tendrán todos ellos un
aspecto digital en el futuro. Su meta es obtener nuevos derechos para
operar en los mercados de todo el mundo, imponiendo a la vez
restricciones a las medidas de control y la reglamentación de interés
público; preservar su poder monopólico y el control de los datos;
acceder a una oferta ilimitada de mano de obra a la que se le niegan
todos los derechos; y evitar pagar impuestos. Encubren sus intenciones
aparentando promover el "comercio electrónico para el desarrollo", pero
sus propuestas van más allá del "comercio electrónico" y se contraponen
a cualquier desarrollo futuro o prosperidad compartida para l at s
trabajadores/as y consumidores/as de todo el mundo.

/_El 25 de enero de 2019 anunciaron en el Foro Económico Mundial la
intención de iniciar negociaciones sobre "comercio electrónico" en la
Organización Mundial del Comercio._/

 

_Es imprescindible detener_esta propuesta de negociaciones. Instamos a
vuestras organizaciones a sumarse a la declaración adjunta antes del 27
de marzo de 2019. Enviaremos la carta a los gobiernos, los medios y el
público el 1 de abril, fecha en que se llevará a cabo en Ginebra, Suiza,
una gran conferencia sobre comercio electrónico.

 

*POR FAVOR manifiesten su respaldo como organizaciones en contra del
avasallamiento de la economía mundial por las grandes empresas de
tecnología, sumándose aquí https://form.jotform.com/90508616440151 a la
declaración a más tardar el 27 de marzo.*

 

Gracias por vuestra adhesión y por vuestros esfuerzos a favor de una
economía mundial justa, sustentable y democrática.

 

Saluda atentamente,

Deborah James

Red Nuestro Mundo No Está En Venta (OWINFS)

Breves antecedentes: En julio de 2016, a solicitud de las grandes
empresas de tecnología, Estados Unidos propuso establecer disciplinas
sobre el comercio digital (también conocido como comercio electrónico)
en la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC). Desde entonces, se han
circulado decenas de propuestas. El mandato actual en el marco de la OMC
es mantener discusiones sobre el comercio electrónico en la OMC, pero no
llevar a cabo negociaciones sobre posibles normas vinculantes. Al mismo
tiempo, desde el inicio de la Ronda de Doha en 2001, la OMC tiene el
mandato de restringir su facultad de limitar el margen de maniobra de
los países en desarrollo en materia de políticas para su desarrollo,
pero los países desarrollados miembro se han negado a acordar los
cambios necesarios. (Además, los países desarrollados también han
impedido que prosperen las reformas a las normas agrícolas que vienen
exigiendo los países en desarrollo desde hace décadas, ya que limitan la
facultad de los países pobres de proporcionar alimentos subsidiados a
sus propias poblaciones empobrecidas).

De todas maneras en 2017, la meta de los países ricos en la Conferencia
Ministerial de la OMC en Buenos Aires fue dejar de lado para siempre la
agenda de desarrollo y en su lugar dar inicio a nuevas negociaciones
sobre comercio electrónico en la OMC. Intentan promocionar estas nuevas
negociaciones presentando el comercio electrónico como algo bueno para
el desarrollo, las mujeres y las micro, pequeñas y medianas empresas
(MPYME). Sin embargo, en ese momento, muchos delegados africanos
entendieron que las propuestas iban mucho más allá del "comercio
electrónico" y que en realidad lo que querían era una liberalización
completa de todos los aspectos de la economía digital del futuro.

Los miembros de OWINFS han argumentado que, entre otros problemas
fundamentales:

·       esta nueva agenda del comercio electrónico consolidaría el
control monopólico de las empresas de tecnología de los países
desarrollados en sus países y su condición y ventajas como pioneras,
particularmente a través del control de los datos;

·       también anularía el margen de maniobra en materia de políticas
de desarrollo para que los países puedan emprender su propia
industrialización digital;

·       usar el comercio electrónico para desarrollarse es completamente
distinto que negociar normas vinculantes que fueron redactadas por los
abogados de las empresas de tecnología con sede en Estados Unidos;

·       las disciplinas propuestas para la OMC les darían a las
multinacionales derechos de acceso al mercado a la vez limitarían el
papel del Estado como órgano regulador;

·       el impacto fiscal negativo sería de inmensas proporciones si se
llegasen a aprobar las cinco maneras distintas que las grandes empresas
de tecnología se inventaron para evitar tener que pagar impuestos,
mientras que las empresas no digitales seguirían estando obligadas a
contribuir al fisco;

·       los países desarrollados han hecho oídos sordos a las
necesidades de los países en desarrollo en lo que hace a cerrar la
brecha digital, en materia de infraestructura, acceso a electricidad y
banda ancha, mejorar su habilidades, y otros prerrequisitos;

·       los países desarrollados querían que se aprobase iniciar las
nuevas negociaciones "gratuitamente", sin aceptar ninguno de los
reclamos que vienen haciendo los países en desarrollo desde hace décadas
a favor de mayores márgenes de maniobra en materia de políticas de
desarrollo que conducirían a más empleo, desarrollo y reducción de la
pobreza en todo el mundo.

Con mucho apoyo de la sociedad civil, los países en desarrollo,
liderados por el Grupo Africano, rechazaron esta táctica de señuelo y
sustitución, y se negaron a aprobar nuevas negociaciones en el marco de
la OMC sobre comercio electrónico (ahora llamado "comercio digital) en
la Conferencia Ministerial de la OMC realizada en Buenos Aires,
Argentina, en diciembre de 2017.

La agenda de comercio electrónico sigue su curos en la OMC en la forma
de discusiones, no negociaciones. Y los países en desarrollo tienen
margen de maniobra para promover el comercio digital mediante empresas
nacionales y desarrollar su industrialización digital a través de
diversas políticas, requisitos de desempeño, subsidios, incentivos y
similares.

Pero las grandes empresas de tecnología y sus defensores en la OMC
continúan presionando a favor de esta agenda anti-desarrollo con el
propósito de debilitar la resistencia y garantizar que en la próxima
Conferencia Ministerial se aprueben sus intenciones.  (Lo hacen con
apoyo de algunos países en desarrollo para tratar así de minimizar el
evidente carácter anti-desarrollo de esta agenda).

*En el Foro Económico Mundial de Davos el 25 de enero de 2019, los
promotores del comercio electrónico anunciaron su intención de iniciar
negociaciones. *

Hay mucha investigación disponible realizada por expertos/as de la
sociedad civil en _www.ourworldisnotforsale.net_.

 

 

Urgent: Demande de signature par les organisations

 

Chers collègues, 

 

Nous faisons face à une bataille sans précédent dans la lutte contre les
inégalités et la mondialisation menées par les multinationales : le
besoin urgent d’arrêter le lancement de négociations pour une OMC 2.0 !

 

Les Big Tech basées aux Etats-Unis sont devenues les plus grandes
multinationales au monde. Leur pouvoir croissant sur nos communications,
information, médias, élections, commerce, transport, éducation,
agriculture et plus – pratiquement tous les aspects de nos emplois,
moyens de subsistance et économies – devient chaque jour plus évident.
Maintenant ils utilisent leurs profits monopolistiques pour essayer de
transformer radicalement les règles de l’économie globale et pour
libéraliser entièrement chaque aspect de l’économie qui aura un aspect
numérique à l’avenir. Leur but est d’acquérir de nouveaux droits
d’opérer dans les marchés du monde entier, tout en limitant la
supervision et la régulation dans l’intérêt public ; de maintenir leurs
pouvoirs monopolistiques et le contrôle des données ; d’avoir accès à
une offre illimitée de main d’œuvre sans droits ; et de ne pas payer
d’impôts. Elles cachent ces efforts en faisant semblant de promouvoir
« l’e-commerce pour le développement », mais leurs propositions iraient
beaucoup plus loin que « l’e-commerce » et elles sont aux antipodes de
tout développement futur ou prospérité partagée pour les travailleurs et
les consommateurs du monde entier.

 

/_Le 25 janvier 2019, au Forum économique mondial, ils ont annoncé leur
intention de lancer des négociations sur « l’e-commerce » à
l’Organisation mondiale du commerce! _/

 

Ces propositions _doivent être arrêtées_. Nous demandons à votre
organisation de signer la lettre ci-jointe d’ici le 27 mars 2019 au plus
tard. Nous allons l’envoyer aux gouvernements, médias et public le 1^er
avril à l’occasion d’une grande conférence sur l’e-commerce qui aura
lieu à Genève.

 

*Veuillez svp enregistrer le soutien de votre organisation contre la
mainmise des Big Tech sur l’économie globale en signant la lettre d’ici
le 27 mars ici : https://form.jotform.com/90508616440151. *

 

Merci et merci pour vos efforts en faveur d’une économie mondiale juste,
durable et démocratique!

 

Meilleures salutations, 

Deborah James

Réseau international Notre monde n’est pas à vendre (OWINFS)

Court récapitulatif: en juillet 2016, à la demande de l’industrie de la
haute technologie, les Etats-Unis ont proposé des disciplines sur le
commerce électronique (appelé aussi e-commerce) à l’Organisation
mondiale du commerce (OMC). Depuis lors, des dizaines de propositions
ont circulé. Le mandat existant à l’OMC est de discuter d’e-commerce,
mais pas de mener des négociations sur des règles potentiellement
contraignantes. En même temps, depuis le lancement du Cycle de Doha en
2001, il y a un mandat de réduire les contraintes de l’OMC sur l’espace
politique des pays en développement, mais les pays développés membres
ont refusé d’accepter les changements nécessaires. (En plus, les pays
développés ont aussi bloqué des réformes aux règles sur l’agriculture
demandées par les pays en développement depuis des décennies, car elles
limitent la capacité des pays pauvres à fournir de la nourriture
subventionnée à leurs populations appauvries). 

