From katitza  Wed Jan  6 00:35:23 2010
From: katitza (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:35:23 -0500
Subject: [IRP] =?iso-8859-1?q?Fwd=3A_=5BMadrid=5D_Petici=F3n_de_solidarida?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?d_con_la_Asociaci=F3n_de_Internautas?=
References: <ECB9E502FC6A42F5A32D08E7BCCDA78A@nombreel92r0zn>
Message-ID: <9AA5A9D8-9E26-46C2-AC64-880789444694@datos-personales.org>

Pls. help us spread the word!

Begin forwarded message:

> From: V?ctor Domingo <presidente at internautas.org>
> Date: January 5, 2010 5:05:42 PM EST
> To: <madrid at mailman.thepublicvoice.org>
> Subject: [Madrid] Petici?n de solidaridad con la Asociaci?n de  
> Internautas
>
> for inmediate release, please spread :(
>
> original version at http://www.internautas.org/html/5906.html
> ------------------
>
> We have known by www.meneame.net and some communication media that  
> we have
> been sentenced by the Supreme Court in the PUTASGAE case for hosting
> others' contents, which were allegedly slanderous. The Asociaci?n de
> Internautas has not yet received any notification of the ruling and  
> it's
> very surprised that this ruling is leaked to the media, even before
> reaching the concerned ones. At this time we cannot comment anything  
> since
> we are unaware of it. But we are sure of something: they want to  
> close the
> Asociaci?n de Internautas because we are very inconvenient to a  
> certain
> sector of the society, a minority...but with a big power to decide and
> influence. <a href="http://www.internautas.org/donaciones.php">We  
> ask for
> your help to remain open...and figthing</a>. We can only promise
> you...that the answer on our side, provided we remain open, will be in
> accordance to this.
>
> 12/22/2009 - <a
> href="http://www.abc.es/20091222/medios-redes-web/sancion-euros-alojar-putasgae-200912221611.html 
> ">ABC</a>
> - ?18000 fine for hosting "www.putasgae.org"
>
> The Civil Room of the Supreme Court has confirmed the rule  
> condemning the
> Asociaci?n de Internautas to pay 18000 euros to the Sociedad General  
> de
> Autores y Editores -T.N:the Spanish RIAA- for having hosted in its  
> website
> pages like www.putasgae.org - T.N:fuckingsgae- and
> www.antisgae.internautas.org, which in turn contained slanderous
> expressions against the authors society.
>
> The magistrates of the high court, presided by judge Juan Antonio  
> Xiol,
> have decided to reject in the High Court the appeal lodged by the
> Asociaci?n de Internautas as they interpret that they commited a  
> crime of
> illegal intrusion in the right to honour of SGAE, as stated in a  
> ruling
> made public today.
>
> The legal affair started in March 2004, when SGAE and its president,  
> Teddy
> Bautista, filed a lawsuit against the Asociaci?n de Internautas  
> before the
> Madrid Courts.
>
> Specifically, the lawsuit stated that the website of Asociaci?n de
> Internautas was hosting associated pages with addresses like
> "www.putasgae.org" -T.N:fuckingsgae- and  
> "www.antisgae.internautas.org",
> which in turn contained expressions like "hired gun", "mob gang",  
> "fucking
> pickpockets" or "the saying goes that thief who robs a thief  
> deserves one
> hundred years of mercy".
>
> They deny its participation
>
> The 19th Section of the National High Court in Madrid acknowledged on
> February the 6th, 2006, that SGAE was right and sentenced the  
> Asociaci?n
> de Internautas to pay 18000 euros to the authors society, as well as
> ordering the removal of the webpages and the offensive contents of  
> those
> webpages. As a complementary measure, the Asociaci?n de Internautas  
> should
> publish in their website the content of the ruling.
>
> In the appeal before the Supreme Court, the Asociaci?n de Internautas
> denied having any responsibility on the offensive contents of that
> Internet pages and hid behind the right to the freedom of speech. The
> defendant declared they did not had any participation in the making  
> nor
> the selection of the contents of the webpages, adding they have not  
> had
> effective knowledge of the opinions expressed in them against SGAE.
>
> The magistrates of the High Court reject the arguments of the  
> Asociaci?n
> de Internautas as they interpret that the "offensive" name of some  
> of the
> webpages they were hosting in their Internet site (like "www.putasgae.org 
> "
> ) were "sufficiently revealing" elements of the "slanderous style of  
> the
> hosted data"
>
> <a href="http://www.internautas.org/donaciones.php">We ask for your  
> help
> to remain open... and fighting</a>
>
>
> Kind regards,
> V?ctor Domingo
>
> P.S: the info in the paper is not really accurate. The real fine is  
> twice
> that amount plus (probably) the expenditure of the process. Since it  
> was a
> double denounce (one as an entity -SGAE- and another one from its
> president -Teddy Bautista-) the real fine will be higher than 36000  
> euros.
>
> P.S.2 : our lawyer is currently studying the best option to solve the
> situation, but just in case we have to face the total amount in a very
> short time, our association will likely disappear soon :-(
>
>
> La Asociaci?n de Internautas necesita tu ayuda
>
> Informate:
> http://www.internautas.org/html/5907.html
>
> http://www.internautas.org/donaciones.php
>
> Tambi?n puedes donar enviando un SMS
>
> Desde Espa?a enviar AI al 27595 (Coste 1,20 euros + IVA)
> _______________________________________________
> Madrid mailing list
> Madrid at mailman.thepublicvoice.org
> http://mailman.thepublicvoice.org/listinfo.cgi/madrid-thepublicvoice.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100105/3582b298/attachment.htm>


From max  Tue Jan  5 22:14:24 2010
From: max (Max Senges)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 21:14:24 +0100
Subject: [IRP] #1 meeting of 2010
Message-ID: <4d976d8e1001051214x78dd11cfr9ebc4dc2252db71c@mail.gmail.com>

Hi IRPlers

Should we meet this thrusday at 18.00 CET or 9am PST? I think it would be
important to discuss this years work.

a) think about a last round of input for the charter

> b) the mandate for the expert review group
> c) a procedure/schedule for choosing the chair
>
> I can provide a telco where people can dial-in using a local land-line or
we can use the conf-call system we used before?

>
> best
> max
>
>
>
>> http://twitter.com/netrights
>> http://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: maxsenges at gmail.com [maxsenges at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Max Senges [
>> max at supercoolschool.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 6:41 AM
>> To: Biel Company Perez
>> Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; Bodle, Robert; Robert
>> Guerra; M.I.Franklin; anja; Lauren Movius; Matthias C. Kettemann; rafik,
>> dammak; Emily Laidlaw; Graciela Selaimen; rudi.vansnick; Jac sm Kee; Carlos,
>> Affonso Pereira de Souza; HIBBARD Lee; Andrea Beccalli; Lisa Horner; Shaila
>> Mistry; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; johan.hallenborg; Jaco Aizenman; Sylvia
>> Caras; malte.spitz; Heike Jensen; Elfa.Gylfadottir; me
>> Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP-DC elections results
>>
>> Dear Biel, dear steering committee peers, dear IRPlers
>>
>> @Biel: thanks for managing the election process. we all know that error is
>> human and while i would have appreciated to work with Heike in the steering
>> committee, I am positive that her participation (as well as that of the
>> other candidates who ran) will be very valuable and valued no matter in
>> whether they are in the steering committee or not.
>>
>> @the freshly elected steering committee (SC) coleagues:
>> (1) CONGRATULATIONS - This is going to be an exciting year and I am very
>> much looking forward to working with you.
>>
>> (2) we now have to proceed to elect a chair amongst the 14 SC members. The
>> charter simply says elect, which in my understanding could be via vote or
>> consensus. I think it would be ideal to find consensus, but let's open the
>> floor for nominations and then deliberate.
>>
>>    I would like to nominate Lisa Horner as IRP Chair. Lisa has been
>> continuously furthering the development of our coalition and in fact many
>> times she was the leading force behind organizing and running meetings and
>> collabowritings. Thanks for all the work you did so far, I hope you accept
>> the nomination.
>>
>> Maybe the easiest would be to have a conference call? I would be happy to
>> meet next tuesday or wednesday? Given that we have two SC members from Asia
>> I would suggest to stick to the 18.00 CET time, but I am of course flexible.
>>
>> (3) all steering committee members will have to choose whether you want to
>> serve one or two years on the steering committee - please announce your
>> choice on the list. Our charter states: "IRP will elect a steering
>> committee, at least two of which will serve for one year and at least two of
>> which will serve for two years. [...] Nominees will select which term length
>> they prefer.
>>
>>      I am happy to serve for two years.
>>
>> (4) I propose that we setup a separate steering committee mailing-list
>> which all SC members give high priority when dealing with their email. We
>> all know that email traffic can be overwhelming and to have a method to
>> quickly discuss and decide on a time-critical matter (e.g. whether or not to
>> endorse an appeal or other document) would be very helpful.
>>
>> @all IRPlers: thanks for voting and for your continued interest and
>> participation in our cause! The number of 44 votes might sound little,
>> however this is a significant organizational development from the 8 folks
>> who simply volunteered in the first year of the steering committee's
>> existence, and the "improvised steering committee" we setup in the wake of
>> the merger last year.
>>
>> In closing, I would be very interested to discuss and hear your perception
>> of the mandate / schedule for the Expert Review & Consolidation of our
>> "Charter of Human Rights and Principles on the Internet" sent by Meryem and
>> forwarded by me on Dec. 14th  ("Re: Proposal for IRP Charter Revision")
>>
>> And of course it would be good to have some more community input for the
>> Charter itself.
>>
>> To a good year for Internet Rights and Principles!
>>
>> Max
>>
>> --
>>
>> "The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
>> ?William Gibson
>>
>>
>> ...........................................................................
>>
>> Max Senges
>> Berlin
>>
>> www.maxsenges.com<http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>
>> Mobile: 01622122755
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100105/987aee6f/attachment.htm>


From Lee.HIBBARD  Wed Jan  6 09:39:12 2010
From: Lee.HIBBARD (HIBBARD Lee)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 08:39:12 +0100
Subject: [IRP] #1 meeting of 2010
In-Reply-To: <4d976d8e1001051214x78dd11cfr9ebc4dc2252db71c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4d976d8e1001051214x78dd11cfr9ebc4dc2252db71c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <36E35F3FE67D164C987547AB8F3DB8EC055977FB@OBELIX.key.coe.int>

ok for me this Thursday at 18:00 CET
Regards, 
 
Lee Hibbard 
Media and Information Society Division/Division M?dias et Soci?t? de l'Information 
Direction G?n?rale des Droits de l'Homme et des Affaires Juridiques/Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs

Council of Europe/Conseil de l'Europe 
Tel: +33 388 41 31 04; Fax: +33 388 41 2705
lee.hibbard at coe.int 
www.coe.int/media <http://www.coe.int/media>  

 

________________________________

From: maxsenges at gmail.com [mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Max Senges
Sent: Tuesday 5 January 2010 21:14
To: Bodle, Robert
Cc: Biel Company Perez; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; Robert Guerra; M.I.Franklin; anja; Lauren Movius; Matthias C. Kettemann; rafik, dammak; Emily Laidlaw; Graciela Selaimen; rudi.vansnick; Jac sm Kee; Carlos, Affonso Pereira de Souza; HIBBARD Lee; Andrea Beccalli; Lisa Horner; Shaila Mistry; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; johan.hallenborg; Jaco Aizenman; Sylvia Caras; malte.spitz; Heike Jensen; Elfa.Gylfadottir; me
Subject: #1 meeting of 2010


Hi IRPlers

Should we meet this thrusday at 18.00 CET or 9am PST? I think it would be important to discuss this years work.

a) think about a last round of input for the charter 


	b) the mandate for the expert review group
	c) a procedure/schedule for choosing the chair
	
	

I can provide a telco where people can dial-in using a local land-line or we can use the conf-call system we used before? 



	best
	max
	
	
	


		http://twitter.com/netrights
		http://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples
		
		
		
		
		
		________________________________________
		From: maxsenges at gmail.com [maxsenges at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Max Senges [max at supercoolschool.com]
		Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 6:41 AM
		To: Biel Company Perez
		Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; Bodle, Robert; Robert Guerra; M.I.Franklin; anja; Lauren Movius; Matthias C. Kettemann; rafik, dammak; Emily Laidlaw; Graciela Selaimen; rudi.vansnick; Jac sm Kee; Carlos, Affonso Pereira de Souza; HIBBARD Lee; Andrea Beccalli; Lisa Horner; Shaila Mistry; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; johan.hallenborg; Jaco Aizenman; Sylvia Caras; malte.spitz; Heike Jensen; Elfa.Gylfadottir; me
		
		Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP-DC elections results
		
		
		Dear Biel, dear steering committee peers, dear IRPlers
		
		@Biel: thanks for managing the election process. we all know that error is human and while i would have appreciated to work with Heike in the steering committee, I am positive that her participation (as well as that of the other candidates who ran) will be very valuable and valued no matter in whether they are in the steering committee or not.
		
		@the freshly elected steering committee (SC) coleagues:
		(1) CONGRATULATIONS - This is going to be an exciting year and I am very much looking forward to working with you.
		
		(2) we now have to proceed to elect a chair amongst the 14 SC members. The charter simply says elect, which in my understanding could be via vote or consensus. I think it would be ideal to find consensus, but let's open the floor for nominations and then deliberate.
		
		   I would like to nominate Lisa Horner as IRP Chair. Lisa has been continuously furthering the development of our coalition and in fact many times she was the leading force behind organizing and running meetings and collabowritings. Thanks for all the work you did so far, I hope you accept the nomination.
		
		Maybe the easiest would be to have a conference call? I would be happy to meet next tuesday or wednesday? Given that we have two SC members from Asia I would suggest to stick to the 18.00 CET time, but I am of course flexible.
		
		(3) all steering committee members will have to choose whether you want to serve one or two years on the steering committee - please announce your choice on the list. Our charter states: "IRP will elect a steering committee, at least two of which will serve for one year and at least two of which will serve for two years. [...] Nominees will select which term length they prefer.
		
		     I am happy to serve for two years.
		
		(4) I propose that we setup a separate steering committee mailing-list which all SC members give high priority when dealing with their email. We all know that email traffic can be overwhelming and to have a method to quickly discuss and decide on a time-critical matter (e.g. whether or not to endorse an appeal or other document) would be very helpful.
		
		@all IRPlers: thanks for voting and for your continued interest and participation in our cause! The number of 44 votes might sound little, however this is a significant organizational development from the 8 folks who simply volunteered in the first year of the steering committee's existence, and the "improvised steering committee" we setup in the wake of the merger last year.
		
		In closing, I would be very interested to discuss and hear your perception of the mandate / schedule for the Expert Review & Consolidation of our "Charter of Human Rights and Principles on the Internet" sent by Meryem and forwarded by me on Dec. 14th  ("Re: Proposal for IRP Charter Revision")
		
		And of course it would be good to have some more community input for the Charter itself.
		
		To a good year for Internet Rights and Principles!
		
		Max
		
		--
		
		"The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet."
		-William Gibson
		
		...........................................................................
		
		Max Senges
		Berlin
		
		
		www.maxsenges.com<http://www.maxsenges.com>
		
		Mobile: 01622122755
		
		
		



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100106/06980379/attachment-0001.htm>


From anja  Wed Jan  6 10:52:19 2010
From: anja (anja)
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:22:19 +0530
Subject: [IRP] #1 meeting of 2010
In-Reply-To: <36E35F3FE67D164C987547AB8F3DB8EC055977FB@OBELIX.key.coe.int>
References: <4d976d8e1001051214x78dd11cfr9ebc4dc2252db71c@mail.gmail.com>
	<36E35F3FE67D164C987547AB8F3DB8EC055977FB@OBELIX.key.coe.int>
Message-ID: <7b9bac892f0f67d54bc65f723d44b4ea@cis-india.org>



Dear all, 

I have another meeting tomorrow morning and, as it involves traveling
across the city, cannot guarantuee I'll be done in time for this one. 
However, if I have reached my office again by then, I'll be there.  

Cheers, 

Anja
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 08:39:12 +0100, "HIBBARD Lee"  wrote:
  ok for me this Thursday at 18:00 CET Regards,    Lee Hibbard 
Media and Information Society  Division/Division M?dias et
Soci?t? de l'Information 
Direction G?n?rale des Droits de l'Homme et  des
Affaires Juridiques/Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal 
Affairs 

Council of Europe/Conseil de  l'Europe 
Tel: +33 388  41 31 04; Fax: +33 388 41 2705
lee.hibbard at coe.int 
www.coe.int/media [1]   
-------------------------
 From: maxsenges at gmail.com  [mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Max Senges
Sent: Tuesday 5 January 2010 21:14
To: Bodle, Robert
Cc: Biel  Company Perez; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org;
Robert Guerra;  M.I.Franklin;
anja; Lauren Movius; Matthias C.
Kettemann; rafik, dammak; Emily  Laidlaw; Graciela Selaimen;
rudi.vansnick; Jac sm Kee; Carlos, Affonso Pereira  de Souza; HIBBARD
Lee; Andrea Beccalli; Lisa Horner; Shaila Mistry; Olivier MJ 
Crepin-Leblond; johan.hallenborg; Jaco Aizenman; Sylvia Caras;
malte.spitz;  Heike Jensen; Elfa.Gylfadottir; me
Subject: #1 meeting of  2010

 Hi IRPlers

Should we meet this thrusday at 18.00 CET or 9am  PST? I think it
would be important to discuss this years work.

a) think  about a last round of input for the charter 
  b)    the mandate for the expert review group
c) a procedure/schedule for    choosing the chair

 I can provide a telco where people can dial-in using a local
land-line or  we can use the conf-call system we used before? 
best
max
http://twitter.com/netrights [2]
http://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples [3]
________________________________________
From:      maxsenges at gmail.com [4] [maxsenges at gmail.com [4]]      On
Behalf Of Max
Senges [max at supercoolschool.com [5]]
Sent: Saturday, December 19,      2009 6:41 AM
To: Biel Company Perez
Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [6]; Bodle, Robert;    
 Robert Guerra; M.I.Franklin; anja; Lauren Movius; Matthias C.
Kettemann;      rafik, dammak; Emily Laidlaw; Graciela Selaimen;
rudi.vansnick; Jac sm Kee;      Carlos, Affonso Pereira de Souza;
HIBBARD Lee; Andrea Beccalli; Lisa Horner;      Shaila Mistry; Olivier
MJ Crepin-Leblond; johan.hallenborg; Jaco Aizenman;      Sylvia Caras;
malte.spitz; Heike Jensen; Elfa.Gylfadottir; me
 Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP-DC elections results

 Dear Biel, dear steering committee peers, dear IRPlers

@Biel:      thanks for managing the election process. we all know
that error is human      and while i would have appreciated to work
with Heike in the steering      committee, I am positive that her
participation (as well as that of the      other candidates who ran)
will be very valuable and valued no matter in      whether they
are in
the steering committee or not.