Malgré cela en 2017 l’objectif des pays riches était de mettre de côté
pour toujours l’agenda de développement et, au lieu de cela, de lancer
de nouvelles négociations sur l’e-commerce à l’OMC. Ils essaient de
vendre ces nouvelles discussions en disant que l’e-commerce est bon pour
le développement, les femmes et les micro, petites et moyennes
entreprises (MPME). Mais de nombreux officiels africains ont compris que
les propositions vont beaucoup plus loin que «l’e-commerce » et qu’elles
ont l’ambition de libéraliser complètement tous les aspects de
l’économie numérique future.

Les membres d'OWINFS ont fait valoir que, parmi d'autres problèmes
fondamentaux :

  * ce nouveau programme de commerce électronique consoliderait de façon
    permanente le statut de précurseur et le contrôle monopolistique des
    entreprises de haute technologie des pays développés dans leur pays,
    en particulier par le contrôle des données;
  * Il empêcherait également les pays de développer leur propre
    industrialisation numérique en matière de politique de développement;
  * L'utilisation du commerce électronique pour le développement est
    complètement différente de la négociation de règles contraignantes
    élaborées par des avocats d'entreprises de haute technologie
    établies aux États-Unis ;
  * Les disciplines adoptées à l'OMC donneraient aux multinationales des
    droits d'accès au marché tout en limitant le rôle de l'État dans la
    réglementation ;
  * Il y aurait un impact fiscal négatif massif si l'on acceptait les
    cinq façons différentes que les Big Tech avaient inventé dans les
    propositions pour éviter de payer des impôts, alors que les
    entreprises non numériques devraient toujours contribuer à
    l'assiette fiscale ;
  * Les pays développés n'ont pas tenu compte des besoins des pays en
    développement en matière de réduction de la fracture numérique,
    d'infrastructures, d'accès à l'électricité et à la large bande, de
    perfectionnement des compétences et d'autres conditions préalables ;
  * Les pays développés voulaient que les nouvelles négociations soient
    " gratuites ", sans accepter les demandes formulées depuis des
    décennies en faveur d'une plus grande marge de manœuvre en matière
    de politique de développement qui se traduirait par des emplois, le
    développement et la réduction de la pauvreté dans le monde entier.

Avec l'énorme soutien de la société civile, les pays en développement,
menés par le Groupe africain, ont refusé cet appât et ce changement, et
ont refusé d'accepter de nouvelles négociations à l'OMC sur le commerce
électronique (maintenant appelé " commerce numérique ") lors de la
réunion ministérielle de l'OMC de décembre 2017 à Buenos Aires, Argentine.

L'agenda du commerce électronique se présente toujours sous la forme de
discussions, et non de négociations, au sein de l'OMC. Et les pays en
développement disposent d'une marge d'action pour promouvoir le commerce
numérique des entreprises nationales et développer leur
industrialisation numérique grâce à diverses politiques, exigences de
performance, subventions, incitations et autres mesures similaires.

Mais les Big Tech et les défenseurs au sein de l'OMC continuent de faire
pression pour que ce programme anti-développement soit accepté lors de
la prochaine réunion ministérielle, dans le but de réduire la résistance
et d'obtenir un accord.  (Ils le font avec l'appui de certains pays en
développement afin de tenter de réduire l'aspect manifestement
anti-développement de l'ordre du jour.)

*Au Forum économique mondial de Davos, le 25 janvier 2019, les
promoteurs ont annoncé leur intention d'entamer des négociations.*

Des recherches approfondies menées par des experts de la société civile
sont disponibles sur www.ourworldisnotforsale.net
<http://www.ourworldisnotforsale.net>   

 

*Petit répertoire d'informations complémentaires sur la tentative de
prise de contrôle de l'économie mondiale par le Big Tech*

*Disponible en français*

 

 

 1. Douze raisons de s’opposer aux règles sur le commerce électronique à
    l’OMC: _pdf
    <http://ourworldisnotforsale.net/2017/WTO_12_reasons_FR.pdf>_, _docx
    <http://ourworldisnotforsale.net/2017/WTO_12_reasons_FR.docx>_

 

 2. Localisation des données: Une question d’Etat de droit et de
    développement économique: pdf
    <http://ourworldisnotforsale.net/2018/ITfC_localisation_donnees.pdf>

 

 3. Politiques publiques pour l’économie de la plateforme: Tendances
    actuelles et directions futures : pdf
    <http://ourworldisnotforsale.net/2018/ITfC_plateforme.pdf>

 

 4. L’industrialisation numérique dans les pays en développement - Un
    aperçu du monde des affaires et de la politique. Sommaire exécutif :
    docx <http://ourworldisnotforsale.net/2018/ITfC_ind_num_pd.doc>

 

 5. La 4ème révolution industrielle amplifiera le fossé numérique :
    Position d’Alliance Sud : pdf
    <http://ourworldisnotforsale.net/2017/AS_Digital_divide_FR.pdf>









 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190317/8304ddf3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CSO Letter Digital Trade 2019-03-17-ENG.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 51520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190317/8304ddf3/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Short directory Big Tech Takeover-EN.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 18172 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190317/8304ddf3/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CSO Letter Digital Trade 2019-03-17-ES.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 52757 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190317/8304ddf3/attachment-0002.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Short directory Big Tech Takeover-ES.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 15994 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190317/8304ddf3/attachment-0003.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CSO Letter Digital Trade 2019-03-17-FR.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 51860 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190317/8304ddf3/attachment-0004.docx>

From suresh at hserus.net  Sun Mar 17 19:42:43 2019
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 23:42:43 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [governance] Urgent: Request for organizational endorsement
In-Reply-To: <2a0304ea-e317-19e1-d5b3-e0f375c9f456@itforchange.net>
References: <LYRIS-110484977-5294299-2019.03.17-10.38.13--parminder#itforchange.net@listserver.citizen.org>
 <2a0304ea-e317-19e1-d5b3-e0f375c9f456@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4D9162D8FEAC1624.C1777AA5-1851-48DD-817F-F6D2960B12FC@mail.outlook.com>


  
  
  
    
    	As this is about e governance rather than internet governance I am not at all sure this is within this caucus' mandate.  What is the actual scope of what is sought to be discussed at the wto, can someone please confirm?
    	
    	

    	--srs
    
  




On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 10:02 PM +0530, "parminder" <governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote:











  

    
  
  
    
      
        
          
            

            
            

            
          
          
            

            
            

            
          
          
            

            
            

            
          
          
            

            
            

            
          
          
            

            
            

            
          
          
            

            
            

            
          
          
            

            
            

            
          
        
      
      The below is self explanatory. See
        if your organisation will like to sign it. Please do also
        forward to your networks. Thanks, parminder
    

      
    

      
    

      
    

      
    

      
    Here
        is an updated English version of the sign-on letter, for you to
        circulate to your networks. 
      
        
          

 
        
        

THANKS to the 166 organizations which
            have already endorsed. PLEASE check out this urgent action
            and endorse through the form. More info in
            the attachment & below! 
        

 
        

Urgent:
            Request for organizational endorsement    *  
          Spanish
            below  *  Français ci-dessous 
        

 
        

Dear
            all, 
        

 
        

We
            are facing an unprecedented fight in the struggle against
            inequality and corporate globalization: the urgent need to
            stop the launch of talks for a WTO 2.0! 
        

 
        

U.S.-based
            Big Tech are now the largest corporations in the world.
            Their increasing power over our communications, information,
            media, elections, commerce, transportation, education,
            agriculture, and more – basically all aspects of our jobs,
            livelihoods and economies – is becoming more obvious by the
            day. Now they are using their monopoly profits to try to
            fundamentally transform the rules of the global economy, to
            fully liberalize every aspect of the economy, all of which
            will have a digital aspect in the future. Their goal is to
            gain new rights to operate in markets across the globe,
            while handcuffing public interest oversight and regulation;
            maintaining their monopoly powers and control over data;
            accessing an unlimited supply of labor stripped of its
            rights; and non-payment of taxes. They are disguising these
            efforts as promoting “e-commerce for development” but the
            proposals would go far beyond “e-commerce” and are
            antithetical to any future development or shared prosperity
            for workers and consumers around the world. 
        

 
        

On January 25,
                2019, at the World Economic Forum, they announced the
                intention to start negotiations on “e-commerce” in the
                World Trade Organization! 
        

 
        

These
            proposed negotiations must be stopped. We urge your
            organizational endorsement of the attached statement, by
            March 27, 2019 at the latest. We will send the letter to
            governments, media and the public on April 1 when a big
            conference on e-commerce will take place in Geneva. 
        

 
        

PLEASE register your
              organization’s support by endorsing the statement here: https://form.jotform.com/90508616440151
            by
              March 27th. 
        

 
        

Thank
            you and thank you for your efforts for a just, sustainable
            and democratic global economy!
        