@the freshly      elected steering committee (SC) coleagues:
(1) CONGRATULATIONS - This is      going to be an exciting year and I
am very much looking forward to working      with you.

(2) we now have to proceed to elect a chair amongst the 14      SC
members. The charter simply says elect, which in my understanding
could      be via vote or consensus. I think it would be ideal to find
consensus, but      let's open the floor for nominations and then
deliberate.

        I would like to nominate Lisa Horner as IRP Chair. Lisa has
been      continuously furthering the development of our coalition and
in fact many      times she was the leading force behind organizing
and running meetings and      collabowritings. Thanks for all the work
you did so far, I hope you accept      the nomination.

Maybe the easiest would be to have a conference call?      I would be
happy to meet next tuesday or wednesday? Given that we have two     
SC members from
Asia I would suggest to stick to the 18.00 CET time,
but I      am of course flexible.

(3) all steering committee members will have      to choose whether
you want to serve one or two years on the steering      committee -
please announce your choice on the list. Our charter states:      "IRP
will elect a steering committee, at least two of which will serve for 
    one year and at least two of which will serve for two years. [...]
Nominees      will select which term length they prefer.

     I am      happy to serve for two years.

(4) I propose that we setup a separate      steering committee
mailing-list which all SC members give high priority when      dealing
with their email. We all know that email traffic can be overwhelming  
   and to have a method to quickly discuss and decide on a
time-critical matter      (e.g. whether or not to endorse an appeal or
other document) would be very      helpful.

@all IRPlers: thanks for voting and for your continued      interest
and
participation in our cause! The number of 44 votes might sound    
 little, however this is a significant organizational development from
the 8      folks who simply volunteered in the first year of the
steering committee's      existence, and the "improvised steering
committee" we setup in the wake of      the merger last year.

In closing, I would be very interested to      discuss and hear your
perception of the mandate / schedule for the Expert      Review &
Consolidation of our "Charter of Human Rights and Principles on     
the Internet" sent by Meryem and forwarded by me on Dec. 14th  ("Re:  
   Proposal for IRP Charter Revision")

And of course it would be good to      have some more community input
for the Charter itself.

To a good year      for Internet Rights and Principles!

Max

--

"The future      is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
?William      Gibson

...........................................................................

Max      Senges
Berlin


www.maxsenges.com [7]

Mobile:      01622122755
 

Links:
------
[1] http://www.coe.int/media
[2] http://twitter.com/netrights
[3] http://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples
[4] mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com
[5] mailto:max at supercoolschool.com
[6] mailto:irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
[7] http://www.maxsenges.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100106/a842d73e/attachment.htm>


From lisa  Wed Jan  6 11:38:42 2010
From: lisa (Lisa Horner)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:38:42 -0000
Subject: [IRP] #1 meeting of 2010
References: <4d976d8e1001051214x78dd11cfr9ebc4dc2252db71c@mail.gmail.com>
	<36E35F3FE67D164C987547AB8F3DB8EC055977FB@OBELIX.key.coe.int>
	<7b9bac892f0f67d54bc65f723d44b4ea@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2FCD@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>

Hi all

I can make it tomorrow at 18.00 cet.  I've trimmed all of the recipients off this list as it was getting held up in the mail admin system.  I think all people copied in are on the IRP list anyway, but if you spot someone who isn't you can copy them back in. 

Happy new year and all the best,

Lisa


-----Original Message-----
From: anja [mailto:anja at cis-india.org]
Sent: Wed 06/01/2010 08:52
To: HIBBARD Lee
Cc: Max Senges; Bodle, Robert; Biel Company Perez; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; Robert Guerra; M.I.Franklin; Lauren Movius; Matthias C. Kettemann; rafik, dammak; Emily Laidlaw; Graciela Selaimen; rudi.vansnick; Jac sm Kee; Carlos, Affonso Pereira de Souza; Andrea Beccalli; Lisa Horner; Shaila Mistry; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; johan.hallenborg; Jaco Aizenman; Sylvia Caras; malte.spitz; Heike Jensen; Elfa.Gylfadottir; me
Subject: RE: #1 meeting of 2010
 


Dear all, 

I have another meeting tomorrow morning and, as it involves traveling
across the city, cannot guarantuee I'll be done in time for this one. 
However, if I have reached my office again by then, I'll be there.  

Cheers, 

Anja
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 08:39:12 +0100, "HIBBARD Lee"  wrote:
  ok for me this Thursday at 18:00 CET Regards,    Lee Hibbard 
Media and Information Society  Division/Division M?dias et
Soci?t? de l'Information 
Direction G?n?rale des Droits de l'Homme et  des
Affaires Juridiques/Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal 
Affairs 

Council of Europe/Conseil de  l'Europe 
Tel: +33 388  41 31 04; Fax: +33 388 41 2705
lee.hibbard at coe.int 
www.coe.int/media [1]   
-------------------------
 From: maxsenges at gmail.com  [mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Max Senges
Sent: Tuesday 5 January 2010 21:14
To: Bodle, Robert
Cc: Biel  Company Perez; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org;
Robert Guerra;  M.I.Franklin;
anja; Lauren Movius; Matthias C.
Kettemann; rafik, dammak; Emily  Laidlaw; Graciela Selaimen;
rudi.vansnick; Jac sm Kee; Carlos, Affonso Pereira  de Souza; HIBBARD
Lee; Andrea Beccalli; Lisa Horner; Shaila Mistry; Olivier MJ 
Crepin-Leblond; johan.hallenborg; Jaco Aizenman; Sylvia Caras;
malte.spitz;  Heike Jensen; Elfa.Gylfadottir; me
Subject: #1 meeting of  2010

 Hi IRPlers

Should we meet this thrusday at 18.00 CET or 9am  PST? I think it
would be important to discuss this years work.

a) think  about a last round of input for the charter 
  b)    the mandate for the expert review group
c) a procedure/schedule for    choosing the chair

 I can provide a telco where people can dial-in using a local
land-line or  we can use the conf-call system we used before? 
best
max
http://twitter.com/netrights [2]
http://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples [3]
________________________________________
From:      maxsenges at gmail.com [4] [maxsenges at gmail.com [4]]      On
Behalf Of Max
Senges [max at supercoolschool.com [5]]
Sent: Saturday, December 19,      2009 6:41 AM
To: Biel Company Perez
Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [6]; Bodle, Robert;    
 Robert Guerra; M.I.Franklin; anja; Lauren Movius; Matthias C.
Kettemann;      rafik, dammak; Emily Laidlaw; Graciela Selaimen;
rudi.vansnick; Jac sm Kee;      Carlos, Affonso Pereira de Souza;
HIBBARD Lee; Andrea Beccalli; Lisa Horner;      Shaila Mistry; Olivier
MJ Crepin-Leblond; johan.hallenborg; Jaco Aizenman;      Sylvia Caras;
malte.spitz; Heike Jensen; Elfa.Gylfadottir; me
 Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP-DC elections results

 Dear Biel, dear steering committee peers, dear IRPlers

@Biel:      thanks for managing the election process. we all know
that error is human      and while i would have appreciated to work
with Heike in the steering      committee, I am positive that her
participation (as well as that of the      other candidates who ran)
will be very valuable and valued no matter in      whether they
are in
the steering committee or not.

@the freshly      elected steering committee (SC) coleagues:
(1) CONGRATULATIONS - This is      going to be an exciting year and I
am very much looking forward to working      with you.

(2) we now have to proceed to elect a chair amongst the 14      SC
members. The charter simply says elect, which in my understanding
could      be via vote or consensus. I think it would be ideal to find
consensus, but      let's open the floor for nominations and then
deliberate.

        I would like to nominate Lisa Horner as IRP Chair. Lisa has
been      continuously furthering the development of our coalition and
in fact many      times she was the leading force behind organizing
and running meetings and      collabowritings. Thanks for all the work
you did so far, I hope you accept      the nomination.

Maybe the easiest would be to have a conference call?      I would be
happy to meet next tuesday or wednesday? Given that we have two     
SC members from
Asia I would suggest to stick to the 18.00 CET time,
but I      am of course flexible.

(3) all steering committee members will have      to choose whether
you want to serve one or two years on the steering      committee -
please announce your choice on the list. Our charter states:      "IRP
will elect a steering committee, at least two of which will serve for 
    one year and at least two of which will serve for two years. [...]
Nominees      will select which term length they prefer.

     I am      happy to serve for two years.

(4) I propose that we setup a separate      steering committee
mailing-list which all SC members give high priority when      dealing
with their email. We all know that email traffic can be overwhelming  
   and to have a method to quickly discuss and decide on a
time-critical matter      (e.g. whether or not to endorse an appeal or
other document) would be very      helpful.

@all IRPlers: thanks for voting and for your continued      interest
and
participation in our cause! The number of 44 votes might sound    
 little, however this is a significant organizational development from
the 8      folks who simply volunteered in the first year of the
steering committee's      existence, and the "improvised steering
committee" we setup in the wake of      the merger last year.

In closing, I would be very interested to      discuss and hear your
perception of the mandate / schedule for the Expert      Review &
Consolidation of our "Charter of Human Rights and Principles on     
the Internet" sent by Meryem and forwarded by me on Dec. 14th  ("Re:  
   Proposal for IRP Charter Revision")

And of course it would be good to      have some more community input
for the Charter itself.

To a good year      for Internet Rights and Principles!

Max

--

"The future      is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
?William      Gibson

...........................................................................

Max      Senges
Berlin


www.maxsenges.com [7]

Mobile:      01622122755
 

Links:
------
[1] http://www.coe.int/media
[2] http://twitter.com/netrights
[3] http://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples
[4] mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com
[5] mailto:max at supercoolschool.com
[6] mailto:irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
[7] http://www.maxsenges.com


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100106/f10d99cd/attachment-0001.htm>


From cos02mf  Wed Jan  6 11:44:15 2010
From: cos02mf (M I Franklin)
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 10:44:15 +0100
Subject: [IRP] #1 meeting of 2010
In-Reply-To: <4d976d8e1001051214x78dd11cfr9ebc4dc2252db71c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4d976d8e1001051214x78dd11cfr9ebc4dc2252db71c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AF0A6AF119E2B11ADCDEDF0B@[192.168.1.64]>

Dear All

Happy new year! 18.00 CET is, if I'm not mistaken, 17.00 GMT, which is Ok 
for me in principle.

yours
Marianne

--On Tuesday, January 05, 2010 21:14 +0100 Max Senges 
<max at supercoolschool.com> wrote:

> Hi IRPlers
>
> Should we meet this thrusday at 18.00 CET or 9am PST? I think it would be
> important to discuss this years work.
>
> a) think about a last round of input for the charter
>
>
> b) the mandate for the expert review group
> c) a procedure/schedule for choosing the chair
>
>
>
> I can provide a telco where people can dial-in using a local land-line or
> we can use the conf-call system we used before?
>
>
> best
> max
>
>
>
>
>
> http://twitter.com/netrights
> http://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: maxsenges at gmail.com [maxsenges at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Max Senges
> [max at supercoolschool.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 6:41 AM
> To: Biel Company Perez
> Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; Bodle, Robert; Robert
> Guerra; M.I.Franklin; anja; Lauren Movius; Matthias C. Kettemann; rafik,
> dammak; Emily Laidlaw; Graciela Selaimen; rudi.vansnick; Jac sm Kee;
> Carlos, Affonso Pereira de Souza; HIBBARD Lee; Andrea Beccalli; Lisa
> Horner; Shaila Mistry; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; johan.hallenborg; Jaco
> Aizenman; Sylvia Caras; malte.spitz; Heike Jensen; Elfa.Gylfadottir; me
>
> Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP-DC elections results
>
>
> Dear Biel, dear steering committee peers, dear IRPlers
>
> @Biel: thanks for managing the election process. we all know that error
> is human and while i would have appreciated to work with Heike in the
> steering committee, I am positive that her participation (as well as that
> of the other candidates who ran) will be very valuable and valued no
> matter in whether they are in the steering committee or not.
>
> @the freshly elected steering committee (SC) coleagues:
> (1) CONGRATULATIONS - This is going to be an exciting year and I am very
> much looking forward to working with you.
>
> (2) we now have to proceed to elect a chair amongst the 14 SC members.
> The charter simply says elect, which in my understanding could be via
> vote or consensus. I think it would be ideal to find consensus, but let's
> open the floor for nominations and then deliberate.
>
>  ? ?I would like to nominate Lisa Horner as IRP Chair. Lisa has been
> continuously furthering the development of our coalition and in fact many
> times she was the leading force behind organizing and running meetings
> and collabowritings. Thanks for all the work you did so far, I hope you
> accept the nomination.
>
> Maybe the easiest would be to have a conference call? I would be happy to
> meet next tuesday or wednesday? Given that we have two SC members from
> Asia I would suggest to stick to the 18.00 CET time, but I am of course
> flexible.
>
> (3) all steering committee members will have to choose whether you want
> to serve one or two years on the steering committee - please announce
> your choice on the list. Our charter states: "IRP will elect a steering
> committee, at least two of which will serve for one year and at least two
> of which will serve for two years. [...] Nominees will select which term
> length they prefer.
>
>  ? ? ?I am happy to serve for two years.
>
> (4) I propose that we setup a separate steering committee mailing-list
> which all SC members give high priority when dealing with their email. We
> all know that email traffic can be overwhelming and to have a method to
> quickly discuss and decide on a time-critical matter (e.g. whether or not
> to endorse an appeal or other document) would be very helpful.
>
> @all IRPlers: thanks for voting and for your continued interest and
> participation in our cause! The number of 44 votes might sound little,
> however this is a significant organizational development from the 8 folks
> who simply volunteered in the first year of the steering committee's
> existence, and the "improvised steering committee" we setup in the wake
> of the merger last year.
>
> In closing, I would be very interested to discuss and hear your
> perception of the mandate / schedule for the Expert Review &
> Consolidation of our "Charter of Human Rights and Principles on the
> Internet" sent by Meryem and forwarded by me on Dec. 14th ?("Re:
> Proposal for IRP Charter Revision")
>
> And of course it would be good to have some more community input for the
> Charter itself.
>
> To a good year for Internet Rights and Principles!
>
> Max
>
> --
>
> "The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet."
> ?William Gibson
>
> .........................................................................
> ..
>
> Max Senges
> Berlin
>
> www.maxsenges.com<http://www.maxsenges.com>
>
> Mobile: 01622122755
>
>
>
>
>
>



Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
Media & Communications
Goldsmiths, University of London
New Cross
London SE14 6NW
United Kingdom
Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php


From emily  Wed Jan  6 11:55:44 2010
From: emily (Emily Laidlaw)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:55:44 +0000
Subject: [IRP] #1 meeting of 2010
In-Reply-To: <AF0A6AF119E2B11ADCDEDF0B@192.168.1.64>
References: <4d976d8e1001051214x78dd11cfr9ebc4dc2252db71c@mail.gmail.com>
	<AF0A6AF119E2B11ADCDEDF0B@192.168.1.64>
Message-ID: <a068833e1001060155w61f42190i79260e1a4be5542e@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

Congratulations to the new steering committee! I am hopefully free for
the meeting tomorrow.

Emily

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:44 AM, M I Franklin <cos02mf at gold.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear All
>
> Happy new year! 18.00 CET is, if I'm not mistaken, 17.00 GMT, which is Ok
> for me in principle.
>
> yours
> Marianne
>
> --On Tuesday, January 05, 2010 21:14 +0100 Max Senges
> <max at supercoolschool.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi IRPlers
>>
>> Should we meet this thrusday at 18.00 CET or 9am PST? I think it would be
>> important to discuss this years work.
>>
>> a) think about a last round of input for the charter
>>
>>
>> b) the mandate for the expert review group
>> c) a procedure/schedule for choosing the chair
>>
>>
>>
>> I can provide a telco where people can dial-in using a local land-line or
>> we can use the conf-call system we used before?
>>
>>
>> best
>> max
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://twitter.com/netrights
>> http://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: maxsenges at gmail.com [maxsenges at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Max Senges
>> [max at supercoolschool.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 6:41 AM
>> To: Biel Company Perez
>> Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; Bodle, Robert; Robert
>> Guerra; M.I.Franklin; anja; Lauren Movius; Matthias C. Kettemann; rafik,
>> dammak; Emily Laidlaw; Graciela Selaimen; rudi.vansnick; Jac sm Kee;
>> Carlos, Affonso Pereira de Souza; HIBBARD Lee; Andrea Beccalli; Lisa
>> Horner; Shaila Mistry; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; johan.hallenborg; Jaco
>> Aizenman; Sylvia Caras; malte.spitz; Heike Jensen; Elfa.Gylfadottir; me
>>
>> Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP-DC elections results
>>
>>
>> Dear Biel, dear steering committee peers, dear IRPlers
>>
>> @Biel: thanks for managing the election process. we all know that error
>> is human and while i would have appreciated to work with Heike in the
>> steering committee, I am positive that her participation (as well as that
>> of the other candidates who ran) will be very valuable and valued no
>> matter in whether they are in the steering committee or not.
>>
>> @the freshly elected steering committee (SC) coleagues:
>> (1) CONGRATULATIONS - This is going to be an exciting year and I am very
>> much looking forward to working with you.
>>
>> (2) we now have to proceed to elect a chair amongst the 14 SC members.
>> The charter simply says elect, which in my understanding could be via
>> vote or consensus. I think it would be ideal to find consensus, but let's
>> open the floor for nominations and then deliberate.
>>
>> ?? ?I would like to nominate Lisa Horner as IRP Chair. Lisa has been
>> continuously furthering the development of our coalition and in fact many
>> times she was the leading force behind organizing and running meetings
>> and collabowritings. Thanks for all the work you did so far, I hope you
>> accept the nomination.
>>
>> Maybe the easiest would be to have a conference call? I would be happy to
>> meet next tuesday or wednesday? Given that we have two SC members from
>> Asia I would suggest to stick to the 18.00 CET time, but I am of course
>> flexible.
>>
>> (3) all steering committee members will have to choose whether you want
>> to serve one or two years on the steering committee - please announce
>> your choice on the list. Our charter states: "IRP will elect a steering
>> committee, at least two of which will serve for one year and at least two
>> of which will serve for two years. [...] Nominees will select which term
>> length they prefer.
>>
>> ?? ? ?I am happy to serve for two years.
>>
>> (4) I propose that we setup a separate steering committee mailing-list
>> which all SC members give high priority when dealing with their email. We
>> all know that email traffic can be overwhelming and to have a method to
>> quickly discuss and decide on a time-critical matter (e.g. whether or not
>> to endorse an appeal or other document) would be very helpful.
>>
>> @all IRPlers: thanks for voting and for your continued interest and
>> participation in our cause! The number of 44 votes might sound little,
>> however this is a significant organizational development from the 8 folks
>> who simply volunteered in the first year of the steering committee's
>> existence, and the "improvised steering committee" we setup in the wake
>> of the merger last year.
>>
>> In closing, I would be very interested to discuss and hear your
>> perception of the mandate / schedule for the Expert Review &
>> Consolidation of our "Charter of Human Rights and Principles on the
>> Internet" sent by Meryem and forwarded by me on Dec. 14th ?("Re:
>> Proposal for IRP Charter Revision")
>>
>> And of course it would be good to have some more community input for the
>> Charter itself.
>>
>> To a good year for Internet Rights and Principles!
>>
>> Max
>>
>> --
>>
>> "The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet."
>> ?William Gibson
>>
>> .........................................................................
>> ..
>>
>> Max Senges
>> Berlin
>>
>> www.maxsenges.com<http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>
>> Mobile: 01622122755
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Dr Marianne Franklin
> Reader
> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
> Media & Communications
> Goldsmiths, University of London
> New Cross
> London SE14 6NW
> United Kingdom
> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php
>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Jan  6 15:30:41 2010
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 22:30:41 +0900
Subject: [IRP] #1 meeting of 2010
In-Reply-To: <4d976d8e1001051214x78dd11cfr9ebc4dc2252db71c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4d976d8e1001051214x78dd11cfr9ebc4dc2252db71c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bbd2a2cd1001060530y573891abgbffd3f347d2c959a@mail.gmail.com>

Hello everyone,

unfortunately I cannot attend, it will 3am here and it is a weekday.