 
        

Best
            wishes, 
        

Deborah
            James
        

Our
            World Is Not for Sale (OWINFS) global network
        

Short background: In July
            2016, at the request of the Big Tech industry, the United
            States tabled a proposal for disciplines on digital trade
            (also called e-commerce) in the World Trade WTO. Since then,
            dozens have proposals have circulated. The existing mandate
            within the WTO is to have discussions on e-commerce in the
            WTO, but not to have negotiations on potential binding
            rules. At the same time, there is a mandate since the launch
            of the Doha Round in 2001 to reduce WTO constraints to
            development policy space in developing countries, but
            developed country members have refused to agree to the
            necessary changes. (In addition, developed countries have
            also blocked reforms to the agriculture rules that have been
            demanded by developing countries for decades, because they
            constrain poor countries from providing subsidized food to
            their own impoverished populations.)
        

Nevertheless 2017, the goal
            of rich countries was to set aside the development agenda
            permanently, and instead launch new negotiations on
            e-commerce in the WTO. They are trying sell these new talks
            by portraying e-commerce as good for development, women, and
            micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs). However, by
            this time, many African officials had come to the
            understanding that the proposals went far beyond
            “e-commerce” and were really intending a full and complete
            liberalization of all aspects of the future digital
            economy. 
        

OWINFS members have argued
            that, among other fundamental problems:
        

·       this new e-commerce agenda
            would permanently consolidate the first-mover status and
            monopoly control of developed country high tech firms in
            their countries, particularly through the control of data; 
        

·       it would also foreclose the
            development policy space for countries to develop their own
            digital industrialization;
        

·       using e-commerce for
            development is completely different than negotiating binding
            rules that were developed by lawyers of U.S.-based high-tech
            companies;
        

·       prosed disciplines in the WTO
            would give multinationals market access rights while
            limiting the role of the state in regulation;
        

·       there would be a massive
            negative fiscal impact of agreeing to the five different
            ways Big Tech had invented in the proposals to avoid paying
            taxes, while non-digital businesses would still be needed to
            contribute to the fiscal base;
        

·       developed countries have
            ignored the needs of developing countries for closing the
            digital divide, for infrastructure, access to electricity
            and broadband, skills upgrading, and other prerequisites;
        

·       developed countries wanted
            the new negotiations “for free,” without agreeing to any of
            the decades-old demands for more development policy space
            that would result in jobs, development and poverty reduction
            worldwide. 
        

With tremendous support from
            civil society, developing countries, led by the Africa
            Group, refused this bait-and-switch, and refused to agree to
            new talks in the WTO on e-commerce (now called “digital
            trade”) at the December 2017 WTO Ministerial meeting in
            Buenos Aires, Argentina. 
        

The e-commerce agenda is
            still in the form of discussions, not negotiations, in the
            WTO. And developing countries have the policy space to
            promote digital trade by domestic firms, and to build up
            their digital industrialization through various policies,
            performance requirements, subsidies, incentives and the
            like. 
        

But Big Tech and its
            advocates in the WTO are still pushing for this
            anti-development agenda with the goal of wearing down the
            resistance and gaining agreement to be accepted at the next
            Ministerial.  (They do so with support from some developing
            countries in an attempt to reduce the glaringly
            anti-development appearance of the agenda.) 
        

At the World Economic Forum
              in Davos on January 25, 2019, proponents announced their
              intention to commence negotiations.
        

Extensive research by civil
            society experts is available on www.ourworldisnotforsale.net. 
        
          

 
        
        

 
        

Urgente: Solicitud de adhesiones de
            organizaciones   *   Francés a continuación 
        

 
        

Estimad at s:
        

 
        

Nos encontramos ante una batalla sin precedentes
            en la lucha contra la desigualdad y la globalización
            agenciada por las empresas transnacionales: ¡la necesidad
            urgente de detener el inicio de negociaciones por una OMC
            2.0!
        

 
        

Las grandes empresas de tecnología con sede en
            Estados Unidos son hoy las mayores empresas del mundo. Su
            poder creciente sobre nuestras comunicaciones, información,
            medios, elecciones, comercio, transporte, educación,
            agricultura y más -básicamente todos los aspectos de
            nuestros empleos, medios de sustento y economías, es cada
            día más evidente. Ahora están usando sus ganancias
            monopólicas para intentar transformar fundamentalmente las
            normas de la economía global para liberalizar por completo
            todos los aspectos de la economía, que tendrán todos ellos
            un aspecto digital en el futuro. Su meta es obtener nuevos
            derechos para operar en los mercados de todo el mundo,
            imponiendo a la vez restricciones a las medidas de control y
            la reglamentación de interés público; preservar su poder
            monopólico y el control de los datos; acceder a una oferta
            ilimitada de mano de obra a la que se le niegan todos los
            derechos; y evitar pagar impuestos. Encubren sus intenciones
            aparentando promover el "comercio electrónico para el
            desarrollo", pero sus propuestas van más allá del "comercio
            electrónico" y se contraponen a cualquier desarrollo futuro
            o prosperidad compartida para l at s trabajadores/as y
            consumidores/as de todo el mundo.
        

El 25 de enero de 2019 anunciaron en el Foro
                Económico Mundial la intención de iniciar negociaciones
                sobre "comercio electrónico" en la Organización Mundial
                del Comercio.
        

 
        

Es imprescindible detener esta propuesta de negociaciones. Instamos a
            vuestras organizaciones a sumarse a la declaración adjunta
            antes del 27 de marzo de 2019. Enviaremos la carta a los
            gobiernos, los medios y el público el 1 de abril, fecha en
            que se llevará a cabo en Ginebra, Suiza, una gran
            conferencia sobre comercio electrónico.
        

 
        

POR FAVOR manifiesten su respaldo como
              organizaciones en contra del avasallamiento de la economía
              mundial por las grandes empresas de tecnología, sumándose
              aquí https://form.jotform.com/90508616440151
              a la declaración a más tardar el 27 de marzo.
        

 
        

Gracias por vuestra adhesión y por vuestros
            esfuerzos a favor de una economía mundial justa, sustentable
            y democrática.
        

 
        

Saluda atentamente,
        

Deborah James
        

Red Nuestro Mundo No Está En Venta (OWINFS)
        

Breves
            antecedentes: En julio de 2016, a solicitud de las grandes
            empresas de tecnología, Estados Unidos propuso establecer
            disciplinas sobre el comercio digital (también conocido como
            comercio electrónico) en la Organización Mundial del
            Comercio (OMC). Desde entonces, se han circulado decenas de
            propuestas. El mandato actual en el marco de la OMC es
            mantener discusiones sobre el comercio electrónico en la
            OMC, pero no llevar a cabo negociaciones sobre posibles
            normas vinculantes. Al mismo tiempo, desde el inicio de la
            Ronda de Doha en 2001, la OMC tiene el mandato de restringir
            su facultad de limitar el margen de maniobra de los países
            en desarrollo en materia de políticas para su desarrollo,
            pero los países desarrollados miembro se han negado a
            acordar los cambios necesarios. (Además, los países
            desarrollados también han impedido que prosperen las
            reformas a las normas agrícolas que vienen exigiendo los
            países en desarrollo desde hace décadas, ya que limitan la
            facultad de los países pobres de proporcionar alimentos
            subsidiados a sus propias poblaciones empobrecidas).
        

De todas maneras en
            2017, la meta de los países ricos en la Conferencia
            Ministerial de la OMC en Buenos Aires fue dejar de lado para
            siempre la agenda de desarrollo y en su lugar dar inicio a
            nuevas negociaciones sobre comercio electrónico en la OMC.
            Intentan promocionar estas nuevas negociaciones presentando
            el comercio electrónico como algo bueno para el desarrollo,
            las mujeres y las micro, pequeñas y medianas empresas
            (MPYME). Sin embargo, en ese momento, muchos delegados
            africanos entendieron que las propuestas iban mucho más allá
            del "comercio electrónico" y que en realidad lo que querían
            era una liberalización completa de todos los aspectos de la
            economía digital del futuro.
        

Los miembros de
            OWINFS han argumentado que, entre otros problemas
            fundamentales:
        

·       esta nueva agenda
            del comercio electrónico consolidaría el control monopólico
            de las empresas de tecnología de los países desarrollados en
            sus países y su condición y ventajas como pioneras,
            particularmente a través del control de los datos;
        

·       también anularía el
            margen de maniobra en materia de políticas de desarrollo
            para que los países puedan emprender su propia
            industrialización digital;
        

·       usar el comercio
            electrónico para desarrollarse es completamente distinto que
            negociar normas vinculantes que fueron redactadas por los
            abogados de las empresas de tecnología con sede en Estados
            Unidos;
        

·       las disciplinas
            propuestas para la OMC les darían a las multinacionales
            derechos de acceso al mercado a la vez limitarían el papel
            del Estado como órgano regulador;
        

·       el impacto fiscal
            negativo sería de inmensas proporciones si se llegasen a
            aprobar las cinco maneras distintas que las grandes empresas
            de tecnología se inventaron para evitar tener que pagar
            impuestos, mientras que las empresas no digitales seguirían
            estando obligadas a contribuir al fisco;
        

·       los países
            desarrollados han hecho oídos sordos a las necesidades de
            los países en desarrollo en lo que hace a cerrar la brecha
            digital, en materia de infraestructura, acceso a
            electricidad y banda ancha, mejorar su habilidades, y otros
            prerrequisitos;
        

·       los países
            desarrollados querían que se aprobase iniciar las nuevas
            negociaciones "gratuitamente", sin aceptar ninguno de los
            reclamos que vienen haciendo los países en desarrollo desde
            hace décadas a favor de mayores márgenes de maniobra en
            materia de políticas de desarrollo que conducirían a más
            empleo, desarrollo y reducción de la pobreza en todo el
            mundo.
        