Rafik

2010/1/6 Max Senges <max at supercoolschool.com>

> Hi IRPlers
>
> Should we meet this thrusday at 18.00 CET or 9am PST? I think it would be
> important to discuss this years work.
>
> a) think about a last round of input for the charter
>
>> b) the mandate for the expert review group
>> c) a procedure/schedule for choosing the chair
>>
>> I can provide a telco where people can dial-in using a local land-line or
> we can use the conf-call system we used before?
>
>>
>> best
>> max
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://twitter.com/netrights
>>> http://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: maxsenges at gmail.com [maxsenges at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Max Senges
>>> [max at supercoolschool.com]
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 6:41 AM
>>> To: Biel Company Perez
>>> Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; Bodle, Robert; Robert
>>> Guerra; M.I.Franklin; anja; Lauren Movius; Matthias C. Kettemann; rafik,
>>> dammak; Emily Laidlaw; Graciela Selaimen; rudi.vansnick; Jac sm Kee; Carlos,
>>> Affonso Pereira de Souza; HIBBARD Lee; Andrea Beccalli; Lisa Horner; Shaila
>>> Mistry; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; johan.hallenborg; Jaco Aizenman; Sylvia
>>> Caras; malte.spitz; Heike Jensen; Elfa.Gylfadottir; me
>>> Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP-DC elections results
>>>
>>> Dear Biel, dear steering committee peers, dear IRPlers
>>>
>>> @Biel: thanks for managing the election process. we all know that error
>>> is human and while i would have appreciated to work with Heike in the
>>> steering committee, I am positive that her participation (as well as that of
>>> the other candidates who ran) will be very valuable and valued no matter in
>>> whether they are in the steering committee or not.
>>>
>>> @the freshly elected steering committee (SC) coleagues:
>>> (1) CONGRATULATIONS - This is going to be an exciting year and I am very
>>> much looking forward to working with you.
>>>
>>> (2) we now have to proceed to elect a chair amongst the 14 SC members.
>>> The charter simply says elect, which in my understanding could be via vote
>>> or consensus. I think it would be ideal to find consensus, but let's open
>>> the floor for nominations and then deliberate.
>>>
>>>    I would like to nominate Lisa Horner as IRP Chair. Lisa has been
>>> continuously furthering the development of our coalition and in fact many
>>> times she was the leading force behind organizing and running meetings and
>>> collabowritings. Thanks for all the work you did so far, I hope you accept
>>> the nomination.
>>>
>>> Maybe the easiest would be to have a conference call? I would be happy to
>>> meet next tuesday or wednesday? Given that we have two SC members from Asia
>>> I would suggest to stick to the 18.00 CET time, but I am of course flexible.
>>>
>>> (3) all steering committee members will have to choose whether you want
>>> to serve one or two years on the steering committee - please announce your
>>> choice on the list. Our charter states: "IRP will elect a steering
>>> committee, at least two of which will serve for one year and at least two of
>>> which will serve for two years. [...] Nominees will select which term length
>>> they prefer.
>>>
>>>      I am happy to serve for two years.
>>>
>>> (4) I propose that we setup a separate steering committee mailing-list
>>> which all SC members give high priority when dealing with their email. We
>>> all know that email traffic can be overwhelming and to have a method to
>>> quickly discuss and decide on a time-critical matter (e.g. whether or not to
>>> endorse an appeal or other document) would be very helpful.
>>>
>>> @all IRPlers: thanks for voting and for your continued interest and
>>> participation in our cause! The number of 44 votes might sound little,
>>> however this is a significant organizational development from the 8 folks
>>> who simply volunteered in the first year of the steering committee's
>>> existence, and the "improvised steering committee" we setup in the wake of
>>> the merger last year.
>>>
>>> In closing, I would be very interested to discuss and hear your
>>> perception of the mandate / schedule for the Expert Review & Consolidation
>>> of our "Charter of Human Rights and Principles on the Internet" sent by
>>> Meryem and forwarded by me on Dec. 14th  ("Re: Proposal for IRP Charter
>>> Revision")
>>>
>>> And of course it would be good to have some more community input for the
>>> Charter itself.
>>>
>>> To a good year for Internet Rights and Principles!
>>>
>>> Max
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> "The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
>>> ?William Gibson
>>>
>>>
>>> ...........................................................................
>>>
>>> Max Senges
>>> Berlin
>>>
>>> www.maxsenges.com<http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>>
>>> Mobile: 01622122755
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100106/b3335fec/attachment-0001.htm>


From graciela  Wed Jan  6 16:11:34 2010
From: graciela (Graciela Selaimen)
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:11:34 -0200
Subject: [IRP] #1 meeting of 2010
In-Reply-To: <4d976d8e1001051214x78dd11cfr9ebc4dc2252db71c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4d976d8e1001051214x78dd11cfr9ebc4dc2252db71c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B449A16.9040807@nupef.org.br>

Dear all,

happy new year!
I'm out of Rio until next Monday, connecting from cybercafes whenever
it's possible. I'm not sure I'll be able to meet tomorrow, but I'll try to.

all the best,
Graciela

Max Senges escreveu:
> Hi IRPlers
>
> Should we meet this thrusday at 18.00 CET or 9am PST? I think it would 
> be important to discuss this years work.
>
> a) think about a last round of input for the charter
>
>     b) the mandate for the expert review group
>     c) a procedure/schedule for choosing the chair
>
> I can provide a telco where people can dial-in using a local land-line 
> or we can use the conf-call system we used before?
>
>
>     best
>     max
>
>
>
>         http://twitter.com/netrights
>         http://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples
>
>
>
>
>
>         ________________________________________
>         From: maxsenges at gmail.com <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com>
>         [maxsenges at gmail.com <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com>] On Behalf
>         Of Max Senges [max at supercoolschool.com
>         <mailto:max at supercoolschool.com>]
>         Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 6:41 AM
>         To: Biel Company Perez
>         Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>         <mailto:irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>; Bodle,
>         Robert; Robert Guerra; M.I.Franklin; anja; Lauren Movius;
>         Matthias C. Kettemann; rafik, dammak; Emily Laidlaw; Graciela
>         Selaimen; rudi.vansnick; Jac sm Kee; Carlos, Affonso Pereira
>         de Souza; HIBBARD Lee; Andrea Beccalli; Lisa Horner; Shaila
>         Mistry; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; johan.hallenborg; Jaco
>         Aizenman; Sylvia Caras; malte.spitz; Heike Jensen;
>         Elfa.Gylfadottir; me
>         Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP-DC elections results
>
>         Dear Biel, dear steering committee peers, dear IRPlers
>
>         @Biel: thanks for managing the election process. we all know
>         that error is human and while i would have appreciated to work
>         with Heike in the steering committee, I am positive that her
>         participation (as well as that of the other candidates who
>         ran) will be very valuable and valued no matter in whether
>         they are in the steering committee or not.
>
>         @the freshly elected steering committee (SC) coleagues:
>         (1) CONGRATULATIONS - This is going to be an exciting year and
>         I am very much looking forward to working with you.
>
>         (2) we now have to proceed to elect a chair amongst the 14 SC
>         members. The charter simply says elect, which in my
>         understanding could be via vote or consensus. I think it would
>         be ideal to find consensus, but let's open the floor for
>         nominations and then deliberate.
>
>         I would like to nominate Lisa Horner as IRP Chair. Lisa has
>         been continuously furthering the development of our coalition
>         and in fact many times she was the leading force behind
>         organizing and running meetings and collabowritings. Thanks
>         for all the work you did so far, I hope you accept the nomination.
>
>         Maybe the easiest would be to have a conference call? I would
>         be happy to meet next tuesday or wednesday? Given that we have
>         two SC members from Asia I would suggest to stick to the 18.00
>         CET time, but I am of course flexible.
>
>         (3) all steering committee members will have to choose whether
>         you want to serve one or two years on the steering committee -
>         please announce your choice on the list. Our charter states:
>         "IRP will elect a steering committee, at least two of which
>         will serve for one year and at least two of which will serve
>         for two years. [...] Nominees will select which term length
>         they prefer.
>
>         I am happy to serve for two years.
>
>         (4) I propose that we setup a separate steering committee
>         mailing-list which all SC members give high priority when
>         dealing with their email. We all know that email traffic can
>         be overwhelming and to have a method to quickly discuss and
>         decide on a time-critical matter (e.g. whether or not to
>         endorse an appeal or other document) would be very helpful.
>
>         @all IRPlers: thanks for voting and for your continued
>         interest and participation in our cause! The number of 44
>         votes might sound little, however this is a significant
>         organizational development from the 8 folks who simply
>         volunteered in the first year of the steering committee's
>         existence, and the "improvised steering committee" we setup in
>         the wake of the merger last year.
>
>         In closing, I would be very interested to discuss and hear
>         your perception of the mandate / schedule for the Expert
>         Review & Consolidation of our "Charter of Human Rights and
>         Principles on the Internet" sent by Meryem and forwarded by me
>         on Dec. 14th ("Re: Proposal for IRP Charter Revision")
>
>         And of course it would be good to have some more community
>         input for the Charter itself.
>
>         To a good year for Internet Rights and Principles!
>
>         Max
>
>         --
>
>         "The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
>         ?William Gibson
>
>         ...........................................................................
>
>         Max Senges
>         Berlin
>
>         www.maxsenges.com
>         <http://www.maxsenges.com><http://www.maxsenges.com>
>
>         Mobile: 01622122755
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>   

-- 



From lisa  Wed Jan  6 16:35:01 2010
From: lisa (Lisa Horner)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 14:35:01 -0000
Subject: [IRP] FW:  #1 meeting of 2010
References: <4d976d8e1001051214x78dd11cfr9ebc4dc2252db71c@mail.gmail.com><36E35F3FE67D164C987547AB8F3DB8EC055977FB@OBELIX.key.coe.int><7b9bac892f0f67d54bc65f723d44b4ea@cis-india.org><43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2FCD@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<251baf131001060603x1d7116ceuff20339ec8bb48a8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2FDB@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>

Please see message from Carlos below.  The system doesn't seem to like your address Carlos and is auto-discarding your emails.  I seem to remember you had a similar problem before - did you manage to identify what it was?

Thanks,
Lisa


-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza [mailto:caffsouza at gmail.com]
Sent: Wed 06/01/2010 14:03
To: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Subject: Re: [IRP] #1 meeting of 2010
 
Hi everyone:

Tomorrow is fine for me. It will be great to get the ball rolling right in
the very first week of the year.
See you then.

Best,
Carlos

2010/1/6 Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>

>  Hi all
>
> I can make it tomorrow at 18.00 cet.  I've trimmed all of the recipients
> off this list as it was getting held up in the mail admin system.  I think
> all people copied in are on the IRP list anyway, but if you spot someone who
> isn't you can copy them back in.
>
> Happy new year and all the best,
>
> Lisa
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: anja [mailto:anja at cis-india.org <anja at cis-india.org>]
> Sent: Wed 06/01/2010 08:52
> To: HIBBARD Lee
> Cc: Max Senges; Bodle, Robert; Biel Company Perez;
> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; Robert Guerra; M.I.Franklin;
> Lauren Movius; Matthias C. Kettemann; rafik, dammak; Emily Laidlaw; Graciela
> Selaimen; rudi.vansnick; Jac sm Kee; Carlos, Affonso Pereira de Souza;
> Andrea Beccalli; Lisa Horner; Shaila Mistry; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond;
> johan.hallenborg; Jaco Aizenman; Sylvia Caras; malte.spitz; Heike Jensen;
> Elfa.Gylfadottir; me
> Subject: RE: #1 meeting of 2010
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I have another meeting tomorrow morning and, as it involves traveling
> across the city, cannot guarantuee I'll be done in time for this one.
> However, if I have reached my office again by then, I'll be there.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Anja
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 08:39:12 +0100, "HIBBARD Lee"  wrote:
>   ok for me this Thursday at 18:00 CET Regards,    Lee Hibbard
> Media and Information Society  Division/Division M?dias et
> Soci?t? de l'Information
> Direction G?n?rale des Droits de l'Homme et  des
> Affaires Juridiques/Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal
> Affairs
>
> Council of Europe/Conseil de  l'Europe
> Tel: +33 388  41 31 04; Fax: +33 388 41 2705
> lee.hibbard at coe.int
> www.coe.int/media [1]
> -------------------------
>
>  From: maxsenges at gmail.com  [mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com<maxsenges at gmail.com>]
> On Behalf Of
> Max Senges
> Sent: Tuesday 5 January 2010 21:14
> To: Bodle, Robert
> Cc: Biel  Company Perez; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org;
> Robert Guerra;  M.I.Franklin;
> anja; Lauren Movius; Matthias C.
> Kettemann; rafik, dammak; Emily  Laidlaw; Graciela Selaimen;
> rudi.vansnick; Jac sm Kee; Carlos, Affonso Pereira  de Souza; HIBBARD
> Lee; Andrea Beccalli; Lisa Horner; Shaila Mistry; Olivier MJ
> Crepin-Leblond; johan.hallenborg; Jaco Aizenman; Sylvia Caras;
> malte.spitz;  Heike Jensen; Elfa.Gylfadottir; me
> Subject: #1 meeting of  2010
>
>  Hi IRPlers
>
> Should we meet this thrusday at 18.00 CET or 9am  PST? I think it
> would be important to discuss this years work.
>
> a) think  about a last round of input for the charter
>   b)    the mandate for the expert review group
> c) a procedure/schedule for    choosing the chair
>
>  I can provide a telco where people can dial-in using a local
> land-line or  we can use the conf-call system we used before?
> best
> max
> http://twitter.com/netrights [2]
> http://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples [3]
> ________________________________________
> From:      maxsenges at gmail.com [4] [maxsenges at gmail.com [4]]      On
> Behalf Of Max
> Senges [max at supercoolschool.com [5]]
>
> Sent: Saturday, December 19,      2009 6:41 AM
> To: Biel Company Perez
> Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [6]; Bodle, Robert;
>
>  Robert Guerra; M.I.Franklin; anja; Lauren Movius; Matthias C.
> Kettemann;      rafik, dammak; Emily Laidlaw; Graciela Selaimen;
> rudi.vansnick; Jac sm Kee;      Carlos, Affonso Pereira de Souza;
> HIBBARD Lee; Andrea Beccalli; Lisa Horner;      Shaila Mistry; Olivier
> MJ Crepin-Leblond; johan.hallenborg; Jaco Aizenman;      Sylvia Caras;
> malte.spitz; Heike Jensen; Elfa.Gylfadottir; me
>  Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP-DC elections results
>
>  Dear Biel, dear steering committee peers, dear IRPlers
>
> @Biel:      thanks for managing the election process. we all know
> that error is human      and while i would have appreciated to work
> with Heike in the steering      committee, I am positive that her
> participation (as well as that of the      other candidates who ran)
> will be very valuable and valued no matter in      whether they
> are in
> the steering committee or not.
>
> @the freshly      elected steering committee (SC) coleagues:
> (1) CONGRATULATIONS - This is      going to be an exciting year and I
> am very much looking forward to working      with you.
>
> (2) we now have to proceed to elect a chair amongst the 14      SC
> members. The charter simply says elect, which in my understanding
> could      be via vote or consensus. I think it would be ideal to find
> consensus, but      let's open the floor for nominations and then
> deliberate.
>
>         I would like to nominate Lisa Horner as IRP Chair. Lisa has
> been      continuously furthering the development of our coalition and
> in fact many      times she was the leading force behind organizing
> and running meetings and      collabowritings. Thanks for all the work
> you did so far, I hope you accept      the nomination.
>
> Maybe the easiest would be to have a conference call?      I would be
> happy to meet next tuesday or wednesday? Given that we have two
> SC members from
> Asia I would suggest to stick to the 18.00 CET time,
> but I      am of course flexible.
>
> (3) all steering committee members will have      to choose whether
> you want to serve one or two years on the steering      committee -
> please announce your choice on the list. Our charter states:      "IRP
> will elect a steering committee, at least two of which will serve for
>     one year and at least two of which will serve for two years. [...]
> Nominees      will select which term length they prefer.
>
>      I am      happy to serve for two years.
>
> (4) I propose that we setup a separate      steering committee
> mailing-list which all SC members give high priority when      dealing
> with their email. We all know that email traffic can be overwhelming
>    and to have a method to quickly discuss and decide on a
> time-critical matter      (e.g. whether or not to endorse an appeal or
> other document) would be very      helpful.
>
> @all IRPlers: thanks for voting and for your continued      interest
> and
> participation in our cause! The number of 44 votes might sound
>  little, however this is a significant organizational development from
> the 8      folks who simply volunteered in the first year of the
> steering committee's      existence, and the "improvised steering
> committee" we setup in the wake of      the merger last year.
>
> In closing, I would be very interested to      discuss and hear your
> perception of the mandate / schedule for the Expert      Review &
> Consolidation of our "Charter of Human Rights and Principles on
> the Internet" sent by Meryem and forwarded by me on Dec. 14th  ("Re:
>    Proposal for IRP Charter Revision")
>
> And of course it would be good to      have some more community input
> for the Charter itself.
>
> To a good year      for Internet Rights and Principles!
>
> Max
>
> --
>
> "The future      is here. It's just not widely distributed yet."
> -William      Gibson
>
> ...........................................................................
>
> Max      Senges
> Berlin
>
>
> www.maxsenges.com [7]
>
> Mobile:      01622122755
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.coe.int/media
> [2] http://twitter.com/netrights
> [3] http://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples
> [4] mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com <maxsenges at gmail.com>
> [5] mailto:max at supercoolschool.com <max at supercoolschool.com>
> [6] mailto:irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org<irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
> [7] http://www.maxsenges.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100106/e08a28a9/attachment-0001.htm>


From max  Wed Jan  6 17:04:24 2010
From: max (Max Senges)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:04:24 +0100
Subject: [IRP] #1 meeting of 2010
In-Reply-To: <02B7B0535E8ACB4FACB46EDC26C94C5C02782F6CFF@fhex2>
References: <02B7B0535E8ACB4FACB46EDC26C94C5C02782F6CFF@fhex2>
Message-ID: <4d976d8e1001060704n64b5ca7dx12846d9e9f6a1b5f@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone

@Robert of course you are right about finding a time that works for most -
it's just a pretty tedious process and you'll never accomodate everybody
(I'd suggest we alternate every month)

oh and some agenda points are in my initial mail

I setup a skype confcall to which you can also dial-in from phones

Attached is a calendar event for this conference.

   - Conference Room Number: *3878018*

 *To use the HiDef Conferencing? service, you may call from:*

*Skype:*: +9900827043878018

Phone Numbers (Toll)
  Country Number
*Long distance costs apply
  *United States* +1 (201) 793-9022  *Canada* +1 (201) 793-9022  *Austria* +43
(0) 82040115470  *Belgium* +32 (0) 70357134  *France* +33 (0) 826109071  *
Germany* +49 01805009527  *Ireland* +353 (0) 818270968  *Italy* +39
848390177  *Spain* +34 902885791  *Switzerland* +41 (0) 848560397  *United
Kingdom* +44 (0) 8700990931

hear you tomorrow

max

--

"The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
?William Gibson

...........................................................................

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com

Mobile: 01622122755


On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Robert Guerra <guerra at freedomhouse.org>wrote:

> Max,
>
> Noon tomorrow (EST) - fine with me. I will only be able to be on the call
> for approx 45 min. If there's an agenda, please send in advance
>
> please consult with everyone next time in regards to the time. Would be
> good to find a time that works for those in east asia (china, japan, etc)
>
>
> Regards
>
> Robert
> ---
> Sent via Blackberry.
>
> Robert Guerra
> Project Director, Internet Freedom
> Freedom House
> Tel/SMS +1 202 569 1800
> Office +1 202 296 5101
>
> ------------------------------
>  *From*: maxsenges at gmail.com <maxsenges at gmail.com>
> *To*: Bodle, Robert <Robert_Bodle at mail.msj.edu>
> *Cc*: Biel Company Perez <bcompanyp at uoc.edu>;
> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org <
> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>; Robert Guerra; M.I.Franklin <
> M.I.Franklin at gold.ac.uk>; anja <anja at cis-india.org>; Lauren Movius <
> lmovius at usc.edu>; Matthias C. Kettemann <matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at>;
> rafik, dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>; Emily Laidlaw <emily at laidlaw.eu>;
> Graciela Selaimen <graciela at rits.org.br>; rudi.vansnick <
> rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>; Jac sm Kee <jac at apcwomen.org>; Carlos, Affonso
> Pereira de Souza <caffsouza at gmail.com>; HIBBARD Lee <Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int>;
> Andrea Beccalli <a.beccalli at unesco.org>; Lisa Horner <
> lisa at global-partners.co.uk>; Shaila Mistry <shailam at jaycopanels.com>;
> Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>; johan.hallenborg <
> johan.hallenborg at foreign.ministry.se>; Jaco Aizenman <skorpio at gmail.com>;
> Sylvia Caras <sylvia.caras at gmail.com>; malte.spitz <malte.spitz at gruene.de>;
> Heike Jensen <dr.heike.jensen at web.de>; Elfa.Gylfadottir <
> Elfa.Gylfadottir at mrn.stjr.is>; me <me at isaacmao.com>
> *Sent*: Tue Jan 05 15:14:24 2010
>
> *Subject*: #1 meeting of 2010
>
> Hi IRPlers
>
> Should we meet this thrusday at 18.00 CET or 9am PST? I think it would be
> important to discuss this years work.
>
> a) think about a last round of input for the charter
>
>> b) the mandate for the expert review group
>> c) a procedure/schedule for choosing the chair
>>
>> I can provide a telco where people can dial-in using a local land-line or
> we can use the conf-call system we used before?
>
>>
>> best
>> max
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://twitter.com/netrights
>>>
>>> http://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: maxsenges at gmail.com [maxsenges at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Max Senges
>>> [max at supercoolschool.com]
>>>
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 6:41 AM
>>> To: Biel Company Perez
>>> Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; Bodle, Robert; Robert
>>> Guerra; M.I.Franklin; anja; Lauren Movius; Matthias C. Kettemann; rafik,
>>> dammak; Emily Laidlaw; Graciela Selaimen; rudi.vansnick; Jac sm Kee; Carlos,
>>> Affonso Pereira de Souza; HIBBARD Lee; Andrea Beccalli; Lisa Horner; Shaila
>>> Mistry; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; johan.hallenborg; Jaco Aizenman; Sylvia
>>> Caras; malte.spitz; Heike Jensen; Elfa.Gylfadottir; me
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP-DC elections results
>>>
>>> Dear Biel, dear steering committee peers, dear IRPlers
>>>
>>> @Biel: thanks for managing the election process. we all know that error
>>> is human and while i would have appreciated to work with Heike in the
>>> steering committee, I am positive that her participation (as well as that of
>>> the other candidates who ran) will be very valuable and valued no matter in
>>> whether they are in the steering committee or not.
>>>
>>> @the freshly elected steering committee (SC) coleagues:
>>> (1) CONGRATULATIONS - This is going to be an exciting year and I am very
>>> much looking forward to working with you.
>>>
>>> (2) we now have to proceed to elect a chair amongst the 14 SC members.
>>> The charter simply says elect, which in my understanding could be via vote
>>> or consensus. I think it would be ideal to find consensus, but let's open
>>> the floor for nominations and then deliberate.
>>>
>>>    I would like to nominate Lisa Horner as IRP Chair. Lisa has been
>>> continuously furthering the development of our coalition and in fact many
>>> times she was the leading force behind organizing and running meetings and
>>> collabowritings. Thanks for all the work you did so far, I hope you accept
>>> the nomination.
>>>
>>> Maybe the easiest would be to have a conference call? I would be happy to
>>> meet next tuesday or wednesday? Given that we have two SC members from Asia
>>> I would suggest to stick to the 18.00 CET time, but I am of course flexible.
>>>
>>> (3) all steering committee members will have to choose whether you want
>>> to serve one or two years on the steering committee - please announce your
>>> choice on the list. Our charter states: "IRP will elect a steering
>>> committee, at least two of which will serve for one year and at least two of
>>> which will serve for two years. [...] Nominees will select which term length
>>> they prefer.
>>>
>>>      I am happy to serve for two years.
>>>
>>> (4) I propose that we setup a separate steering committee mailing-list
>>> which all SC members give high priority when dealing with their email. We
>>> all know that email traffic can be overwhelming and to have a method to
>>> quickly discuss and decide on a time-critical matter (e.g. whether or not to
>>> endorse an appeal or other document) would be very helpful.
>>>
>>> @all IRPlers: thanks for voting and for your continued interest and
>>> participation in our cause! The number of 44 votes might sound little,
>>> however this is a significant organizational development from the 8 folks
>>> who simply volunteered in the first year of the steering committee's
>>> existence, and the "improvised steering committee" we setup in the wake of
>>> the merger last year.
>>>
>>> In closing, I would be very interested to discuss and hear your
>>> perception of the mandate / schedule for the Expert Review & Consolidation
>>> of our "Charter of Human Rights and Principles on the Internet" sent by
>>> Meryem and forwarded by me on Dec. 14th  ("Re: Proposal for IRP Charter
>>> Revision")
>>>
>>> And of course it would be good to have some more community input for the
>>> Charter itself.
>>>
>>> To a good year for Internet Rights and Principles!
>>>
>>> Max
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> "The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
>>> ?William Gibson
>>>
>>>
>>> ...........................................................................
>>>
>>> Max Senges
>>> Berlin
>>>
>>> www.maxsenges.com<http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>>
>>> Mobile: 01622122755
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100106/32e43f84/attachment.htm>


From guerra  Wed Jan  6 16:51:13 2010
From: guerra (Robert Guerra)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:51:13 -0500
Subject: [IRP] #1 meeting of 2010
Message-ID: <02B7B0535E8ACB4FACB46EDC26C94C5C02782F6CFF@fhex2>

Max,

Noon tomorrow (EST) - fine with me. I will only be able to be on the call for approx 45 min. If there's an agenda, please send in advance

please consult with everyone next time in regards to the time. Would be good to find a time that works for those in east asia (china, japan, etc)


Regards

Robert
---
Sent via Blackberry.

Robert Guerra
Project Director, Internet Freedom
Freedom House
Tel/SMS +1 202 569 1800
Office +1 202 296 5101

________________________________
From: maxsenges at gmail.com <maxsenges at gmail.com>
To: Bodle, Robert <Robert_Bodle at mail.msj.edu>
Cc: Biel Company Perez <bcompanyp at uoc.edu>; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org <irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>; Robert Guerra; M.I.Franklin <M.I.Franklin at gold.ac.uk>; anja <anja at cis-india.org>; Lauren Movius <lmovius at usc.edu>; Matthias C. Kettemann <matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at>; rafik, dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>; Emily Laidlaw <emily at laidlaw.eu>; Graciela Selaimen <graciela at rits.org.br>; rudi.vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>; Jac sm Kee <jac at apcwomen.org>; Carlos, Affonso Pereira de Souza <caffsouza at gmail.com>; HIBBARD Lee <Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int>; Andrea Beccalli <a.beccalli at unesco.org>; Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>; Shaila Mistry <shailam at jaycopanels.com>; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>; johan.hallenborg <johan.hallenborg at foreign.ministry.se>; Jaco Aizenman <skorpio at gmail.com>; Sylvia Caras <sylvia.caras at gmail.com>; malte.spitz <malte.spitz at gruene.de>; Heike Jensen <dr.heike.jensen at web.de>; Elfa.Gylfadottir <Elfa.Gylfadottir at mrn.stjr.is>; me <me at isaacmao.com>
Sent: Tue Jan 05 15:14:24 2010
Subject: #1 meeting of 2010

Hi IRPlers

Should we meet this thrusday at 18.00 CET or 9am PST? I think it would be important to discuss this years work.

a) think about a last round of input for the charter
b) the mandate for the expert review group
c) a procedure/schedule for choosing the chair

I can provide a telco where people can dial-in using a local land-line or we can use the conf-call system we used before?

best
max



http://twitter.com/netrights
http://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples





________________________________________
From: maxsenges at gmail.com<mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com> [maxsenges at gmail.com<mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com>] On Behalf Of Max Senges [max at supercoolschool.com<mailto:max at supercoolschool.com>]
Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 6:41 AM
To: Biel Company Perez
Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org<mailto:irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>; Bodle, Robert; Robert Guerra; M.I.Franklin; anja; Lauren Movius; Matthias C. Kettemann; rafik, dammak; Emily Laidlaw; Graciela Selaimen; rudi.vansnick; Jac sm Kee; Carlos, Affonso Pereira de Souza; HIBBARD Lee; Andrea Beccalli; Lisa Horner; Shaila Mistry; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; johan.hallenborg; Jaco Aizenman; Sylvia Caras; malte.spitz; Heike Jensen; Elfa.Gylfadottir; me
Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP-DC elections results

Dear Biel, dear steering committee peers, dear IRPlers

@Biel: thanks for managing the election process. we all know that error is human and while i would have appreciated to work with Heike in the steering committee, I am positive that her participation (as well as that of the other candidates who ran) will be very valuable and valued no matter in whether they are in the steering committee or not.

@the freshly elected steering committee (SC) coleagues:
(1) CONGRATULATIONS - This is going to be an exciting year and I am very much looking forward to working with you.

(2) we now have to proceed to elect a chair amongst the 14 SC members. The charter simply says elect, which in my understanding could be via vote or consensus. I think it would be ideal to find consensus, but let's open the floor for nominations and then deliberate.

   I would like to nominate Lisa Horner as IRP Chair. Lisa has been continuously furthering the development of our coalition and in fact many times she was the leading force behind organizing and running meetings and collabowritings. Thanks for all the work you did so far, I hope you accept the nomination.

Maybe the easiest would be to have a conference call? I would be happy to meet next tuesday or wednesday? Given that we have two SC members from Asia I would suggest to stick to the 18.00 CET time, but I am of course flexible.

(3) all steering committee members will have to choose whether you want to serve one or two years on the steering committee - please announce your choice on the list. Our charter states: "IRP will elect a steering committee, at least two of which will serve for one year and at least two of which will serve for two years. [...] Nominees will select which term length they prefer.

     I am happy to serve for two years.

(4) I propose that we setup a separate steering committee mailing-list which all SC members give high priority when dealing with their email. We all know that email traffic can be overwhelming and to have a method to quickly discuss and decide on a time-critical matter (e.g. whether or not to endorse an appeal or other document) would be very helpful.

@all IRPlers: thanks for voting and for your continued interest and participation in our cause! The number of 44 votes might sound little, however this is a significant organizational development from the 8 folks who simply volunteered in the first year of the steering committee's existence, and the "improvised steering committee" we setup in the wake of the merger last year.

In closing, I would be very interested to discuss and hear your perception of the mandate / schedule for the Expert Review & Consolidation of our "Charter of Human Rights and Principles on the Internet" sent by Meryem and forwarded by me on Dec. 14th  ("Re: Proposal for IRP Charter Revision")

And of course it would be good to have some more community input for the Charter itself.

To a good year for Internet Rights and Principles!

Max

--

"The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
?William Gibson

...........................................................................

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com<http://www.maxsenges.com><http://www.maxsenges.com>

Mobile: 01622122755




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100106/880c0db9/attachment-0001.htm>


From maxsenges  Wed Jan  6 17:13:12 2010
From: maxsenges (Max Senges)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:13:12 +0100
Subject: [IRP] Google and Global Voices announce new awards to promote
	online free expression
Message-ID: <4d976d8e1001060713y44938adcp8857a99ee9cddbc3@mail.gmail.com>

FYI

all info also on http://breakingborders.net/

**Google and Global Voices announced the details of the ?Breaking Borders
Award? to honor those around the world who are fighting for free expression
online. The award, totaling $30,000, will honor and support outstanding web
projects, initiated by individuals or groups, that demonstrate  courage,
energy and resourcefulness in using the Internet to promote freedom of
expression.

Nominations for the award can be submitted starting today at
www.breakingborders.<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.breakingborders.net&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFrqEzfCeH5cfV2sAVa0xb_QDNS1Mnettg>
*net<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.breakingborders.de%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFrqEzc7jgu6uL1XAlEHIYXfwWgZnfG_1A>
*, the* *submission phase will end on 15th of February 2010. The award will
be given in three categories, with a $10,000 prize for each awardee.

   1. *Advocacy,* given to an activist or group that has used online tools
   to promote free expression or encourage political change
   2. *Technology*, given to an individual or group that has created an
   important tool that enables free expression and expands access to
   information
   3. *Policy*, given to a policy maker, government official or NGO leader
   who has made a notable contribution in the field

 The winners are going to be announced and honored in spring 2010.


*"Free societies and prosperity are fundamentally based on freedom of
expression, both offline and online," said David Drummond,**
*Senior Vice President, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer*. "The
internet is providing once unimaginable possibilities for political
participation, free exchange of information and democratic movements around
the world.  *

*"These awards will honor those who are making a real difference," Drummond
said. "We look forward to our partnership with Global Voices and appreciate
the support of Thomson Reuters.  All of us believe we must develop, support
and encourage projects that use the Internet to promote free expression and
open up new horizons to citizens everywhere."*

"The Internet has emerged as a critical front in the freedom of expression
movement worldwide," said Sami Ben Gharbia, Advocacy Director at Global
Voices. "In our work at Global Voices we're consistently impressed with the
creative ways activists and others are finding to promote freedom of
expression online. We're thrilled to be associated with an award recognizing
the innovation that's taking place in this area."


Nominations are open to individuals, groups or cooperative projects in any
of the three categories. Participants can nominate themselves, as well as
blogs, websites or other online presences. The nominees should have helped
to promote the free circulation of ideas, stood up against censorship,
helped local communities, raised awareness about a specific issue or cause,
mobilized to change government policy or supported silenced voices.

Nominations -- which should include a biography of the individual or a
description of the group and text and video content displaying the nominee's
work (see below) -- can be submitted at the Breaking Borders website
www.breakingborders.net<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.breakinborders.net&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFrqEzdei3LiXa1Yn2L7cVMVNL8nrt483A>.
 All nominations will be handled confidentially.