Con mucho apoyo de
            la sociedad civil, los países en desarrollo, liderados por
            el Grupo Africano, rechazaron esta táctica de señuelo y
            sustitución, y se negaron a aprobar nuevas negociaciones en
            el marco de la OMC sobre comercio electrónico (ahora llamado
            "comercio digital) en la Conferencia Ministerial de la OMC
            realizada en Buenos Aires, Argentina, en diciembre de 2017.
        

La agenda de
            comercio electrónico sigue su curos en la OMC en la forma de
            discusiones, no negociaciones. Y los países en desarrollo
            tienen margen de maniobra para promover el comercio digital
            mediante empresas nacionales y desarrollar su
            industrialización digital a través de diversas políticas,
            requisitos de desempeño, subsidios, incentivos y similares.
        

Pero las grandes
            empresas de tecnología y sus defensores en la OMC continúan
            presionando a favor de esta agenda anti-desarrollo con el
            propósito de debilitar la resistencia y garantizar que en la
            próxima Conferencia Ministerial se aprueben sus intenciones.
             (Lo hacen con apoyo de algunos países en desarrollo para
            tratar así de minimizar el evidente carácter anti-desarrollo
            de esta agenda).
        

En el Foro
              Económico Mundial de Davos el 25 de enero de 2019, los
              promotores del comercio electrónico anunciaron su
              intención de iniciar negociaciones. 
        

Hay mucha
            investigación disponible realizada por expertos/as de la
            sociedad civil en www.ourworldisnotforsale.net.
        
          

 
        
        

 
        

Urgent: Demande de signature par les
            organisations
        

 
        

Chers collègues, 
        

 
        

Nous
            faisons face à une bataille sans précédent dans la lutte
            contre les inégalités et la mondialisation menées par les
            multinationales : le besoin urgent d’arrêter le lancement de
            négociations pour une OMC 2.0 !
        

 
        

Les Big
            Tech basées aux Etats-Unis sont devenues les plus grandes
            multinationales au monde. Leur pouvoir croissant sur nos
            communications, information, médias, élections, commerce,
            transport, éducation, agriculture et plus – pratiquement
            tous les aspects de nos emplois, moyens de subsistance et
            économies – devient chaque jour plus évident. Maintenant ils
            utilisent leurs profits monopolistiques pour essayer de
            transformer radicalement les règles de l’économie globale et
            pour libéraliser entièrement chaque aspect de l’économie qui
            aura un aspect numérique à l’avenir. Leur but est d’acquérir
            de nouveaux droits d’opérer dans les marchés du monde
            entier, tout en limitant la supervision et la régulation
            dans l’intérêt public ; de maintenir leurs pouvoirs
            monopolistiques et le contrôle des données ; d’avoir accès à
            une offre illimitée de main d’œuvre sans droits ; et de ne
            pas payer d’impôts. Elles cachent ces efforts en faisant
            semblant de promouvoir « l’e-commerce pour le
            développement », mais leurs propositions iraient beaucoup
            plus loin que « l’e-commerce » et elles sont aux antipodes
            de tout développement futur ou prospérité partagée pour les
            travailleurs et les consommateurs du monde entier. 
        

 
        

Le 25
                janvier 2019, au Forum économique mondial, ils ont
                annoncé leur intention de lancer des négociations sur
                « l’e-commerce » à l’Organisation mondiale du commerce! 
        

 
        

Ces propositions doivent être arrêtées.
            Nous demandons à votre organisation de signer la lettre
            ci-jointe d’ici le 27 mars 2019 au plus tard. Nous allons
            l’envoyer aux gouvernements, médias et public le 1er
            avril à l’occasion d’une grande conférence sur l’e-commerce
            qui aura lieu à Genève. 
        

 
        

Veuillez
              svp enregistrer le soutien de votre organisation contre la
              mainmise des Big Tech sur l’économie globale en signant la
              lettre d’ici le 27 mars ici : https://form.jotform.com/90508616440151. 
        

 
        

Merci et merci pour vos efforts en faveur d’une
            économie mondiale juste, durable et démocratique!
        

 
        

Meilleures
            salutations, 
        

Deborah
            James
        

Réseau international Notre monde n’est pas à
            vendre (OWINFS) 
        

Court
            récapitulatif: en juillet 2016, à la
            demande de l’industrie de la haute technologie, les
            Etats-Unis ont proposé des disciplines sur le commerce
            électronique (appelé aussi e-commerce) à l’Organisation
            mondiale du commerce (OMC). Depuis lors, des dizaines de
            propositions ont circulé. Le mandat existant à l’OMC est de
            discuter d’e-commerce, mais pas de mener des négociations
            sur des règles potentiellement contraignantes. En même
            temps, depuis le lancement du Cycle de Doha en 2001, il y a
            un mandat de réduire les contraintes de l’OMC sur l’espace
            politique des pays en développement, mais les pays
            développés membres ont refusé d’accepter les changements
            nécessaires. (En plus, les pays développés ont aussi bloqué
            des réformes aux règles sur l’agriculture demandées par les
            pays en développement depuis des décennies, car elles
            limitent la capacité des pays pauvres à fournir de la
            nourriture subventionnée à leurs populations appauvries). 
        

Malgré cela en 2017 l’objectif des pays riches
            était de mettre de côté pour toujours l’agenda de
            développement et, au lieu de cela, de lancer de nouvelles
            négociations sur l’e-commerce à l’OMC. Ils essaient de
            vendre ces nouvelles discussions en disant que l’e-commerce
            est bon pour le développement, les femmes et les micro,
            petites et moyennes entreprises (MPME). Mais de nombreux
            officiels africains ont compris que les propositions vont
            beaucoup plus loin que «l’e-commerce » et qu’elles ont
            l’ambition de libéraliser complètement tous les aspects de
            l’économie numérique future.
        

Les membres
            d'OWINFS ont fait valoir que, parmi d'autres problèmes
            fondamentaux :
        
          ce nouveau programme de
              commerce électronique consoliderait de façon permanente le
              statut de précurseur et le contrôle monopolistique des
              entreprises de haute technologie des pays développés dans
              leur pays, en particulier par le contrôle des données ;
          Il empêcherait également
              les pays de développer leur propre industrialisation
              numérique en matière de politique de développement ;
          L'utilisation du commerce
              électronique pour le développement est complètement
              différente de la négociation de règles contraignantes
              élaborées par des avocats d'entreprises de haute
              technologie établies aux États-Unis ;
          Les disciplines adoptées à
              l'OMC donneraient aux multinationales des droits d'accès
              au marché tout en limitant le rôle de l'État dans la
              réglementation ;
          Il y aurait un impact
              fiscal négatif massif si l'on acceptait les cinq façons
              différentes que les Big Tech avaient inventé dans les
              propositions pour éviter de payer des impôts, alors que
              les entreprises non numériques devraient toujours
              contribuer à l'assiette fiscale ;
          Les pays développés n'ont
              pas tenu compte des besoins des pays en développement en
              matière de réduction de la fracture numérique,
              d'infrastructures, d'accès à l'électricité et à la large
              bande, de perfectionnement des compétences et d'autres
              conditions préalables ;
          Les pays développés
              voulaient que les nouvelles négociations soient "
              gratuites ", sans accepter les demandes formulées depuis
              des décennies en faveur d'une plus grande marge de
              manœuvre en matière de politique de développement qui se
              traduirait par des emplois, le développement et la
              réduction de la pauvreté dans le monde entier. 
        
        

Avec l'énorme
            soutien de la société civile, les pays en développement,
            menés par le Groupe africain, ont refusé cet appât et ce
            changement, et ont refusé d'accepter de nouvelles
            négociations à l'OMC sur le commerce électronique
            (maintenant appelé " commerce numérique ") lors de la
            réunion ministérielle de l'OMC de décembre 2017 à Buenos
            Aires, Argentine. 
        

L'agenda du
            commerce électronique se présente toujours sous la forme de
            discussions, et non de négociations, au sein de l'OMC. Et
            les pays en développement disposent d'une marge d'action
            pour promouvoir le commerce numérique des entreprises
            nationales et développer leur industrialisation numérique
            grâce à diverses politiques, exigences de performance,
            subventions, incitations et autres mesures similaires. 
        

Mais les Big
            Tech et les défenseurs au sein de l'OMC continuent de faire
            pression pour que ce programme anti-développement soit
            accepté lors de la prochaine réunion ministérielle, dans le
            but de réduire la résistance et d'obtenir un accord.  (Ils
            le font avec l'appui de certains pays en développement afin
            de tenter de réduire l'aspect manifestement
            anti-développement de l'ordre du jour.) 
        

Au Forum
              économique mondial de Davos, le 25 janvier 2019, les
              promoteurs ont annoncé leur intention d'entamer des
              négociations.
        