An international committee of experts, including representatives from the
private sector and NGOs, will judge the nominees and determine the awards.

Citizens all over the world are also invited to share their voices and
points of view on the Freedom of Expression @ Google  YouTube-Channel at
www.youtube.com/googlefreeexpression.



*About Google*

Google's innovative search technologies and web services connect millions of
people around the world and allow them to express themselves every day.
Founded in 1998 by Stanford Ph.D. students Larry Page and Sergey Brin,
Google today is a top Web property in all major global markets. Google's
targeted advertising program provides businesses of all sizes with
measurable results, while enhancing the overall Web experience for users.
Google is headquartered in Silicon Valley with offices throughout the
Americas, Europe and Asia. For more information, visit www.google.com.



*About Global Voices*

Global Voices (GV) has emerged as the leading news room for citizen voices
from the developing world. GV is a vibrant global community of hundreds of
people, helping individuals, media professionals and the development
community access the diverse sources of information coming from citizen
media. It is also a platform for innovation in global citizen media,
designing and launching original projects that advance access and rights to
information about and from the developing world. For more information, go to
www.globalvoicesonline.org<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalvoicesonline.org&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFrqEzcRim9FeCi1pmsCsNz_I5aUYDQECg>
.

* *

*About Thomson Reuters *

Thomson Reuters is the world's leading source of intelligent information for
businesses and professionals.  We combine industry expertise with innovative
technology to deliver critical information to leading decision makers in the
financial, legal, tax and accounting, healthcare and science and media
markets, powered by the world's most trusted news organization.  With
headquarters in New York and major operations in London and Eagan,
Minnesota, Thomson Reuters employs more than 50,000 people and operates in
over 100 countries. Thomson Reuters shares are listed on the Toronto Stock
Exchange (TSX: TRI) and New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: TRI). For more
information, go to
www.thomsonreuters.com.<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thomsonreuters.com&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFrqEzckrxhXLFMNdqGLWtp0rylTvRL7WA>
*

*

* *

*Press Contacts*

*Google*

Kay Oberbeck

Head of Communications & Public Affairs

Google Germany, Austria, Switzerland

Tel: +49 (0)40-80 817 9226

E-Mail: kayo at google.com

* *

*Global Voices
*Georgia Popplewell

Managing Director
Tel: +1 868 681 6103

email: georgiap at globalvoicesonline.org*
*
*Thomson Reuters
*Alex Honeysett
PR Specialist, Editorial, Reuters
Tel: +44 (0)20 7542 8509
E-Mail: Alexandra.Honeysett at thomsonreuters.com


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

*What is the Breaking Borders Award?*
The Breaking Borders award was set up by Global Voices and Google to
highlight the importance of free expression around the world and send a
clear message to regimes that censor content both online and offline by
honoring an outstanding webprojects by individuals or groups, who have shown
courage, energy and resourcefulness in using the internet to promote freedom
of expression, ensure that diverse political viewpoints are heard and stand
up to those who censor information.

 *Who can participate?*
 Anyone with a relevant online presence can participate. Nominate yourself,
a blog, website or other online presence you consider has helped promote the
free circulation of ideas, stood up against censorship, helped local
communities, raised awareness about a specific issue or cause, mobilised
government or supported silenced voices.

 *Are there any geographical restrictions to participate?*
No, the nominee can be based or support a cause anywhere in the world.

 *How do I nominate?*
Fill-out the nomination form
here<http://sites.google.com/site/breakingbordersberlin/award-nomination-form>or
send us an email to
nomination at breakingborders.net. Please understand that we can only accept
nominations if you provide the following information: a) the name and
contact of the nominee (or the organisation/initiative) b) blog, website or
other online presence that shows the value of the nominee, c) why the
nominee merits the Breaking Borders Award and c) your contact details so we
can get in touch with you should we have further questions.  Also we would
highly appreciate if you could send us the contacts of one or two people who
know the nominee and his/her work well.
 *How will the winner be elected?*
A group of international experts in the field of media, politics and social
activism will thoroughly review all nominations and select the winner.
 *Will there only be one winner?*There will be winners in several categories

   - activist or voice that has promoted an important position or argument
   - tool-maker for online FoE
   - policy maker or politician

 *Will the winner receive a prize?*
The awardees will receive a price of $$10'000 each
 *What is the deadline for nominations?*
The deadline for nominations is the 15th of February 2010.
 *When will the winner be announced?*
The awards will be announced in spring 2010.
 *I would like to upload a video supporting my nomination on the Freedom of
Expression at Google  YouTube channel.*
Email us on nominations at breakingborders.de (separate to email above) to ask
to have your video on our Playlist.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100106/a66c2cc9/attachment-0001.htm>


From shailam  Wed Jan  6 17:45:37 2010
From: shailam (shaila mistry)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 07:45:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [IRP] #1 meeting of 2010
In-Reply-To: <4d976d8e1001060704n64b5ca7dx12846d9e9f6a1b5f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <02B7B0535E8ACB4FACB46EDC26C94C5C02782F6CFF@fhex2>
	<4d976d8e1001060704n64b5ca7dx12846d9e9f6a1b5f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <826948.13316.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com>

Happy New Year!!!
Ill be there.
Shaila

 
Life is too short ....challenge the rules
Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly
Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! 
 


________________________________
From: Max Senges <max at supercoolschool.com>
To: Robert Guerra <guerra at freedomhouse.org>
Cc: "Elfa.Gylfadottir at mrn.stjr.is" <Elfa.Gylfadottir at mrn.stjr.is>; "a.beccalli at unesco.org" <a.beccalli at unesco.org>; "shailam at jaycopanels.com" <shailam at jaycopanels.com>; "Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int" <Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int>; "graciela at rits.org.br" <graciela at rits.org.br>; "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" <irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>; "caffsouza at gmail.com" <caffsouza at gmail.com>; "malte.spitz at gruene.de" <malte.spitz at gruene.de>; "bcompanyp at uoc.edu" <bcompanyp at uoc.edu>; "johan.hallenborg at foreign.ministry.se" <johan.hallenborg at foreign.ministry.se>; "me at isaacmao.com" <me at isaacmao.com>
Sent: Wed, January 6, 2010 7:04:24 AM
Subject: Re: [IRP] #1 meeting of 2010

Hi everyone

@Robert of course you are right about finding a time that works for most - it's just a pretty tedious process and you'll never accomodate everybody (I'd suggest we alternate every month)

oh and some agenda points are in my initial mail

I setup a skype confcall to which you can also dial-in from phones

Attached is a calendar event for this conference. 
	* Conference Room Number: 3878018To use the HiDef Conferencing? service, you may call from: 

Skype:: +9900827043878018


Phone Numbers (Toll)
Country
Number 
*Long distance costs apply
United States +1 (201) 793-9022 
Canada +1 (201) 793-9022 
Austria +43 (0) 82040115470 
Belgium +32 (0) 70357134 
France +33 (0) 826109071 
Germany +49 01805009527 
Ireland +353 (0) 818270968 
Italy +39 848390177 
Spain +34 902885791 
Switzerland +41 (0) 848560397 
United Kingdom +44 (0) 8700990931 

hear you tomorrow

max

--

"The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
?William Gibson

...........................................................................

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com

Mobile: 01622122755



On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Robert Guerra <guerra at freedomhouse.org> wrote:

>Max,
>
>Noon tomorrow (EST) - fine with me. I will only be able to be on the call for approx 45 min. If there's an agenda, please send in advance
>
>please consult with everyone next time in regards to the time. Would be good to find a time that works for those in east asia (china, japan, etc) 
>
>
>Regards
>
>Robert
>
>---
>
>Sent via Blackberry.
>
>
>Robert Guerra
>
>Project Director, Internet Freedom
>
>Freedom House
>
>Tel/SMS +1 202 569 1800
>
>Office +1 202 296 5101
>
>
________________________________
 From: maxsenges at gmail.com <maxsenges at gmail.com>
>
>
>To: Bodle, Robert <Robert_Bodle at mail.msj.edu>
>
>Cc: Biel Company Perez <bcompanyp at uoc.edu>; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org <irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>; Robert Guerra; M.I.Franklin <M.I.Franklin at gold.ac.uk>; anja <anja at cis-india.org>; Lauren Movius <lmovius at usc.edu>; Matthias C. Kettemann <matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at>; rafik, dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>; Emily Laidlaw <emily at laidlaw.eu>; Graciela Selaimen <graciela at rits.org.br>; rudi.vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>; Jac sm Kee <jac at apcwomen.org>; Carlos, Affonso Pereira de Souza <caffsouza at gmail.com>; HIBBARD Lee <Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int>; Andrea Beccalli <a.beccalli at unesco.org>; Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>; Shaila Mistry <shailam at jaycopanels.com>; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>; johan.hallenborg <johan.hallenborg at foreign.ministry.se>; Jaco Aizenman <skorpio at gmail.com>; Sylvia Caras <sylvia.caras at gmail.com>; malte.spitz <malte.spitz at gruene.de>; Heike Jensen <dr.heike.jensen at web.de>; Elfa.Gylfadottir
 <Elfa.Gylfadottir at mrn.stjr.is>; me <me at isaacmao.com>
>
>Sent: Tue Jan 05 15:14:24 2010
>
>Subject: #1 meeting of 2010
>
>
>
>>Hi IRPlers
>
>Should we meet this thrusday at 18.00 CET or 9am PST? I think it would be important to discuss this years work.
>
>a) think about a last round of input for the charter 
>
>>>b) the mandate for the expert review group
>>c) a procedure/schedule for choosing the chair
>>
>>
>I can provide a telco where people can dial-in using a local land-line or we can use the conf-call system we used before? 
>
>
>>best
>>max
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>http://twitter.com/netrights
>>>
>>>http://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>________________________________________
>>>>>>From: maxsenges at gmail.com [maxsenges at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Max Senges [max at supercoolschool.com]
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 6:41 AM
>>>>>>To: Biel Company Perez
>>>
>>>Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; Bodle, Robert; Robert Guerra; M.I.Franklin; anja; Lauren Movius; Matthias C. Kettemann; rafik, dammak; Emily Laidlaw; Graciela Selaimen; rudi.vansnick; Jac sm Kee; Carlos, Affonso Pereira de Souza; HIBBARD Lee; Andrea Beccalli; Lisa Horner; Shaila Mistry; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; johan.hallenborg; Jaco Aizenman; Sylvia Caras; malte.spitz; Heike Jensen; Elfa.Gylfadottir; me
>>>
>>>
>>>Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP-DC elections results
>>>
>>>
>>>Dear Biel, dear steering committee peers, dear IRPlers
>>>
>>>>>>@Biel: thanks for managing the election process. we all know that error is human and while i would have appreciated to work with Heike in the steering committee, I am positive that her participation (as well as that of the other candidates who ran) will be very valuable and valued no matter in whether they are in the steering committee or not.
>>>
>>>>>>@the freshly elected steering committee (SC) coleagues:
>>>>>>(1) CONGRATULATIONS - This is going to be an exciting year and I am very much looking forward to working with you.
>>>
>>>>>>(2) we now have to proceed to elect a chair amongst the 14 SC members. The charter simply says elect, which in my understanding could be via vote or consensus. I think it would be ideal to find consensus, but let's open the floor for nominations and then deliberate.
>>>
>>>>>>    I would like to nominate Lisa Horner as IRP Chair. Lisa has been continuously furthering the development of our coalition and in fact many times she was the leading force behind organizing and running meetings and collabowritings. Thanks for all the work you did so far, I hope you accept the nomination.
>>>
>>>>>>Maybe the easiest would be to have a conference call? I would be happy to meet next tuesday or wednesday? Given that we have two SC members from Asia I would suggest to stick to the 18.00 CET time, but I am of course flexible.
>>>
>>>>>>(3) all steering committee members will have to choose whether you want to serve one or two years on the steering committee - please announce your choice on the list. Our charter states: "IRP will elect a steering committee, at least two of which will serve for one year and at least two of which will serve for two years. [...] Nominees will select which term length they prefer.
>>>
>>>>>>      I am happy to serve for two years.
>>>
>>>>>>(4) I propose that we setup a separate steering committee mailing-list which all SC members give high priority when dealing with their email. We all know that email traffic can be overwhelming and to have a method to quickly discuss and decide on a time-critical matter (e.g. whether or not to endorse an appeal or other document) would be very helpful.
>>>
>>>>>>@all IRPlers: thanks for voting and for your continued interest and participation in our cause! The number of 44 votes might sound little, however this is a significant organizational development from the 8 folks who simply volunteered in the first year of the steering committee's existence, and the "improvised steering committee" we setup in the wake of the merger last year.
>>>
>>>>>>In closing, I would be very interested to discuss and hear your perception of the mandate / schedule for the Expert Review & Consolidation of our "Charter of Human Rights and Principles on the Internet" sent by Meryem and forwarded by me on Dec. 14th  ("Re: Proposal for IRP Charter Revision")
>>>
>>>>>>And of course it would be good to have some more community input for the Charter itself.
>>>
>>>>>>To a good year for Internet Rights and Principles!
>>>
>>>>>>Max
>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>
>>>>>>"The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
>>>>>>?William Gibson
>>>
>>>>>>...........................................................................
>>>
>>>>>>Max Senges
>>>>>>Berlin
>>>
>>>www.maxsenges.com<http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>>
>>>>>>Mobile: 01622122755
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100106/315cb1d4/attachment-0001.htm>


From katitza  Wed Jan  6 19:36:32 2010
From: katitza (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:36:32 -0500
Subject: [IRP] Stop Digital Strip Search in airports!
Message-ID: <09E31CC3-70FA-4DA1-AEFC-9A866138761E@datos-personales.org>

(please, feel free to copy paste and re-post).

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



Stop Digital Strip Search in airports!

http://thepublicvoice.org/2010/01/stop-digital-strip-search-in-airports.php



As supporters of the Madrid Declaration, we are calling on national  
governments to suspend the deployment of body scanners until a full  
evaluation of the technology is completed. As the Declaration states,  
we:

"Call for a moratorium on the development or implementation of new  
systems of mass surveillance, including facial recognition, whole body  
imaging, biometric identifiers, and embedded RFID tags, subject to a  
full and transparent evaluation by independent authorities and  
democratic debate;"

The Madrid Privacy Declaration is a substantial document that  
reaffirms international instruments for privacy protection, identifies  
new challenges, and recommends specific actions.

Recommended Actions:

JOIN - Facebook Group: Stop Airport Strip Searches
http://www.facebook.com/#/group.php?gid=179598280013&ref=mf

ENDORSE - Privacy Coalition: Sign the Petition to the US Congress
http://privacycoalition.org/stopwholebodyimaging/

ENDORSE: Madrid Privacy Declaration
http://thepublicvoice.org/madrid-declaration/

SIGN - International Boycott of Body Scanners (IBBS)
http://www.petitiononline.com/IBBS/petition.html

SIGN - UK Petition to abandon the proposed rollout of airport body  
scanners.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AirportScanners/

POST - Stop Digital Strip Searches image
http://imperialkingdom.net/images/graphics/nakedmachine.jpg


Reference materials:

Madrid Privacy Declaration
http://thepublicvoice.org/madrid-declaration/

EPIC, Whole Body Imaging Technology
http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/

EPIC, Spotlight on Surveillance
http://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/spotlight/0605/

Privacy International, "statement on proposed deployments of body
scanners in airports"
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-565802

TSA, Imaging Technology
http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/imaging_technology.shtm

Michael Chertoff ("Former homeland security chief argues for whole- 
body imaging")
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123101746.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100106/fbacb904/attachment.htm>


From lisa  Wed Jan  6 20:35:26 2010
From: lisa (Lisa Horner)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 18:35:26 -0000
Subject: [IRP] Charter process
References: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2FC0@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<1261427421.2976.2007.camel@anriette-laptop>
Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2FE7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>

Hi Anriette and all

I agree we should try and get as wide as posisble feedback on the draft Charter.  That's why I suggested that maybe the IGF open consultations might be a better opportunity than the Eurodig to piggy back a meeting onto...more non-Europeans might be going?  There are consultations planned for May, which could fit into Meryem's proposed schedule (pasted below for reference) quite well.  I think we should aim to have a one day meeting for the coalition, focusing on charter feedback but also encompassing other issues,similar to the Spetember 2009 meeting in Geneva.  We should aim for better remote participation so that the venue of the meeting isn't so much of an issue.  

We could also consult at the regional IGFs as Anriette suggests - that'd be a great opportunity to widen participation in the process and raise awareness about it. However, if we do that, I think that we'll still need an in-depth meeting/consultation with the expert group as well.  The idea is for a proper discussion with the experts about why they have chosen certain wording or included/excluded certain issues.  I doubt they can go to all of the regional IGFs to do that.

If we do decide to reach out at the regional IGFs, we'd need for people to take ownership of organising the consultation at each of them...do we know when they are and, is there any interest amongst people on the list in helping to organise that? We'd also have to make sure the expert group have all inputs before mid-August.  


The options as I see it are (not necessarily mutually exclusive):
1) Have an IRP/Charter meeting the day before the Eurodig (28th April, Madrid).
2) Have the meeting the day before the IGF consultations (9th May, Geneva).
3) Have the meeting at another of the regional IGFs (might be trickier for experts to get there).
3) Consult on the charter at all regional IGFs.

It would be great if people could comment on these options so that we can decide fairly soon. Who is planning to attend which events so that we can determine where we'll have the most people in one place?  We can also discuss in the meeting tomorrow. 

RE comments from human rights orgs, that's in Meryem's plan, scheduled for May.

All the best,
Lisa


Timeline:

-       Until 31st December 2009: further edits and comments by IRP members and agreement on the HR expert group work program (methodology and milestones). IRP representatives should provide last version (as of 31st December) of IRP charter to HR expert group.

-       From 1st January to 25 April 2010: HR expert group develop a first draft of the charter

-       EuroDIG 2010 (29-30 April 2010, Madrid): first round of comments by IRP coalition and other EuroDIG participants. Subject to feasibility: organize a closed HR experts, organizations and institutions meeting.

-       From 1st May to 31st May 2010: Consultation with other HR experts and HR organizations and institutions.

-       From 1st June to 30 June 2010: HR expert group consolidates the draft

-       From 1st July to 31st August 2010: Latest (minor) comments by IRP coalition. Long period due to summer holidays. Synthesis of these comments to be provided to HR expert group by IRP representatives (this is needed given that only 10 days left for final consolidation)

-       From 1st September to 10 September: HR expert group consolidates the draft with latest comments.

-       IGF 2010 (14-17 September 2010, Vilnius): public launch of the charter

-----Original Message-----
From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org]
Sent: Mon 21/12/2009 20:30
To: Lisa Horner
Cc: Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Subject: Re: [IRP] Charter process
 
Dear Lisa

I am not sure what the exact schedule is, but it would be good to get
feedback on a draft at regional IGFs other than just at Eurodig.

There will be the LAC, East and West African IGFs that I know of.
Possibly more.

APC will also facilitate comment from our network as soon as there is a
draft. 

And, what about requesting feedback from organisations like Human Rights
Watch, Article 19, Amnesty, HREA (human rights education) and other
human rights organisations?  They might have different perspectives, but
it could be useful to:

- alert them to our work
- get their reactions

Best

Anriette

 

On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 11:36 +0000, Lisa Horner wrote:
> Hi all
>  
> Just some thoughts about the charter process to feed into the call and
> repsond to some points made so far...
>  
>  can't see there being any huge points of contention between the
> "experts" and the wider coalition.  Their job is really just to take
> what we've done, make sure that it doesn't erode existing rights
> standards and out it into a coherent structure.  Once we have a draft
> to work with, both sides should be open to discussion about the detail
> and why certain edits may or may not be appropriate.  I can see it
> being a really educative and informative process for us all. But it is
> true that we should be prepared for disagreement, and we should manage
> that process of discussion - giving the experts space to present the
> draft, coalition members opportunities to ask questions, and both
> groups time to come to consensus.
>  
> In light of that, I think we should aim for a detailed face to face
> meeting concerning the charter at the Eurodig in April or IGF planning
> meeting in May, with good facilities and systems for remote
> participation.  It'd be good to kow how many people intend to go to
> each of those meetings in person so that we can make a call about
> which venue to tag our meeting on to.
>  
> Also, maybe we could shift the last deadline for the final comment
> period back to 15th August, and then ask for a final version of the
> Charter from the experts by the end of August.  That would give us
> time to iron out any final disputes and print/publish whatever we need
> to?  I realise it encroaches on the summer holidays, but hopefully
> that'd be ok if we've got the timescale laid out in advance?  
>  
> As we can't really anticipate the nature of any disputes in advance,
> maybe the steering committee could commit to considering cases as they
> arise and halping to identify appropriate solutions?  We could also
> have a liaison between the committee and the coalition to help ongoing
> communication between the two.
>  
> All the best,
> Lisa
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org


-- 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
anriette esterhuysen - ?executive director
association for progressive communications
p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109
anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692
http://www.apc.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100106/a8fb558b/attachment.htm>


From fouadbajwa  Thu Jan  7 03:08:49 2010
From: fouadbajwa (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 06:08:49 +0500
Subject: [IRP] IGF Open Consultation and MAG Meeting Interventions
Message-ID: <701af9f71001061708h6d11531ao8e2cdbe82f8b034e@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Friends,

As you are all aware about the IGF Open Consultation and MAG meetings
in February 2010, I would like to request those people that cannot
participate but would like to be heard to forward their interventions
so that we can read and extend them on the floor during the Open
Consultation. I further request statements to be brief, concise and to
the point as the floor has to be passed on to the wide participation
during the consultation.

As for the MAG, we have a strong Civil Society MAG group including
myself. The MAG is responsible for suggesting the design/organization
of the IGF2010. IF you have concerns regarding the programming of the
IGF2010, you can forward your statements for intervention to me so
that they can be shared amongst our other team members. Once again,
the requirement for being brief, concise and to the point applies here
as well!

Ideas for interventions can involve statements such as but not limited to:

1. Issues surfaced during the IGF2009 in Sharam.
2. Developing Country Participation/Inclusion Issues.
3. Main Program / Main Theme Issues for IGF2010.
4. Human Rights Issues/Rights on the Internet Issues.
5. Development Agenda for Internet Governance Issues.
6. Youth and Gender Participation Issues.

For your convenience and live correspondence, I will be available on
Skype (ID:fouadbajwa , kindly don't forget to introduce yourself
please while adding me) throughout the three days of meetings (1 day
open consultation + 2 days MAG meetings).

I look forward to assisting your interventions.

-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
Advisor & Researcher
ICT4D & Internet Governance
Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF)
Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
My Blog: Internet's Governance
http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets:
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
MAG Interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA


From maxsenges  Thu Jan  7 10:41:25 2010
From: maxsenges (Max Senges)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 09:41:25 +0100
Subject: [IRP] eYou Guide to your rights online
Message-ID: <4d976d8e1001070041p47df8f4fg2563b59fcec96877@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone

just came across a pretty neat EU portal about online rights (mostly from a
consumers point of view, but actually quite broad in scope)

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eyouguide/navigation/index_en.htm

hear you later
max

--

"The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
?William Gibson

...........................................................................

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com

Mobile: 01622122755
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100107/16463f0e/attachment.htm>


From lmovius  Thu Jan  7 01:42:08 2010
From: lmovius (Lauren Movius)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:42:08 -0800
Subject: [IRP] #1 meeting of 2010
In-Reply-To: <826948.13316.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
References: <02B7B0535E8ACB4FACB46EDC26C94C5C02782F6CFF@fhex2>
	<4d976d8e1001060704n64b5ca7dx12846d9e9f6a1b5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<826948.13316.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4c18bd2c1001061542h6f84694el6f656eb86f9df0d7@mail.gmail.com>

I'll be there.

Cheers,
Lauren

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:45 AM, shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Happy New Year!!!
> Ill be there.
> Shaila
>
>
> *Life is too short ....challenge the rules***
>
> *Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly***
>
> *Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! ***
>
>  **
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Max Senges <max at supercoolschool.com>
> *To:* Robert Guerra <guerra at freedomhouse.org>
> *Cc:* "Elfa.Gylfadottir at mrn.stjr.is" <Elfa.Gylfadottir at mrn.stjr.is>; "
> a.beccalli at unesco.org" <a.beccalli at unesco.org>; "shailam at jaycopanels.com"
> <shailam at jaycopanels.com>; "Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int" <Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int>; "
> graciela at rits.org.br" <graciela at rits.org.br>; "
> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" <
> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>; "caffsouza at gmail.com" <
> caffsouza at gmail.com>; "malte.spitz at gruene.de" <malte.spitz at gruene.de>; "
> bcompanyp at uoc.edu" <bcompanyp at uoc.edu>; "
> johan.hallenborg at foreign.ministry.se" <
> johan.hallenborg at foreign.ministry.se>; "me at isaacmao.com" <me at isaacmao.com>
> *Sent:* Wed, January 6, 2010 7:04:24 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [IRP] #1 meeting of 2010
>
> Hi everyone
>
> @Robert of course you are right about finding a time that works for most -
> it's just a pretty tedious process and you'll never accomodate everybody
> (I'd suggest we alternate every month)
>
> oh and some agenda points are in my initial mail
>
> I setup a skype confcall to which you can also dial-in from phones
>
> Attached is a calendar event for this conference.
>
>    - Conference Room Number: *3878018*
>
>  *To use the HiDef Conferencing? service, you may call from:*
>
> *Skype:*: +9900827043878018
>
> Phone Numbers (Toll)
>   Country Number
> *Long distance costs apply
>   *United States* +1 (201) 793-9022  *Canada* +1 (201) 793-9022  *Austria* +43
> (0) 82040115470  *Belgium* +32 (0) 70357134  *France* +33 (0) 826109071  *
> Germany* +49 01805009527  *Ireland* +353 (0) 818270968  *Italy* +39
> 848390177  *Spain* +34 902885791  *Switzerland* +41 (0) 848560397  *United
> Kingdom* +44 (0) 8700990931
>
> hear you tomorrow
>
> max
>
> --
>
> "The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
> ?William Gibson
>
> ...........................................................................
>
> Max Senges
> Berlin
>
> www.maxsenges.com
>
> Mobile: 01622122755
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Robert Guerra <guerra at freedomhouse.org>wrote:
>
>>  Max,
>>
>> Noon tomorrow (EST) - fine with me. I will only be able to be on the call
>> for approx 45 min. If there's an agenda, please send in advance
>>
>> please consult with everyone next time in regards to the time. Would be
>> good to find a time that works for those in east asia (china, japan, etc)
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Robert
>> ---
>> Sent via Blackberry.
>>
>> Robert Guerra
>> Project Director, Internet Freedom
>> Freedom House
>> Tel/SMS +1 202 569 1800
>> Office +1 202 296 5101
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>  *From*: maxsenges at gmail.com <maxsenges at gmail.com>
>> *To*: Bodle, Robert <Robert_Bodle at mail.msj.edu>
>> *Cc*: Biel Company Perez <bcompanyp at uoc.edu>;
>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org <
>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>; Robert Guerra; M.I.Franklin <
>> M.I.Franklin at gold.ac.uk>; anja <anja at cis-india.org>; Lauren Movius <
>> lmovius at usc.edu>; Matthias C. Kettemann <matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at>;
>> rafik, dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>; Emily Laidlaw <emily at laidlaw.eu>;
>> Graciela Selaimen <graciela at rits.org.br>; rudi.vansnick <
>> rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>; Jac sm Kee <jac at apcwomen.org>; Carlos, Affonso
>> Pereira de Souza <caffsouza at gmail.com>; HIBBARD Lee <Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int>;
>> Andrea Beccalli <a.beccalli at unesco.org>; Lisa Horner <
>> lisa at global-partners.co.uk>; Shaila Mistry <shailam at jaycopanels.com>;
>> Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>; johan.hallenborg <
>> johan.hallenborg at foreign.ministry.se>; Jaco Aizenman <skorpio at gmail.com>;
>> Sylvia Caras <sylvia.caras at gmail.com>; malte.spitz <malte.spitz at gruene.de>;
>> Heike Jensen <dr.heike.jensen at web.de>; Elfa.Gylfadottir <
>> Elfa.Gylfadottir at mrn.stjr.is>; me <me at isaacmao.com>
>> *Sent*: Tue Jan 05 15:14:24 2010
>>
>> *Subject*: #1 meeting of 2010
>>
>> Hi IRPlers
>>
>> Should we meet this thrusday at 18.00 CET or 9am PST? I think it would be
>> important to discuss this years work.
>>
>> a) think about a last round of input for the charter
>>
>>> b) the mandate for the expert review group
>>> c) a procedure/schedule for choosing the chair
>>>
>>> I can provide a telco where people can dial-in using a local land-line or
>> we can use the conf-call system we used before?
>>
>>>
>>> best
>>> max
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://twitter.com/netrights
>>>>
>>>> http://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: maxsenges at gmail.com [maxsenges at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Max Senges
>>>> [max at supercoolschool.com]
>>>>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 6:41 AM
>>>> To: Biel Company Perez
>>>> Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; Bodle, Robert; Robert
>>>> Guerra; M.I.Franklin; anja; Lauren Movius; Matthias C. Kettemann; rafik,
>>>> dammak; Emily Laidlaw; Graciela Selaimen; rudi.vansnick; Jac sm Kee; Carlos,
>>>> Affonso Pereira de Souza; HIBBARD Lee; Andrea Beccalli; Lisa Horner; Shaila
>>>> Mistry; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; johan.hallenborg; Jaco Aizenman; Sylvia
>>>> Caras; malte.spitz; Heike Jensen; Elfa.Gylfadottir; me
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP-DC elections results
>>>>
>>>> Dear Biel, dear steering committee peers, dear IRPlers
>>>>
>>>> @Biel: thanks for managing the election process. we all know that error
>>>> is human and while i would have appreciated to work with Heike in the
>>>> steering committee, I am positive that her participation (as well as that of
>>>> the other candidates who ran) will be very valuable and valued no matter in
>>>> whether they are in the steering committee or not.
>>>>
>>>> @the freshly elected steering committee (SC) coleagues:
>>>> (1) CONGRATULATIONS - This is going to be an exciting year and I am very
>>>> much looking forward to working with you.
>>>>
>>>> (2) we now have to proceed to elect a chair amongst the 14 SC members.
>>>> The charter simply says elect, which in my understanding could be via vote
>>>> or consensus. I think it would be ideal to find consensus, but let's open
>>>> the floor for nominations and then deliberate.
>>>>
>>>>    I would like to nominate Lisa Horner as IRP Chair. Lisa has been
>>>> continuously furthering the development of our coalition and in fact many
>>>> times she was the leading force behind organizing and running meetings and
>>>> collabowritings. Thanks for all the work you did so far, I hope you accept
>>>> the nomination.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the easiest would be to have a conference call? I would be happy
>>>> to meet next tuesday or wednesday? Given that we have two SC members from
>>>> Asia I would suggest to stick to the 18.00 CET time, but I am of course
>>>> flexible.
>>>>
>>>> (3) all steering committee members will have to choose whether you want
>>>> to serve one or two years on the steering committee - please announce your
>>>> choice on the list. Our charter states: "IRP will elect a steering
>>>> committee, at least two of which will serve for one year and at least two of
>>>> which will serve for two years. [...] Nominees will select which term length
>>>> they prefer.
>>>>
>>>>      I am happy to serve for two years.
>>>>
>>>> (4) I propose that we setup a separate steering committee mailing-list
>>>> which all SC members give high priority when dealing with their email. We
>>>> all know that email traffic can be overwhelming and to have a method to
>>>> quickly discuss and decide on a time-critical matter (e.g. whether or not to
>>>> endorse an appeal or other document) would be very helpful.
>>>>
>>>> @all IRPlers: thanks for voting and for your continued interest and
>>>> participation in our cause! The number of 44 votes might sound little,
>>>> however this is a significant organizational development from the 8 folks
>>>> who simply volunteered in the first year of the steering committee's
>>>> existence, and the "improvised steering committee" we setup in the wake of
>>>> the merger last year.
>>>>
>>>> In closing, I would be very interested to discuss and hear your
>>>> perception of the mandate / schedule for the Expert Review & Consolidation
>>>> of our "Charter of Human Rights and Principles on the Internet" sent by
>>>> Meryem and forwarded by me on Dec. 14th  ("Re: Proposal for IRP Charter
>>>> Revision")
>>>>
>>>> And of course it would be good to have some more community input for the
>>>> Charter itself.
>>>>
>>>> To a good year for Internet Rights and Principles!
>>>>
>>>> Max
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> "The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
>>>> ?William Gibson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...........................................................................
>>>>
>>>> Max Senges
>>>> Berlin
>>>>
>>>> www.maxsenges.com<http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>>>
>>>> Mobile: 01622122755
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
>


-- 
Lauren Movius
PhD Candidate and Wallis Annenberg Graduate Research Fellow
Annenberg School for Communication
University of Southern California
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100106/d92927ff/attachment-0001.htm>


From ceo  Thu Jan  7 13:28:21 2010
From: ceo (AHM Bazlur Rahman)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 17:28:21 +0600
Subject: [IRP] IPv6 Forum Bangladesh Has Been Founded
Message-ID: <006d01ca8f8c$920fc1a0$1300a8c0@ceo>



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

IPv6 Forum Bangladesh Has Been Founded

___________________

 

Dhaka/Luxembourg, January 6, 2010 - The IPv6 Forum welcomes Bangladesh as its newest member with the establishment of the IPv6 Forum Bangladesh under the leadership of S M Altaf Hossain as its National Convener and Mr. Sohel Awrangzeb as Member Secretary.

 . 

Mr. S M Altaf Hossain and Mr. Sohel Awrangzeb-S21S are 20 plus years in ICT sector in Bangladesh. Work experience with world's leading Corporation/ Enterprises.

 

Other convening committee members are Mr. AHM Bazlur Rahman-S21BR is Chief Executive Officer, Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) & Member, Strategy Council UN-Global Alliance for ICT and Development (UN GAID) as Joint Convener and Mr. M A Haque Anu, member of the convening committee.

 

The prime objective of the IPv6 Forum and its members is to promote deployment and swifter uptake of the new Internet using the new Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) with support from industry, education, research communities and government agencies enabling equitable access to technology and knowledge.

 

"The IPv6 Forum Bangladesh has been created to extend to the Bangladeshi Internet community a strong voice and representation in the new Internet world to enable equal access to knowledge and education on New Generation Internet technologies and create momentum in deploying IPv6" said Latif Ladid, IPv6 Forum President.

 

"The IPv6 Forum Bangladesh will attract key stakeholders from government, industry and academia to design the IPv6 roadmap and vision together for Bangladesh to be among the first to embrace the New Internet World based on IPv6" Stated Mr. AHM Bazlur Rahman, Joint Convener, IPv6 Forum Bangladesh.

 

The Internet World has been using the Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) for the last two decades.  Despite its tremendous success, IPv4 is showing signs of strain especially in its fast depleting IP address space and its growing security concerns.  IPv6 preserves everything good in today's Internet, and adds much more, such as virtually unlimited IP address space to connect everyone and everything, stateless auto-configuration, seamless mobility, automated network management, mandated security and new optional service levels.

 

 

 

About IPv6 Forum Bangladesh

 

The IPv6 Forum Bangladesh is a chapter of the IPv6 Forum dedicated to the advancement and propagation of IPv6 in Bangladesh. Comprised of individual members, as opposed to corporate sponsors, its mission is to provide technical leadership and innovative thought for the successful integration of IPv6 into all facets of networking and telecommunications infrastructure, present and future.

 

 

About IPv6 Forum

 

The IPv6 Forum is a world-wide consortium of international Internet service providers (ISPs) and National Research & Education Networks (NRENs), with a mission to promote IPv6 by improving market and user awareness, creating a quality and secure New Generation Internet and allowing world-wide equitable access to knowledge and technology.  The key focus of the IPv6 Forum today is to provide technical guidance for the deployment of IPv6.  IPv6 Summits are organized by the IPv6 Forum and staged in various locations around the world to provide industry and market with the best available information on this rapidly advancing technology.  Please visit http://www.ipv6forum.com  

 
 
       

      Organization Contact:

      AHM Bazlur Rahman, Joint Convener  ceo at bnnrc.net

       

      Mr. Sohel Awrangzeb,  Member Secretary 

      sohel.awrangzeb at gmail.com

       

      Mr. S M Altaf Hossain, National Convener,  smaltaf at gmail.com

       

       
      
      IPv6 Forum Contact:
      Latif Ladid

      Luxembourg

      +352 30 71 34

      Latif.ladid at ipv6forum.com 

       
     

 

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100107/66b7e1d3/attachment.htm>


From lisa  Thu Jan  7 13:40:20 2010
From: lisa (Lisa Horner)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:40:20 -0000
Subject: [IRP] Wanted: Researcher for Freedom of Expression programme
References: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5B22@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2FF0@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2FF1@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>

Dear all

Global Partners is looking for a researcher, based in London, to help develop our work on freedom of expression and networked communications.  Please could you forward the attached job ad to anyone you think might be interested? 