Des recherches
            approfondies menées par des experts de la société civile
            sont disponibles sur www.ourworldisnotforsale.net    
        

 
        

Petit
                répertoire d'informations complémentaires sur la
                tentative de prise de contrôle de l'économie mondiale
                par le Big Tech
        

Disponible en français
        

 
        

 
        
          Douze raisons de
              s’opposer aux règles sur le commerce électronique à
              l’OMC: pdf, docx
        
        

 
        
          Localisation des
              données: Une question d’Etat de droit et de développement
              économique: pdf
        
        

 
        
          Politiques
              publiques pour l’économie de la plateforme: Tendances
              actuelles et directions futures : pdf
        
        

 
        
          L’industrialisation numérique dans les pays
              en développement - Un aperçu du monde des affaires et de
              la politique. Sommaire
              exécutif : docx
        
        

 
        
          La
              4ème révolution industrielle amplifiera le fossé
              numérique : Position d’Alliance Sud : pdf
        
        



            

            

            

            

            

            

            

          
        

 
        

 
        

 
      
    
  






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190317/b3a583e3/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Tue Mar 19 08:17:18 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:17:18 +0100
Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGF 2019 calls (for distribution)
References: <MR2P264MB01781201632F5419BD683BD1BB400@MR2P264MB0178.FRAP264.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID: <398BE019-E58D-4977-A6D9-2F87EF9F3AA6@gmail.com>

Hi colleagues,

Please see a number of calls related to the IGF. Note the deadline is far approaching.

Thanks,
Arsene


> 
> ===================================================================
> 
> The Call for the IGF 2019 Village is open until 12 April 2019, 23:59 p.m. UTC: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2019-village-call-for-booths
> 
> The IGF 2019 Call for Open Forums is open until 12 April 2019, 23:59 p.m. UTC: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2019-call-for-open-forums
> 
> The Call for the IGF 2019 Village is open until 12 April 2019, 23:59 p.m. UTC: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2019-village-call-for-booths
> 
> IGF Call for Dynamic Coalitions (DC) session
> https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2019-call-for-dynamic-coalition-dc-sessions
> 
> IGF 2019 call for workshop proposals
> https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2019-call-for-workshop-proposals-0
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190319/ea24263c/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Wed Mar 20 14:03:11 2019
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 14:03:11 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF Honduras
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk0_4zB_kerkpKyuKAU6rMpvM8aOWBG9KZbeF7ZDArfybQ@mail.gmail.com>

There is a very high quality stream out of the IGF Honduras today via the
ISOC Honduras Chapter Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/isochn/videos/
The event continues today and tomorrow. I have not been able to find a
detailed agenda but there is more info at
https://coladca.com/igf-foro-honduras

I made a shortcut to the latest tweets https://bit.ly/IGFHonduras2019

joly


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190320/276c9982/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Tue Mar  5 12:17:26 2019
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 12:17:26 -0500
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: UN High-level Panel on Digital
 Cooperation Town Hall - March 2019
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk2Brmi46Ry6PN50wuuGeeLBAMU2khGOiTUW04YbHs=PDw@mail.gmail.com>

Recording of yesterday's webinar. After a general round up, some responders
to the call for contributions  - Therese Littleton, EQUALS - Babatunde
Okunoye, Paradigm Initiative - Amanda Craig. Microsoft - Rahul Chandran,
Global Alliance for Humanitarian Innovation -  discussed their inputs.


[image: livestream]
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/DigitalCooperation4>Yesterday
Monday 4 March 2019 the *United Nations High-level Panel on Digital
Cooperation <https://digitalcooperation.org/> *hosted its monthly *Virtual
Town Hall *hosted by* Jovan Kurbalija *and *Anoush Rima. * A mildly edited
version of the Town Hall will be webcast today *5 March 2019* at *1pm
ET *(18:00
UTC) via *ISOC.LIVE <https://isoc.live/>*

*VIEW ON LIVESTREAM*:
https://livestream.com/internetsociety/DigitalCooperation3
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/DigitalCooperation4> (open AI
captions)

*FEBRUARY 2019 VIRTUAL TOWN HALL*
https://livestream.com/internetsociety/DigitalCooperation3

*JANUARY 2019 VIRTUAL TOWN HALL*
https://livestream.com/internetsociety/DigitalCooperation2

*OCTOBER 2018 VIRTUAL TOWN HALL*
https://livestream.com/internetsociety/DigitalCooperation

*TWITTE*R: #DigitalCooperation http://bit.ly/digitalcooperation

*ABOUT*
The High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation was established by the UN
Secretary-General in July 2018 to identify good examples and propose
modalities for working cooperatively across sectors, disciplines and
borders to address challenges in the digital age. The panel will deliver a
final report with actionable recommendations in June 2019.
https://digitalcooperation.org/

* <http://bit.ly/2TbzsAq>*


*Permalink*
https://isoc.live/10946/




-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190305/64540b21/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Fri Mar 22 09:06:18 2019
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 09:06:18 -0400
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Barbados Youth Internet Governance
 Forum 2019
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk1AFob2a1m3djCtV7Mp1r_brk58X+S-RpVCW1w75qusGQ@mail.gmail.com>

Just starting.



[image: livestream] <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/yigfbb2019>
Today, *Friday March 22nd 2019* from *9:00 AM to 3:00 PM AST* (13:00-19:00
UTC) the *Barbados Chapter of the Internet Society <http://isoc.bb/>* is
hosting the 2nd Annual *Barbados Youth Internet Governance Forum
<https://www.eventbrite.com/e/barbados-youth-internet-governance-forum-2019-tickets-55648758936>*
with
the theme “*Smart Youth for a Smart Barbados*“. The forum is a condensed
version of the full Internet Governance Forum, but geared towards young
people, ages 16 – 25. The event will be webcast on the *Internet Society
Livestream Channel* <https://livestream.com/internetsociety>.

*View on Livestream: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/yigfbb2019
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/yigfbb2019>*

*Twitter: #yigfbb2019 https://bit.ly/yigfbb2019 <https://bit.ly/yigfbb2019>*

*Permalink*
https://isoc.live/10986/




-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190322/229f0460/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Wed Mar 27 11:20:37 2019
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 11:20:37 -0400
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Data Privacy Summit in Washington DC
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk1KRRA07z0Jx6GUXFFK3fcoipbBvxwVdL+EBE_6kErvUw@mail.gmail.com>

This is well underway, but plenty left to go. AI captions.



[image: livestream]
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/DataPrivacySummit>Today, *Wednesday
March 27 2019* the *Data Privacy Summit
<https://www.accessnow.org/data-privacy-summit/>*, Organized by *Access Now
<https://www.accessnow.org/>*, with support from *Internet Society
<https://www.internetsociety.org/>*, *Apple <https://www.apple.com/>*, *mapbox
<https://www.mapbox.com/>*, & *Dropbox* <https://www.dropbox.com/>, will
bring together privacy experts in Washington DC. An interactive dialogue
will map the current data privacy debate, identify where consensus exists,
narrow existing questions where more clarity is needed, with the ultimate
goal of achieving a comprehensive, rights-respecting data protection
framework in the United States. The event will be webcast live on the *Internet
Society Livestream Channel <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/>*.

*VIEW ON
LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/DataPrivacySummit
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/DataPrivacySummit>*
*AGENDA: https://www.accessnow.org/data-privacy-summit/#agenda
<https://www.accessnow.org/data-privacy-summit/#agenda>*
*TWITTER: #DataPrivacySummit https://bit.ly/DataPrivacySummit
<https://bit.ly/DataPrivacySummit>*

*Permalink*
https://isoc.live/10991/



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190327/248a964b/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Sun Mar 31 16:41:17 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sivasubramanian M (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 02:11:17 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Follow-on from survey on the future of
 Bestbits: next steps
In-Reply-To: <CAK78muQOeBBE=u9LMXEwr_RExiSNYGMzEnuGvaURyB0Ta-qRHg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABDXvWpbTA5uGVjW18sTntZt7yyEgF=Dvu-L-RBiVmxATrctfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWpz1QsRPN0njnfgiqOaTUsNO+nt=bx8aCanMGr7_1CYwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <SN6PR07MB4575B4E42B2F08A86BE1A8CBA1BF0@sn6pr07mb4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <em9b30dddd-f749-4b1d-90f5-b86d4452dd80@laptop-93l8qkek>
 <CAK78muQzTCJuXbdrHJAvhQaueTEaw3-s1Vdog94+2WwQAxNYZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEhPqwqNGpGNmQ6bHudOdQ3FZt4RggyR62rBaP6C1e7E4RJQ2Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <em5f424bca-5849-4098-8e6c-e2632f89d2a5@laptop-93l8qkek> <b8a2c2e9-1477-d805-6e62-8e1271af4cac@jhellerstein.com>
 <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> <CAK-FJAdsJDENykn48fAKqvBbatVqFQd8peyKUaXGsjN8MOFgZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJdpWNBCKSJ1Q-n=AHjJDViR=asQ+Wz3jWPCJjiKqo8p_6haDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <emffd5f87c-bcf7-4375-b090-987864a2c752@laptop-93l8qkek> <b12debfe-fb57-92c2-f5a8-84007b0752ad@malcolm.id.au>
 <CAK78muQUCjgKQeAxeg8rzMPohg5T2dkNvVgMHRUYG4PEK3PEXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <6bb74092-192b-8370-b0e8-1987dd61e8e2@malcolm.id.au> <CAMz5XN5Ag7rxKsDcMkOPjxwsgP-sgM=a6UsFcO5LUYRjpn=gMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK78muRCGd2zQyUaN_CKXKiLcn=Epgur-r4hsSOSpP0Jfkzokw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK78muTPXF6ek_jr+yFPLdMarhjFf5pF8c4PojRdWEDOf8zrJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK78muRJh=RDoZRdN0X+XkcQjOz4AUzYfuTn0s2-nn2FKugfhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK78muSUdg5ATAkmTUPDKr4c_KsJjKL=CvLcaVeDMuLWp_zN_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK78muQv76fVZkUMXufaxT8QoSVyCu9RcyL7tKO6Gwz9z31tyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK78muT8NGJdp===gAQJtfwUPkwR0VQaeR-JxTWdhmspCMW24g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK78muTTBfjEfrOYbJmz7Xba=dN8WUYh9vY5THAaEOxSiYyArQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK78muSRDGEO6ewCnOd4w9wc0KuqBpzZQzMwZF9VHLBficumuQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAK78muQOeBBE=u9LMXEwr_RExiSNYGMzEnuGvaURyB0Ta-qRHg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0E5QXik-U+9br58woJtehNhppm0a0WSymCLU05WNRJsDw@mail.gmail.com>

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190401/763bdbd1/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Tue Mar  5 15:43:04 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List)
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 08:43:04 +1200
Subject: [governance] DNS KSK Rollover Report now available
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiBdPzrp1v7gzUpJn5gGqtnkqPfbLczOV2k=hMWcDjNQHg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

The DNS KSK Rollover Report has now become available at ICANN:
https://www.icann.org/review-2018-dnssec-ksk-rollover.pdf

To see some perspectives on the KSK Rollover, from Verisign, Adel, APNIC
and I, see below:



1.    Operational Update Regarding the KSK Rollover for Administrators of
Recursive Name Servers
<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20180830_operational_update_regarding_ksk_rollover_for_name_servers/>

2.    The Root KSK Rollover? What Does It Mean for Me?
<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20180924_the_root_ksk_rollover_what_does_it_mean_for_me/>


3.    DNS Root Zone KSK Rollover
<https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/apnic-services/dnssec/keyroll>



4.    KSK Rollover, Elliptical Curve Vulnerabilities, Surveillance and
Privacy. Are We Building Trust?
<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20181013_ksk_rollover_elliptical_curve_vulnerabilities_surveillance/>
Best Regards,
-- 

*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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190306/0a5fc264/attachment.htm>

From milton at gatech.edu  Thu Mar  7 11:12:53 2019
From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 16:12:53 +0000
Subject: [governance] [GIGANET-MEMBERS] CfP  Platform Values:
 Conflicting Rights, AI and Tax Avoidance
In-Reply-To:  <20190228140214.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.caa7e1df91.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com>
References:  <SN6PR07MB4575DD543947B43258640015A1750@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <20190228140214.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.caa7e1df91.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com>
Message-ID:  <SN6PR07MB457558C3CEECA600D375ABCEA14C0@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

Luca, this kind of nationalist baiting is really childish and not constructive. There is no such implication in the email. I qualified this from my perspective because that is where I am but I know that Europe, Asia and everywhere else I am familiar with is actively debating the issue.

Why don’t you just admit that your claim that “there is little discussion” was not correct?


Dr. Milton L Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy<http://spp.gatech.edu/>
Georgia Institute of Technology
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org/




From: LB at lucabelli.net [mailto:LB at lucabelli.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 4:02 PM
To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>; GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; governance <governance at lists.riseup.net>
Subject: RE: Re: [GIGANET-MEMBERS] [governance] CfP Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, AI and Tax Avoidance

So, problem solved!!

Your email seems to imply that, if from your perspective the US society is debating the issue, it means no one else in the world needs to be concerned or develop research anymore... Quite curious perspective :)

Have an excellent evening
--------- Original Message ---------
Subject: Re: [GIGANET-MEMBERS] [governance] CfP Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, AI and Tax Avoidance
From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at GATECH.EDU<mailto:milton at GATECH.EDU>>
Date: 2/28/19 1:13 pm
To: GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
The CFP says, “there is little discussion of the ways in which platforms are generating, shaping and championing values in an increasingly intermediated society.”
Really? From my perspective in the US I see the entire society intensely engaged in a discussion of precisely this….

From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net<mailto:governance-request at lists.riseup.net> [mailto:governance-request at lists.riseup.net] On Behalf Of LB at lucabelli.net<mailto:LB at lucabelli.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 4:23 AM
To: GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>; governance <governance at lists.riseup.net<mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>>
Subject: [governance] CfP Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, AI and Tax Avoidance

Dear colleagues,

Please, find below the Call for Papers for a special issue of the Computer Law & Security Review<https://www.journals.elsevier.com/computer-law-and-security-review/call-for-papers/platform-values-conflicting-rights-artificial-intelligence>, dedicated to Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, Artificial Intelligence and Tax Avoidance.

The CfP celebrates 5 years of activities of the UN Internet Governance Forum Coalition on Platform Responsibility<https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/dynamic-coalition-on-platform-responsibility-dcpr?qt-dynamic_coalition_on_platform_re=4#qt-dynamic_coalition_on_platform_re> and includes the organisation of a workshop for feedback and discussion of the submitted papers that will be hosted at FGV Law School, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in July 2019.

Please, feel fre eto share this CfP through your networks
Best Regards
Luca

CfP page https://www.journals.elsevier.com/computer-law-and-security-review/call-for-papers/platform-values-conflicting-rights-artificial-intelligence

Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, Artificial Intelligence and Tax Avoidance.

Purpose:

The purpose of this call is to gather a diverse range of analytical perspectives on the multiform notion of platform values. The special issue resulting from this call will be presented in a dedicated workshop at the IGF 2019, hosted by the Government of Germany in Berlin from 25 to 29 November 2019. To guarantee that authors receive the most extensive feedback on their contributions, an additional workshop for feedback and paper discussion will be hosted at FGV Law School, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on 27 July 2019 (see the timeframe at the bottom of this call). The authors of the papers selected after the first round of reviews will be invited to come – at their own expenses – to present their draft papers at the workshop.

Description:

Platform regulations are having enormous impact on the lives of several billion individuals, and this impact is poised to increase over the next decade. This special issue aims at exploring three of the most crucial points of contention with regard to values underlying the operation of digital platforms: the dispute resolution mechanisms they design and the ways such mechanisms are structured to deal with conflicting rights and principles; the values that can or should be baked into platforms’ automated decision-making and the rights of appropriation in relation to the development of artificial intelligent systems; and the tax avoidance strategies that are frequently pursued by tech giants to minimise their fiscal responsibility across the multiple jurisdictions in which they provide their services.

This Call for Papers celebrates five years of activities of the UN IGF Coalition on Platform Responsibility1. Over the first years of activity, the Coalition has explored the role of digital platforms as gateways to speech, innovation and value creation; it has highlighted that their ascendance as central elements of our society, economy, and public sphere is redefining the concepts of “private” and “public”, and challenging conventional approaches to regulation and governance. Along those lines, this Call for Papers starts from the consideration that, to guarantee the balance and sustainability of governance systems, the exercise of power should be constrained. To do so, a deliberative process over the aims, mechanisms and boundaries of regulation is needed. Accordingly, when private entities rise to the level of quasi-sovereigns or private regulators, it is natural to expect discussion, shared understanding and scrutiny of the choices and trade-offs embedded in their private ordering. Yet, there is little discussion of the ways in which platforms are generating, shaping and championing values in an increasingly intermediated society.

More work is needed to question and enquire what counts as value and how value judgment ought to be made in these hybrid spaces, exploring the elements that should underpin legal and policy-making initiatives, and the risks that may occur when decision-making remains in the sole province of contractual and self-regulation. Contributions to this work should enquire whether it is appropriate for deliberations over platform values and user rights to be exclusively driven by the economic imperatives of shareholders, and whether they should not also take into account the broader set of concerns and expectations of the stakeholders affected by platform regulations.

In this perspective, we call for papers providing analyses and putting forward concrete solutions and policy proposals with regard to platform values. This call is therefore aimed at papers analysing conflicting rights, artificial intelligence systems and tax avoidance strategies with regard to digital platforms. Particularly, the call targets analyses regarding:

1. Conflicting rights.

The first set of governance questions pertain to the intersection of conflicting rights and values: should platforms prioritise certain rights or principles over others? Are they best-placed to identify which rights should be privileged when - privately - regulating social interactions? How should such balancing be conducted between conflicting rights of the same nature, for example between conflicting economic freedoms or conflicting fundamental human rights? What is the relevance of the sources of those rights, for instance in conflicts between rights enshrined in terms of service and diverging conceptions of those rights under the “law of the land”? Should principles, community guidelines and rules of practice (including internal precedents) be weighed any differently as part of balancing? Should balancing be ruled out for certain conflicts?

2. Artificial intelligence.

This second set of questions can be seen as twofold. On the one hand, it relates to value appropriation, in particular in the scramble for data and insights that can be extracted from it to power a new breed of artificial intelligence applications. Since data is a key input for the improvement of algorithms, profiling, and the elaboration of new cognitive services, should data subjects and other players in the platform ecosystems share in the value generated by their marginal input? Should platforms be the only beneficiaries of this learning process, or should the law constrain their ability to exclude others (including consumers, workers, competitors and complementors) from sharing in the benefits generated by the platform ecosystem? On the other hand, the development and implementation of artificial intelligence systems to automatise decision-making functions calls into question the values that should be “baked” into such systems in order to minimise negative consequences and strive towards the design and development  of ethical automated systems. In this respect, what are the fundamental values that should orientate the design, development and deployment of artificial intelligence within platforms? How can those values be appropriately incorporated into artificial intelligence solutions implemented within platforms? Are the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and due process sufficient to prevent unfair value extraction, or do we need stronger intervention?