Apologies for cross posting.

Thanks and all the best,

Lisa

___________________________________________________________

Lisa Horner
Head of Research & Policy  Global Partners and Associates
338 City Road, London, EC1V 2PY, UK
Office: + 44 207 239 8251     Mobile: +44 7867 795859

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

PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY

 

Dear friends, 

 

Global Partners is looking for a researcher to join our Freedom of Expression and Communications programme.  The researcher will developing the programme, assist with current projects, conducting research, drafting reports, developing multi-stakeholder networks and managing events.  The ideal candidate will have:

?         an interest in communications, media, human rights and/or freedom of expression in national and international contexts; 

?         excellent research skills; 

?         excellent writing skills in English - able to draft concise and coherent reports for external circulation; 

?         very strong interpersonal skills - personable, friendly, reliable, with a professional attitude; 

?         confidence and presence to conduct meetings and talk to a variety of audiences, including public policy makers. 

 

This is a full-time contract, initially until September 2010 but hopefully leading to a permanent position, dependent on funding. Salary is ?22k - ?26k pa pro-rata, dependent on experience. 

 

Closing date for applications is 19th January 2010, 12pm (midday). 

 

Please see the attached document for a more detailed description of the job and the person we're looking for, and details on how to apply. 

 

Kind regards,

Niamh

 

 

Niamh McClean, Chief Operating Officer     Global Partners & Associates

338 City Road, Islington, London EC1V 2PY

Office: + 44 20 723 98253                             Mobile: +44 (0) 7984 199 113

hello at global-partners.co.uk                        www.global-partners.co.uk <http://www.global-partners.co.uk/> 

 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100107/2633b594/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Researcher - Freedom of Expression JD and PS.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 419432 bytes
Desc: Researcher - Freedom of Expression JD and PS.pdf
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100107/2633b594/attachment-0001.obj>


From johan.hallenborg  Thu Jan  7 14:30:01 2010
From: johan.hallenborg (johan.hallenborg at foreign.ministry.se)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 13:30:01 +0100
Subject: [IRP] Ang. Re: #1 meeting of 2010
In-Reply-To: <4d976d8e1001060704n64b5ca7dx12846d9e9f6a1b5f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <02B7B0535E8ACB4FACB46EDC26C94C5C02782F6CFF@fhex2>
	<4d976d8e1001060704n64b5ca7dx12846d9e9f6a1b5f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <OF6AFE0A9C.7280104E-ONC12576A4.00442D47-C12576A4.0044B130@ministry.se>

Hi all,

Greetings from snowy Stockholm and wishing you all the best for the new 
year!

I'm afraid I won't be able to join tonight. 

Best,
Johan 



?mnessakkunnig/Special Adviser
International Law and Human Rights Department
Ministry for Foreign Affairs
Malmtorgsgatan 3
103 39 Stockholm
tel: +46 8 405 5573
fax: +46 8 405 5930



Fr?n:
Max Senges <max at supercoolschool.com>
Till:
Robert Guerra <guerra at freedomhouse.org>
Kopia:
"Robert_Bodle at mail.msj.edu" <Robert_Bodle at mail.msj.edu>, 
"bcompanyp at uoc.edu" <bcompanyp at uoc.edu>, 
"irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" 
<irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>, "M.I.Franklin at gold.ac.uk" 
<M.I.Franklin at gold.ac.uk>, "anja at cis-india.org" <anja at cis-india.org>, 
"lmovius at usc.edu" <lmovius at usc.edu>, "matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at" 
<matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at>, "rafik.dammak at gmail.com" 
<rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, "emily at laidlaw.eu" <emily at laidlaw.eu>, 
"graciela at rits.org.br" <graciela at rits.org.br>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" 
<rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>, "jac at apcwomen.org" <jac at apcwomen.org>, 
"caffsouza at gmail.com" <caffsouza at gmail.com>, "Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int" 
<Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int>, "a.beccalli at unesco.org" <a.beccalli at unesco.org>, 
"lisa at global-partners.co.uk" <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>, 
"shailam at jaycopanels.com" <shailam at jaycopanels.com>, "ocl at gih.com" 
<ocl at gih.com>, "johan.hallenborg at foreign.ministry.se" 
<johan.hallenborg at foreign.ministry.se>, "skorpio at gmail.com" 
<skorpio at gmail.com>, "sylvia.caras at gmail.com" <sylvia.caras at gmail.com>, 
"malte.spitz at gruene.de" <malte.spitz at gruene.de>, "dr.heike.jensen at web.de" 
<dr.heike.jensen at web.de>, "Elfa.Gylfadottir at mrn.stjr.is" 
<Elfa.Gylfadottir at mrn.stjr.is>, "me at isaacmao.com" <me at isaacmao.com>
Datum:
2010-01-06 16:04
?rende:
Re: #1 meeting of 2010



Hi everyone

@Robert of course you are right about finding a time that works for most - 
it's just a pretty tedious process and you'll never accomodate everybody 
(I'd suggest we alternate every month)

oh and some agenda points are in my initial mail

I setup a skype confcall to which you can also dial-in from phones

Attached is a calendar event for this conference. 
Conference Room Number: 3878018
To use the HiDef Conferencing? service, you may call from: 

Skype:: +9900827043878018

Phone Numbers (Toll)
Country
Number 
*Long distance costs apply
United States
+1 (201) 793-9022
Canada
+1 (201) 793-9022
Austria
+43 (0) 82040115470
Belgium
+32 (0) 70357134
France
+33 (0) 826109071
Germany
+49 01805009527
Ireland
+353 (0) 818270968
Italy
+39 848390177
Spain
+34 902885791
Switzerland
+41 (0) 848560397
United Kingdom
+44 (0) 8700990931


hear you tomorrow

max

--

"The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
?William Gibson

...........................................................................

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com

Mobile: 01622122755


On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Robert Guerra <guerra at freedomhouse.org> 
wrote:
Max,

Noon tomorrow (EST) - fine with me. I will only be able to be on the call 
for approx 45 min. If there's an agenda, please send in advance

please consult with everyone next time in regards to the time. Would be 
good to find a time that works for those in east asia (china, japan, etc) 


Regards

Robert 
--- 
Sent via Blackberry. 

Robert Guerra 
Project Director, Internet Freedom 
Freedom House 
Tel/SMS +1 202 569 1800 
Office +1 202 296 5101

From: maxsenges at gmail.com <maxsenges at gmail.com> 
To: Bodle, Robert <Robert_Bodle at mail.msj.edu> 
Cc: Biel Company Perez <bcompanyp at uoc.edu>; 
irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org <
irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>; Robert Guerra; M.I.Franklin <
M.I.Franklin at gold.ac.uk>; anja <anja at cis-india.org>; Lauren Movius <
lmovius at usc.edu>; Matthias C. Kettemann <matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at>; 
rafik, dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>; Emily Laidlaw <emily at laidlaw.eu>; 
Graciela Selaimen <graciela at rits.org.br>; rudi.vansnick <
rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>; Jac sm Kee <jac at apcwomen.org>; Carlos, Affonso 
Pereira de Souza <caffsouza at gmail.com>; HIBBARD Lee <Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int>; 
Andrea Beccalli <a.beccalli at unesco.org>; Lisa Horner <
lisa at global-partners.co.uk>; Shaila Mistry <shailam at jaycopanels.com>; 
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>; johan.hallenborg <
johan.hallenborg at foreign.ministry.se>; Jaco Aizenman <skorpio at gmail.com>; 
Sylvia Caras <sylvia.caras at gmail.com>; malte.spitz <malte.spitz at gruene.de
>; Heike Jensen <dr.heike.jensen at web.de>; Elfa.Gylfadottir <
Elfa.Gylfadottir at mrn.stjr.is>; me <me at isaacmao.com> 
Sent: Tue Jan 05 15:14:24 2010

Subject: #1 meeting of 2010 

Hi IRPlers

Should we meet this thrusday at 18.00 CET or 9am PST? I think it would be 
important to discuss this years work.

a) think about a last round of input for the charter 
b) the mandate for the expert review group
c) a procedure/schedule for choosing the chair

I can provide a telco where people can dial-in using a local land-line or 
we can use the conf-call system we used before? 

best
max



http://twitter.com/netrights

http://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples





________________________________________
From: maxsenges at gmail.com [maxsenges at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Max Senges [
max at supercoolschool.com]

Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 6:41 AM
To: Biel Company Perez
Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; Bodle, Robert; Robert 
Guerra; M.I.Franklin; anja; Lauren Movius; Matthias C. Kettemann; rafik, 
dammak; Emily Laidlaw; Graciela Selaimen; rudi.vansnick; Jac sm Kee; 
Carlos, Affonso Pereira de Souza; HIBBARD Lee; Andrea Beccalli; Lisa 
Horner; Shaila Mistry; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; johan.hallenborg; Jaco 
Aizenman; Sylvia Caras; malte.spitz; Heike Jensen; Elfa.Gylfadottir; me

Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP-DC elections results

Dear Biel, dear steering committee peers, dear IRPlers

@Biel: thanks for managing the election process. we all know that error is 
human and while i would have appreciated to work with Heike in the 
steering committee, I am positive that her participation (as well as that 
of the other candidates who ran) will be very valuable and valued no 
matter in whether they are in the steering committee or not.

@the freshly elected steering committee (SC) coleagues:
(1) CONGRATULATIONS - This is going to be an exciting year and I am very 
much looking forward to working with you.

(2) we now have to proceed to elect a chair amongst the 14 SC members. The 
charter simply says elect, which in my understanding could be via vote or 
consensus. I think it would be ideal to find consensus, but let's open the 
floor for nominations and then deliberate.

   I would like to nominate Lisa Horner as IRP Chair. Lisa has been 
continuously furthering the development of our coalition and in fact many 
times she was the leading force behind organizing and running meetings and 
collabowritings. Thanks for all the work you did so far, I hope you accept 
the nomination.

Maybe the easiest would be to have a conference call? I would be happy to 
meet next tuesday or wednesday? Given that we have two SC members from 
Asia I would suggest to stick to the 18.00 CET time, but I am of course 
flexible.

(3) all steering committee members will have to choose whether you want to 
serve one or two years on the steering committee - please announce your 
choice on the list. Our charter states: "IRP will elect a steering 
committee, at least two of which will serve for one year and at least two 
of which will serve for two years. [...] Nominees will select which term 
length they prefer.

     I am happy to serve for two years.

(4) I propose that we setup a separate steering committee mailing-list 
which all SC members give high priority when dealing with their email. We 
all know that email traffic can be overwhelming and to have a method to 
quickly discuss and decide on a time-critical matter (e.g. whether or not 
to endorse an appeal or other document) would be very helpful.

@all IRPlers: thanks for voting and for your continued interest and 
participation in our cause! The number of 44 votes might sound little, 
however this is a significant organizational development from the 8 folks 
who simply volunteered in the first year of the steering committee's 
existence, and the "improvised steering committee" we setup in the wake of 
the merger last year.

In closing, I would be very interested to discuss and hear your perception 
of the mandate / schedule for the Expert Review & Consolidation of our 
"Charter of Human Rights and Principles on the Internet" sent by Meryem 
and forwarded by me on Dec. 14th  ("Re: Proposal for IRP Charter 
Revision")

And of course it would be good to have some more community input for the 
Charter itself.

To a good year for Internet Rights and Principles!

Max

--

"The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
?William Gibson

...........................................................................

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com<http://www.maxsenges.com>

Mobile: 01622122755






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100107/0afb158e/attachment-0001.htm>


From Robert_Bodle  Thu Jan  7 18:02:03 2010
From: Robert_Bodle (Bodle, Robert)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:02:03 -0500
Subject: [IRP] #1 meeting of 2010
In-Reply-To: <4c18bd2c1001061542h6f84694el6f656eb86f9df0d7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <02B7B0535E8ACB4FACB46EDC26C94C5C02782F6CFF@fhex2>
	<4d976d8e1001060704n64b5ca7dx12846d9e9f6a1b5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<826948.13316.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com>,
	<4c18bd2c1001061542h6f84694el6f656eb86f9df0d7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <454C400F0F7C9B479EF31631E311C325678B323638@MSJEMAIL01.msj.edu>

i'll be there. talk soon!

robert bodle

http://twitter.com/netrights
http://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples
________________________________________
From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of Lauren Movius [lmovius at usc.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 6:42 PM
To: shaila mistry
Cc: Elfa.Gylfadottir at mrn.stjr.is; shailam at jaycopanels.com; a.beccalli at unesco.org; Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int; Robert Guerra; caffsouza at gmail.com; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; malte.spitz at gruene.de; bcompanyp at uoc.edu; me at isaacmao.com; johan.hallenborg at foreign.ministry.se; graciela at rits.org.br
Subject: Re: [IRP] #1 meeting of 2010

I'll be there.

Cheers,
Lauren

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:45 AM, shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com<mailto:shailam at yahoo.com>> wrote:
Happy New Year!!!
Ill be there.
Shaila

Life is too short ....challenge the rules
Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly
Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming!



________________________________
From: Max Senges <max at supercoolschool.com<mailto:max at supercoolschool.com>>
To: Robert Guerra <guerra at freedomhouse.org<mailto:guerra at freedomhouse.org>>
Cc: "Elfa.Gylfadottir at mrn.stjr.is<mailto:Elfa.Gylfadottir at mrn.stjr.is>" <Elfa.Gylfadottir at mrn.stjr.is<mailto:Elfa.Gylfadottir at mrn.stjr.is>>; "a.beccalli at unesco.org<mailto:a.beccalli at unesco.org>" <a.beccalli at unesco.org<mailto:a.beccalli at unesco.org>>; "shailam at jaycopanels.com<mailto:shailam at jaycopanels.com>" <shailam at jaycopanels.com<mailto:shailam at jaycopanels.com>>; "Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int<mailto:Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int>" <Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int<mailto:Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int>>; "graciela at rits.org.br<mailto:graciela at rits.org.br>" <graciela at rits.org.br<mailto:graciela at rits.org.br>>; "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org<mailto:irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>" <irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org<mailto:irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>>; "caffsouza at gmail.com<mailto:caffsouza at gmail.com>" <caffsouza at gmail.com<mailto:caffsouza at gmail.com>>; "malte.spitz at gruene.de<mailto:malte.spitz at gruene.de>" <malte.spitz at gruene.de<mailto:malte.spitz at gruene.de>>; "bcompanyp at uoc.edu<mailto:bcompanyp at uoc.edu>" <bcompanyp at uoc.edu<mailto:bcompanyp at uoc.edu>>; "johan.hallenborg at foreign.ministry.se<mailto:johan.hallenborg at foreign.ministry.se>" <johan.hallenborg at foreign.ministry.se<mailto:johan.hallenborg at foreign.ministry.se>>; "me at isaacmao.com<mailto:me at isaacmao.com>" <me at isaacmao.com<mailto:me at isaacmao.com>>
Sent: Wed, January 6, 2010 7:04:24 AM
Subject: Re: [IRP] #1 meeting of 2010

Hi everyone

@Robert of course you are right about finding a time that works for most - it's just a pretty tedious process and you'll never accomodate everybody (I'd suggest we alternate every month)

oh and some agenda points are in my initial mail

I setup a skype confcall to which you can also dial-in from phones

Attached is a calendar event for this conference.

 *   Conference Room Number: 3878018

To use the HiDef Conferencing? service, you may call from:

Skype:: +9900827043878018

Phone Numbers (Toll)
Country Number
*Long distance costs apply

United States   +1 (201) 793-9022
Canada  +1 (201) 793-9022
Austria +43 (0) 82040115470
Belgium +32 (0) 70357134
France  +33 (0) 826109071
Germany +49 01805009527
Ireland +353 (0) 818270968
Italy   +39 848390177
Spain   +34 902885791
Switzerland     +41 (0) 848560397
United Kingdom  +44 (0) 8700990931


hear you tomorrow

max

--

"The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
?William Gibson

...........................................................................

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com<http://www.maxsenges.com>

Mobile: 01622122755


On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Robert Guerra <guerra at freedomhouse.org<mailto:guerra at freedomhouse.org>> wrote:
Max,

Noon tomorrow (EST) - fine with me. I will only be able to be on the call for approx 45 min. If there's an agenda, please send in advance

please consult with everyone next time in regards to the time. Would be good to find a time that works for those in east asia (china, japan, etc)


Regards

Robert
---
Sent via Blackberry.