3. Tax avoidance.

Finally, it is necessary to appreciate whether platforms provide long-term value with their functionalities (for example, bringing together different sides) or rather primarily engage in value extraction (for instance, limiting choice and deriving advantages in favouring certain kinds of behaviors or business models) and regulatory arbitrage. Defining how and where the value is created is crucial in determining the tax regime that is applicable to their activities, and in identifying unfair or fraudulent transfers of wealth. How should value be constructed for tax purposes, and how should regulators around the world deal with global tech giants? Are recent legislative initiatives on digital VAT marking the beginning of an inevitable race to the bottom to attract investment by global platforms, or do they set the foundations for interstate cooperation? Are existing reflections, such as the OECD’s works on transfer pricing and Base Erosion and Profit-Shifting sufficiently mature to be implemented by states? And, most importantly, are states willing and able to implement existing proposals?Is a national or local tax on intermediaries for data collection and aggregation a viable way to account for the transfer of value that takes place between users and platforms?

[1] For an overview of the Coalition’s work, see https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/dynamic-coalition-on-platform-responsibility-dcpr?qt-dynamic_coalition_on_platform_re=4#qt-dynamic_coalition_on_platform_re

Timeframe

Ø  Deadline for extended abstracts (min. 4000 words): April 10th, 2019

Ø  First Round of Reviews and paper selection: May 31st, 2019

Ø  Workshop for feedback and paper discussion: July 27th, 2019

Ø  Revised manuscript: September 10th, 2019

Ø  Final decision: September 30th, 2019




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luca Belli, PhD
Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Rio de Janeiro Law School
Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2
www.internet-governance.fgv.br<http://www.internet-governance.fgv.br>
@1lucabelli
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message, as well as any attached document, may contain information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190307/df360f28/attachment.htm>

From LB at lucabelli.net  Thu Mar  7 13:12:09 2019
From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net)
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2019 11:12:09 -0700
Subject: [governance] [GIGANET-MEMBERS] CfP  Platform Values:
 Conflicting Rights, AI and Tax Avoidance
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR07MB457558C3CEECA600D375ABCEA14C0@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <20190307111209.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.4f366dd402.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com>

Hi Milton, 

With all due respect, I think we both know there was no "nationalist-bating" in my email and that what I was simply arguing was that your perspective of what happens in the US is simply your perspective, rather than a universal truth, as you seem to think.

I am not sure that keeping on having the same fruitless discussion (after TEN days from my previous email!) may be seen as a great example of adultness. But of course, we have quite different perspectives :)

We don't know each other's very well but I can guarantee that my goal is to work cooperatively with others to discuss problems and try to think about solutions.
I hope you could do the same rather than focusing on a single sentence of a call for papers published by a colleague and publicly criticising it just for the sake of looking smart.

In fact, I invite you to submit a paper discussing how platforms extract, produce and convey values. You argue that such debates are abundant in the US, Europe, Asia and everywhere else and I would love to read your thoughts on these debates.

The goal of sharing the CfP was indeed to raise awareness and stimulate much needed research on a set of issues that are having a direct impact on everyone. I think it will be more useful for everyone to work on this rather than having an endless and pointless discussion on whether these issues are debated a lot or a little...

I hope this clarifies. 

Again, have an excellent evening 

Luca
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luca Belli, PhD 
Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Rio de Janeiro Law School 
Chercheur Associ&eacute;, Centre de Droit Public Compar&eacute;, Universit&eacute; Paris 2

www.internet-governance.fgv.br
@1lucabelli 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message, as well as any attached document, may contain information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake.


 
 
 
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: Re: [GIGANET-MEMBERS] [governance] CfP Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, AI and Tax Avoidance
From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>
Date: 3/7/19 12:12 pm
To: "LB at lucabelli.net" <LB at lucabelli.net>, "GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" <GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>, "governance" <governance at lists.riseup.net>

  Luca, this kind of nationalist baiting is really childish and not constructive. There is no such implication in the email. I qualified this from my perspective because that is where I am but I know that Europe, Asia and everywhere else I am familiar with is actively debating the issue. 
  
 Why don't you just admit that your claim that “there is little discussion” was not correct?
  
  
 Dr. Milton L Mueller
 Professor, School of Public Policy
 Georgia Institute of Technology
 Internet Governance Project 
 http://internetgovernance.org/ 
  
  
  
  
    From: LB at lucabelli.net [mailto:LB at lucabelli.net] 
 Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 4:02 PM
 To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>; GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; governance <governance at lists.riseup.net>
 Subject: RE: Re: [GIGANET-MEMBERS] [governance] CfP Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, AI and Tax Avoidance
 


  So, problem solved!!
 

 
Your email seems to imply that, if from your perspective the US society is debating the issue, it means no one else in the world needs to be concerned or develop research anymore... Quite curious perspective :)
 

 
Have an excellent evening
 
 --------- Original Message ---------
  Subject: Re: [GIGANET-MEMBERS] [governance] CfP Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, AI and Tax Avoidance
 From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at GATECH.EDU>
 Date: 2/28/19 1:13 pm
 To: GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
  The CFP says, “there is little discussion of the ways in which platforms are generating, shaping and championing values in an increasingly intermediated society.”
 Really? From my perspective in the US I see the entire society intensely engaged in a discussion of precisely this&hellip;.
  
    From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [mailto:governance-request at lists.riseup.net] On Behalf Of LB at lucabelli.net
 Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 4:23 AM
 To:  GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; governance <governance at lists.riseup.net>
 Subject: [governance] CfP Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, AI and Tax Avoidance
 


   Dear colleagues,
 

 
Please, find below the Call for Papers for a  special issue of the Computer Law & Security Review, dedicated to Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, Artificial Intelligence and Tax Avoidance.
 

 
The CfP celebrates 5 years of activities of the UN Internet Governance Forum  Coalition on Platform Responsibility and includes the organisation of a workshop for feedback and discussion of the submitted papers that will be hosted at FGV Law School, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in July 2019.
 

 
Please, feel fre eto share this CfP through your networks
 
Best Regards
 
Luca
 

 
CfP page  https://www.journals.elsevier.com/computer-law-and-security-review/call-for-papers/platform-values-conflicting-rights-artificial-intelligence
 

 
Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, Artificial Intelligence and Tax Avoidance.
 

 
Purpose:
 
 The purpose of this call is to gather a diverse range of analytical perspectives on the multiform notion of platform values. The special issue resulting from this call will be presented in a dedicated workshop at the IGF 2019, hosted by the Government of Germany in Berlin from 25 to 29 November 2019. To guarantee that authors receive the most extensive feedback on their contributions, an additional workshop for feedback and paper discussion will be hosted at FGV Law School, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on 27 July 2019 (see the timeframe at the bottom of this call). The authors of the papers selected after the first round of reviews will be invited to come - at their own expenses - to present their draft papers at the workshop.
 
 Description:
 
 Platform regulations are having enormous impact on the lives of several billion individuals, and this impact is poised to increase over the next decade. This special issue aims at exploring three of the most crucial points of contention with regard to values underlying the operation of digital platforms: the dispute resolution mechanisms they design and the ways such mechanisms are structured to deal with conflicting rights and principles; the values that can or should be baked into platforms' automated decision-making and the rights of appropriation in relation to the development of artificial intelligent systems; and the tax avoidance strategies that are frequently pursued by tech giants to minimise their fiscal responsibility across the multiple jurisdictions in which they provide their services.
 
 This Call for Papers celebrates five years of activities of the UN IGF Coalition on Platform Responsibility1. Over the first years of activity, the Coalition has explored the role of digital platforms as gateways to speech, innovation and value creation; it has highlighted that their ascendance as central elements of our society, economy, and public sphere is redefining the concepts of “private” and “public”, and challenging conventional approaches to regulation and governance. Along those lines, this Call for Papers starts from the consideration that, to guarantee the balance and sustainability of governance systems, the exercise of power should be constrained. To do so, a deliberative process over the aims, mechanisms and boundaries of regulation is needed. Accordingly, when private entities rise to the level of quasi-sovereigns or private regulators, it is natural to expect discussion, shared understanding and scrutiny of the choices and trade-offs embedded in their private ordering. Yet, there is little discussion of the ways in which platforms are generating, shaping and championing values in an increasingly intermediated society.
 
 More work is needed to question and enquire what counts as value and how value judgment ought to be made in these hybrid spaces, exploring the elements that should underpin legal and policy-making initiatives, and the risks that may occur when decision-making remains in the sole province of contractual and self-regulation. Contributions to this work should enquire whether it is appropriate for deliberations over platform values and user rights to be exclusively driven by the economic imperatives of shareholders, and whether they should not also take into account the broader set of concerns and expectations of the stakeholders affected by platform regulations.
 
 In this perspective, we call for papers providing analyses and putting forward concrete solutions and policy proposals with regard to platform values. This call is therefore aimed at papers analysing conflicting rights, artificial intelligence systems and tax avoidance strategies with regard to digital platforms. Particularly, the call targets analyses regarding: 
 
 1. Conflicting rights.
 The first set of governance questions pertain to the intersection of conflicting rights and values: should platforms prioritise certain rights or principles over others? Are they best-placed to identify which rights should be privileged when - privately - regulating social interactions? How should such balancing be conducted between conflicting rights of the same nature, for example between conflicting economic freedoms or conflicting fundamental human rights? What is the relevance of the sources of those rights, for instance in conflicts between rights enshrined in terms of service and diverging conceptions of those rights under the “law of the land”? Should principles, community guidelines and rules of practice (including internal precedents) be weighed any differently as part of balancing? Should balancing be ruled out for certain conflicts?
 
 2. Artificial intelligence.
 This second set of questions can be seen as twofold. On the one hand, it relates to value appropriation, in particular in the scramble for data and insights that can be extracted from it to power a new breed of artificial intelligence applications. Since data is a key input for the improvement of algorithms, profiling, and the elaboration of new cognitive services, should data subjects and other players in the platform ecosystems share in the value generated by their marginal input? Should platforms be the only beneficiaries of this learning process, or should the law constrain their ability to exclude others (including consumers, workers, competitors and complementors) from sharing in the benefits generated by the platform ecosystem? On the other hand, the development and implementation of artificial intelligence systems to automatise decision-making functions calls into question the values that should be “baked” into such systems in order to minimise negative consequences and strive towards the design and development  of ethical automated systems. In this respect, what are the fundamental values that should orientate the design, development and deployment of artificial intelligence within platforms? How can those values be appropriately incorporated into artificial intelligence solutions implemented within platforms? Are the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and due process sufficient to prevent unfair value extraction, or do we need stronger intervention? 
 
 3. Tax avoidance.
 Finally, it is necessary to appreciate whether platforms provide long-term value with their functionalities (for example, bringing together different sides) or rather primarily engage in value extraction (for instance, limiting choice and deriving advantages in favouring certain kinds of behaviors or business models) and regulatory arbitrage. Defining how and where the value is created is crucial in determining the tax regime that is applicable to their activities, and in identifying unfair or fraudulent transfers of wealth. How should value be constructed for tax purposes, and how should regulators around the world deal with global tech giants? Are recent legislative initiatives on digital VAT marking the beginning of an inevitable race to the bottom to attract investment by global platforms, or do they set the foundations for interstate cooperation? Are existing reflections, such as the OECD's works on transfer pricing and Base Erosion and Profit-Shifting sufficiently mature to be implemented by states? And, most importantly, are states willing and able to implement existing proposals?Is a national or local tax on intermediaries for data collection and aggregation a viable way to account for the transfer of value that takes place between users and platforms?
 
 [1] For an overview of the Coalition's work, see  https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/dynamic-coalition-on-platform-responsibility-dcpr?qt-dynamic_coalition_on_platform_re=4#qt-dynamic_coalition_on_platform_re
  
 Timeframe
 
 &Oslash;  Deadline for extended abstracts (min. 4000 words): April 10th, 2019
 
 &Oslash;  First Round of Reviews and paper selection: May 31st, 2019
 
 &Oslash;  Workshop for feedback and paper discussion: July 27th, 2019
 
 &Oslash;  Revised manuscript: September 10th, 2019
 
 &Oslash;  Final decision: September 30th, 2019
  
  
 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Luca Belli, PhD 
 
Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Rio de Janeiro Law School 
 
Chercheur Associ&eacute;, Centre de Droit Public Compar&eacute;, Universit&eacute; Paris 2
 
www.internet-governance.fgv.br
 
@1lucabelli 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

 

 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
 This message, as well as any attached document, may contain information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake.
 

 



 


 Hi Milton, 
  
 With all due respect, I think we both know there was no "nationalist-bating" in my email and that what I was simply arguing was that your perspective of what happens in the US is simply your perspective, rather than a universal truth, as you seem to think.
  
 I am not sure that keeping on having the same fruitless discussion (after TEN days from my previous email!) may be seen as a great example of adultness. But of course, we have quite different perspectives :)
  
 We don't know each other's very well but I can guarantee that my goal is to work cooperatively with others to discuss problems and try to think about solutions.
 I hope you could do the same rather than focusing on a single sentence of a call for papers published by a colleague and publicly criticising it just for the sake of looking smart. 
 In fact, I invite you to submit a paper discussing how platforms extract, produce and convey values. You argue that such debates are abundant in the US, Europe, Asia and everywhere else and I would love to read your thoughts on these debates. 
  
 The goal of sharing the CfP was indeed to raise awareness and stimulate much needed research on a set of issues that are having a direct impact on everyone. I think it will be more useful for everyone to work on this rather than having an endless and pointless discussion on whether these issues are debated a lot or a little...
  
 I hope this clarifies. 
  
 Again, have an excellent evening 
  
 Luca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190307/825cffa5/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Fri Mar  8 03:24:47 2019
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 03:24:47 -0500
Subject: [governance] VIDEO: Frontier Technologies 4 SDGs
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk13yy-n-sYTZ1A4jyV2yx5swnugVKMzm7C6WRYF-5=VkA@mail.gmail.com>

Hiqh quality constructive commentary and dialog from last Tuesday's session
at the UN. If your time is limited, skip to Atefeh Riazi's concluding
remarks where she waxes eloquent about trust and the role of regulators.


[image: FrontiersSDG]On March 5 2019  the *United Nations Office of
Information and Communications Technology <https://unite.un.org/>*,
the *Permanent
Mission of Finland to the UN <https://www.finlandun.org/en>, and UNICEF
<https://www.unicef.org/>* hosted a symposium *Frontier Technologies 4 SDGs
<https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/upload.teamup.com/908040/j851QcsTpeDk89IPx5Iw_190305-Frontier-Technologies-4-SGSs.pdf>*
in
the ECOSOC Chamber in NYC. The program included opening remarks, a keynote,
and 3 panels. Video is below. Other languages can be found via the links.
No captions.
Part 1

   - *Opening Remarks*
   - Panel:“*Artificial Intelligence: Robots for Development*."
   - *Draft Agenda*: http://bit.ly/2UpOEXf

*View on UN Web TV*: http://bit.ly/2UpK1wj
Part 2

   - Panel “*Blockchain – buzz word or saviour from development obstacles?*
   - Panel “*New technologies = opportunities – What about the risks and
   threats?*”

*Draft Agenda*: http://bit.ly/2UpOEXfVi
*View on UN Web TV*: http://bit.ly/2Uo5TYM
Closing remarks

   - *Mrs. Atefeh Riazi* – Assistant Secretary-General and Chief
   Information and Technology Officer.

*View on UN Web TV*: http://bit.ly/2UqRwTB

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*TWITTER*: #FrontierSDG <http://bit.ly/frontiersdg> |
#FrontierTechnologies4SDGs <http://bit.ly/frontiertechnologies4sdgs>

*2018 UN/DESA SURVEY*: Frontier technologies for sustainable development
<https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/publication/WESS2018_full_web.pdf>
 (pdf)


*Permalink*
https://isoc.live/10966/



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190308/0d2223d2/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Mon Mar 11 00:36:32 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Amrita" (via governance Mailing List)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 10:06:32 +0530
Subject: [governance] Policy and IG Updates of February  2019  from the
 Indian Perspective
References: <001e01d4bdd4$087e7a50$197b6ef0$@com> 
Message-ID: <005d01d4d7c4$03c8f350$0b5ad9f0$@com>

Hi,

 

Apologies for cross posting.

 

For those who may be interested, read about the IG events and policy
developments in February, from the Indian perspective, curated by CCAOI
using this link
<http://www.ccaoi.in/UI/links/fwnewsletter/CCAOI%20Newsletter%20February%202
019.pdf> .

 

Regards

 

Amrita

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190311/af6c7e2d/attachment.htm>

From judith at jhellerstein.com  Mon Mar 11 13:16:17 2019
From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:16:17 -0400
Subject: [governance] Session at NTC 19 --Demystifying Internet Governance
Message-ID: <87c47ccd-701c-7405-9125-3c6bb7da2392@jhellerstein.com>

Hi All,

If you are planning to attend NTC, Non-Profit Technology Conference this week in 
Portland would love to have you come to my session on Thursday at 3pm in Room 
258.  Session URL is http://po.st/hPOaRM

Notes about the session can be found here, http://po.st/demystify-19NTC

I hope to see some of you there.

Cheers,

Judith

-- 
_________________________________________________________________________
Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO
Hellerstein & Associates
3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008
Phone: (202) 362-5139  Skype ID: judithhellerstein
Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517
E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com   Website: www.jhellerstein.com
Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/
Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide


From governance at lists.riseup.net  Mon Mar 11 21:54:18 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 10:54:18 +0900
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] UN High Level Advisory Board
In-Reply-To: <FD2BD75C-B671-45B7-9BED-8CAD074F6782@Internet-Matters.org>
References: <FD2BD75C-B671-45B7-9BED-8CAD074F6782@Internet-Matters.org>
Message-ID: <CABDXvWrzUq3GZ0WFm3LMceJ4H_cun9FLKkS89PMQMMT+vhGz4g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

Thought to share this with you all.

This is yet another opportunity the MAG Chair has to engage and speak
for and on behalf of the IGF. I am not sure this is linked somehow to
the conversation we had on this list about the IGF engaging with WEF,
y'all can decide.

A MAG member encouraged Lynn to not only speak about merits,
achievements of the IGF but to also speak of the need for funding the
IGF through the the IGF rust Fund.

Regards,
Arsene

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 18:41:03 -0400
Subject: [IGFmaglist] UN High Level Advisory Board
To: MAG-public <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>

Dear MAG members,

I have been invited by USG Liu Zhenmin (UN-DESA) to participate in a
discussion with the High Level advisory Board (HLAB).  You can see
more about the HLAB here:
https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/about/high-level-advisory-board.html

I believe this is a good indication of the increasing recognition
across the UN of the contributions the IGF is making.  Will share more
as appropriate.

Best,
Lynn




_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org



-- 
------------------------
**Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
<http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
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
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
<https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member