Robert Guerra
Project Director, Internet Freedom
Freedom House
Tel/SMS +1 202 569 1800
Office +1 202 296 5101

________________________________
From: maxsenges at gmail.com<mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com> <maxsenges at gmail.com<mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com>>
To: Bodle, Robert <Robert_Bodle at mail.msj.edu<mailto:Robert_Bodle at mail.msj.edu>>
Cc: Biel Company Perez <bcompanyp at uoc.edu<mailto:bcompanyp at uoc.edu>>; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org<mailto:irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org> <irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org<mailto:irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>>; Robert Guerra; M.I.Franklin <M.I.Franklin at gold.ac.uk<mailto:M.I.Franklin at gold.ac.uk>>; anja <anja at cis-india.org<mailto:anja at cis-india.org>>; Lauren Movius <lmovius at usc.edu<mailto:lmovius at usc.edu>>; Matthias C. Kettemann <matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at<mailto:matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at>>; rafik, dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>; Emily Laidlaw <emily at laidlaw.eu<mailto:emily at laidlaw.eu>>; Graciela Selaimen <graciela at rits.org.br<mailto:graciela at rits.org.br>>; rudi.vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be<mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>; Jac sm Kee <jac at apcwomen.org<mailto:jac at apcwomen.org>>; Carlos, Affonso Pereira de Souza <caffsouza at gmail.com<mailto:caffsouza at gmail.com>>; HIBBARD Lee <Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int<mailto:Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int>>; Andrea Beccalli <a.beccalli at unesco.org<mailto:a.beccalli at unesco.org>>; Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk<mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk>>; Shaila Mistry <shailam at jaycopanels.com<mailto:shailam at jaycopanels.com>>; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com<mailto:ocl at gih.com>>; johan.hallenborg <johan.hallenborg at foreign.ministry.se<mailto:johan.hallenborg at foreign.ministry.se>>; Jaco Aizenman <skorpio at gmail.com<mailto:skorpio at gmail.com>>; Sylvia Caras <sylvia.caras at gmail.com<mailto:sylvia.caras at gmail.com>>; malte.spitz <malte.spitz at gruene.de<mailto:malte.spitz at gruene.de>>; Heike Jensen <dr.heike.jensen at web.de<mailto:dr.heike.jensen at web.de>>; Elfa.Gylfadottir <Elfa.Gylfadottir at mrn.stjr.is<mailto:Elfa.Gylfadottir at mrn.stjr.is>>; me <me at isaacmao.com<mailto:me at isaacmao.com>>
Sent: Tue Jan 05 15:14:24 2010

Subject: #1 meeting of 2010

Hi IRPlers

Should we meet this thrusday at 18.00 CET or 9am PST? I think it would be important to discuss this years work.

a) think about a last round of input for the charter
b) the mandate for the expert review group
c) a procedure/schedule for choosing the chair

I can provide a telco where people can dial-in using a local land-line or we can use the conf-call system we used before?

best
max



http://twitter.com/netrights

http://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples





________________________________________
From: maxsenges at gmail.com<mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com> [maxsenges at gmail.com<mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com>] On Behalf Of Max Senges [max at supercoolschool.com<mailto:max at supercoolschool.com>]

Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 6:41 AM
To: Biel Company Perez
Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org<mailto:irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>; Bodle, Robert; Robert Guerra; M.I.Franklin; anja; Lauren Movius; Matthias C. Kettemann; rafik, dammak; Emily Laidlaw; Graciela Selaimen; rudi.vansnick; Jac sm Kee; Carlos, Affonso Pereira de Souza; HIBBARD Lee; Andrea Beccalli; Lisa Horner; Shaila Mistry; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; johan.hallenborg; Jaco Aizenman; Sylvia Caras; malte.spitz; Heike Jensen; Elfa.Gylfadottir; me

Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP-DC elections results

Dear Biel, dear steering committee peers, dear IRPlers

@Biel: thanks for managing the election process. we all know that error is human and while i would have appreciated to work with Heike in the steering committee, I am positive that her participation (as well as that of the other candidates who ran) will be very valuable and valued no matter in whether they are in the steering committee or not.

@the freshly elected steering committee (SC) coleagues:
(1) CONGRATULATIONS - This is going to be an exciting year and I am very much looking forward to working with you.

(2) we now have to proceed to elect a chair amongst the 14 SC members. The charter simply says elect, which in my understanding could be via vote or consensus. I think it would be ideal to find consensus, but let's open the floor for nominations and then deliberate.

   I would like to nominate Lisa Horner as IRP Chair. Lisa has been continuously furthering the development of our coalition and in fact many times she was the leading force behind organizing and running meetings and collabowritings. Thanks for all the work you did so far, I hope you accept the nomination.

Maybe the easiest would be to have a conference call? I would be happy to meet next tuesday or wednesday? Given that we have two SC members from Asia I would suggest to stick to the 18.00 CET time, but I am of course flexible.

(3) all steering committee members will have to choose whether you want to serve one or two years on the steering committee - please announce your choice on the list. Our charter states: "IRP will elect a steering committee, at least two of which will serve for one year and at least two of which will serve for two years. [...] Nominees will select which term length they prefer.

     I am happy to serve for two years.

(4) I propose that we setup a separate steering committee mailing-list which all SC members give high priority when dealing with their email. We all know that email traffic can be overwhelming and to have a method to quickly discuss and decide on a time-critical matter (e.g. whether or not to endorse an appeal or other document) would be very helpful.

@all IRPlers: thanks for voting and for your continued interest and participation in our cause! The number of 44 votes might sound little, however this is a significant organizational development from the 8 folks who simply volunteered in the first year of the steering committee's existence, and the "improvised steering committee" we setup in the wake of the merger last year.

In closing, I would be very interested to discuss and hear your perception of the mandate / schedule for the Expert Review & Consolidation of our "Charter of Human Rights and Principles on the Internet" sent by Meryem and forwarded by me on Dec. 14th  ("Re: Proposal for IRP Charter Revision")

And of course it would be good to have some more community input for the Charter itself.

To a good year for Internet Rights and Principles!

Max

--

"The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
?William Gibson

...........................................................................

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com<http://www.maxsenges.com><http://www.maxsenges.com>

Mobile: 01622122755






_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org<mailto:IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org




--
Lauren Movius
PhD Candidate and Wallis Annenberg Graduate Research Fellow
Annenberg School for Communication
University of Southern California


From maxsenges  Thu Jan  7 20:17:27 2010
From: maxsenges (Max Senges)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 19:17:27 +0100
Subject: [IRP] WARNING! Last chance to contribute to the Charter! (& Meeting
	minutes)
Message-ID: <4d976d8e1001071017k528f14dbs4f64aee1f45fb1ec@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everybody

I tried to take minutes - as always hard job on a conference call :-)
anyways thanks for the productive meeting

Participants: Robert Guerra, Lisa Horner, Max Senges, Lee Hibbart, Marianne
Franklin, Robert Bodle, Carlos Affonso, Anja Kovaks, Shaila Mitry

we want to submit a IRP statement on the IGF process (open consultations) by
the 15th -- Marianne will send a message requesting comments from all of
you!

- Max checks whether the Charter on Free Culture developed by the Free
Culture Forum want to join our charter and report back

- There will be an IGF Germany and IRP has been suggested as one of the
theme

- we are looking to have some of the experts at the eurodig / IGF
prep-meeting to explain the consolidated charter and discuss with the
coalition; the decision is to be made on the list

- new steering committee and election of new chair: max will ask the
remaining steering committee members (who have not yet done so) to either
nominate someone or endorse Lisa as new chair.

- we want to have steering committee members (and possibly others) to agree
to take up roles/responsibilities for the forthcoming year

- PLEASE contribute to the charter!!! here is the latest charter version:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AeybA8_Lt-gwYWpjczg2cDlkeDJzXzMxYzQ5cXF3Yzc&hl=de
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AeybA8_Lt-gwYWpjczg2cDlkeDJzXzI5ZnJ0dnR0YzM&hl=de




mapping work in 2010
- please contribute events to robert brodle so he can put them on the
facebook event calendar
- Max volunteered to organize some kind of campaigning once we have the
consolidated charter
Freedom House is organizing: Feb 2010 Human Rights Summit

ok sorry that the conferencing broke down completely at the end


all the best
max

--

"The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
?William Gibson

...........................................................................

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com

Mobile: 01622122755
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100107/ce935d5a/attachment.htm>


From lisa  Thu Jan  7 20:46:00 2010
From: lisa (Lisa Horner)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 18:46:00 -0000
Subject: [IRP] WARNING! Last chance to contribute to the Charter! (&
	Meetingminutes)
References: <4d976d8e1001071017k528f14dbs4f64aee1f45fb1ec@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B3007@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>


Thanks Max for this.  Sorry that the quality of my connection made it really difficult to moderate and converse properly.  I think we should consider moving to a phone-based system based on local call rates as Max suggested, unless anyone has any objections?  Shall we try it as a trial for our next meeting, which I propose for Thursday 4th February.  Whether chair of the coalition or not, I volunteer to send out a draft agenda for the next meeting a week beforehand, along with a brief update on our work to form the basis of discussion.

Lauren has just sent me a message to say that she was also on the call.

I'll write again soon to solicit ideas for improving our coordination and communication,including coalition members volunteering to be responsible for certain things.  I'll do that after the 15th, once we've put our statmement together for the open consultations (kindly led by Marianne).

Great to catch up with everyone, albeit it in a crackly, broken-up way!

Lisa


-----Original Message-----
From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org on behalf of Max Senges
Sent: Thu 07/01/2010 18:17
To: irp
Subject: [IRP] WARNING! Last chance to contribute to the Charter! (& Meetingminutes)
 
Hi everybody

I tried to take minutes - as always hard job on a conference call :-)
anyways thanks for the productive meeting

Participants: Robert Guerra, Lisa Horner, Max Senges, Lee Hibbart, Marianne
Franklin, Robert Bodle, Carlos Affonso, Anja Kovaks, Shaila Mitry

we want to submit a IRP statement on the IGF process (open consultations) by
the 15th -- Marianne will send a message requesting comments from all of
you!

- Max checks whether the Charter on Free Culture developed by the Free
Culture Forum want to join our charter and report back

- There will be an IGF Germany and IRP has been suggested as one of the
theme

- we are looking to have some of the experts at the eurodig / IGF
prep-meeting to explain the consolidated charter and discuss with the
coalition; the decision is to be made on the list

- new steering committee and election of new chair: max will ask the
remaining steering committee members (who have not yet done so) to either
nominate someone or endorse Lisa as new chair.

- we want to have steering committee members (and possibly others) to agree
to take up roles/responsibilities for the forthcoming year

- PLEASE contribute to the charter!!! here is the latest charter version:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AeybA8_Lt-gwYWpjczg2cDlkeDJzXzMxYzQ5cXF3Yzc&hl=de
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AeybA8_Lt-gwYWpjczg2cDlkeDJzXzI5ZnJ0dnR0YzM&hl=de




mapping work in 2010
- please contribute events to robert brodle so he can put them on the
facebook event calendar
- Max volunteered to organize some kind of campaigning once we have the
consolidated charter
Freedom House is organizing: Feb 2010 Human Rights Summit

ok sorry that the conferencing broke down completely at the end


all the best
max

--

"The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet."
-William Gibson

...........................................................................

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com

Mobile: 01622122755


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100107/c2ff6a03/attachment-0001.htm>


From cos02mf  Thu Jan  7 20:49:35 2010
From: cos02mf (M I Franklin)
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:49:35 +0100
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
Message-ID: <0376F55255E23F7B1F29B9EC@[192.168.1.64]>

Dear All

Greetings. To follow on from Max's speed-of-light sending out of the 
minutes of today's IRP phone-conference, this email is a call for 
contributions to a statement from the DC as part of the open consultations 
in preparation for Vilnius later this year.

Fouad's invitation for ideas and comments for the MAG meetings is pasted 
below fyi so the DC statement also contributes to this side of the process; 
point 4 in particular.

In short, the IRP statement can cover:

1) Contributions that take stock of last year's IGF in Sharm el Sheikh
2) Suggestions for the agenda and format of the Vilnius meeting.

Time is short, so we need your comments by Monday at the latest. I will 
then cobble up a first draft for one more round. The statement has to be 
ready to go by 15 January.

All input welcome on either or both of the two aspects above.

Thanks.
ciao
MF

--On Thursday, January 07, 2010 6:08 +0500 Fouad Bajwa 
<fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Friends,
>
> As you are all aware about the IGF Open Consultation and MAG meetings
> in February 2010, I would like to request those people that cannot
> participate but would like to be heard to forward their interventions
> so that we can read and extend them on the floor during the Open
> Consultation. I further request statements to be brief, concise and to
> the point as the floor has to be passed on to the wide participation
> during the consultation.
>
> As for the MAG, we have a strong Civil Society MAG group including
> myself. The MAG is responsible for suggesting the design/organization
> of the IGF2010. IF you have concerns regarding the programming of the
> IGF2010, you can forward your statements for intervention to me so
> that they can be shared amongst our other team members. Once again,
> the requirement for being brief, concise and to the point applies here
> as well!
>
> Ideas for interventions can involve statements such as but not limited to:
>
> 1. Issues surfaced during the IGF2009 in Sharam.
> 2. Developing Country Participation/Inclusion Issues.
> 3. Main Program / Main Theme Issues for IGF2010.
> 4. Human Rights Issues/Rights on the Internet Issues.
> 5. Development Agenda for Internet Governance Issues.
> 6. Youth and Gender Participation Issues.
>
> For your convenience and live correspondence, I will be available on
> Skype (ID:fouadbajwa , kindly don't forget to introduce yourself
> please while adding me) throughout the three days of meetings (1 day
> open consultation + 2 days MAG meetings).
>
> I look forward to assisting your interventions.
>
> --
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> Advisor & Researcher
> ICT4D & Internet Governance
> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF)
> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
> My Blog: Internet's Governance
> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
> Follow my Tweets:
> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
> MAG Interview:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrig
> htsandprinciples.org



Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
Media & Communications
Goldsmiths, University of London
New Cross
London SE14 6NW
United Kingdom
Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php



From lisa  Thu Jan  7 21:07:37 2010
From: lisa (Lisa Horner)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 19:07:37 -0000
Subject: [IRP] Proposal for IRP Charter Revision
References: <FFF32CA8-2E99-4978-A95E-BCB0D30711CB@lip6.fr>
	<4d976d8e0912140622te752d5bq24855a62f7ca5a7e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B3009@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>

Hi all

There was a request in the Conference call to re-cap on the charter process.  Please see the original emails from Max and Meryem pasted at the bottom of the email which outline the process agreed so far.

Suggested changes discussed on the list and call include:

1) Allowing further comments on the Charter by the IRP and others until 15TH JANUARY.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AeybA8_Lt-gwYWpjczg2cDlkeDJzXzMxYzQ5cXF3Yzc&hl=de

2) Shifting the deadline for final comments on the new version of the charter to the 15th AUGUST, to be incorporated by the experts into a final version of the charter by 1ST SEPTEMBER to give us time to circulate before the IGF.

3)Holding an in-depth meeting of at least half a day to allow experts to justify and discuss the new draft in Spring 2010.  We have discussed whether the open consultations in Geneva (May 10th) might be a better opportunity to have the meeting than the Eurodig as a geographically broader range of people are likely to be there.  We'll also have remote participation.  PLEASE COULD ALL MEMBERS SEND ME AN EMAIL TO SAY IF YOU INTEND TO ATTEND THE OPEN CONSULTATIONS IN GENEVA AND/OR THE EURODIG IN MADRID IN APRIL.  We can then make a decision about the best place to have the meeting.  The expert group is primarily European at the moment, and the dates of the european meetinggs have already been decided.  It would therefore make sense to attach our meeting to one of the European events.  But if anyone has other ideas, please say.

4) Applying to the regional and national IGFs to have a workshop or session to encourage wider discussion of the charter, and/or IRP related discussion.  We need people who will be attending these to volunteer to take the lead with that.  So far, Carlos has agreed to take the lead for the Latin America regional IGF, and Max is taking the lead for the German national IGF.  Can anyone volunteer for regional IGFs in East Africa, West Africa, Central Africa and Eurodig?  Any other confirmed regional IGFs?

Please do send your responses.  

Thanks and all the best,
Lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: Max Senges [mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com]
Sent: Mon 14/12/2009 14:22
To: Meryem Marzouki; irp
Cc: Lisa Horner; Rikke Frank Joergensen; Wolfgang Benedek
Subject: Re: Proposal for IRP Charter Revision
 
Deal IRPlers

please find a suggestion on planning for the Charter review process attached and copied below

Best
Max


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Meryem Marzouki <Meryem.Marzouki at lip6.fr>
Date: Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Subject: Proposal for IRP Charter Revision
To: Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>, Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com>
Cc: Meryem Marzouki <Meryem.Marzouki at lip6.fr>, Rikke Frank Joergensen <rfj at humanrights.dk>, Wolfgang Benedek <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>


Dear Lisa and Max,

First of all, sorry for my silence till now: I'm overwhelmed with work, in addition to many NGO activities..

Please find attached the proposal for the IRP Charter Revision process. This is a brief summary of discussions between Rikke, Wolfgang and myself at IGF 2009, taking into account the discussion during IRP coalition meeting in Sharm El Sheikh, as well as some latest developments on the IRP coalition list and in our exchanges (EuroDIG as a main milestone, taking into account the Free Culture Forum Charter, in case the proposal to merge efforts is pursued).
Rikke and Wolfgang have already agreed on this summary, so this is our common final proposal to the coalition.

Feel free to share this proposal with the coalition, to collect and summarize comments from its members until the end of this month, and get back to us in early January with the coalition latest comments and final version of the charter that we should work on, obviously provided that the coalition accepts our proposal.

As far as I'm concerned, I'll be travelling abroad starting from the end of this week, thus not available for further discussions. I suspect Rikke and Wolfgang will be very busy too in this period.

Best regards,
Meryem Marzouki




IRP Coalition Charter Revision Process


Proposal from the Human Rights Expert Group to the IRP Coalition


(Summary of discussion during IGF 2009)

Meryem Marzouki - 14 December 2009

 

 

 

This proposal is a summary of the meeting held during IGF 2009 between the first three identified HR experts (Wolfgang Benedek, Rikke Frank Joergensen, Meryem Marzouki), followed by a discussion with the IRP coalition during its meeting of 18/11/2009. If accepted, this proposal will be the basis of the HR expert group work to produce the final charter, to be launched at IGF 2010.

 

Inputs to be taken into account, besides international human rights instruments and relevant literature:

-       IRP draft charter, as of 31st December 2009 (main input):

(http://irc.wiki.apc.org/index.php/Charter_of_Human_Rights_and_Principles_on_the_Internet)

-       APC Charter: (http://www.apc.org/en/node/5677) 

-       Free Culture Forum Coalition draft charter: (http://www.fcforum.net <http://www.fcforum.net/> ) 

-       WSIS HR Caucus related documents, in particular the guideline for a HR approach

(http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/hris-caucus-input.pdf) 

-       International Symposium on the Information Society, Human Dignity and Human Rights Geneva: "Statement on Human Rights, Human Dignity and the Information Society":

(http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/pdhre-statement-en.html) 

-       Other inputs if found relevant by the HR expert group in the course of the process.

 

Timeline:

-       Until 31st December 2009: further edits and comments by IRP members and agreement on the HR expert group work program (methodology and milestones). IRP representatives should provide last version (as of 31st December) of IRP charter to HR expert group.

-       From 1st January to 25 April 2010: HR expert group develop a first draft of the charter 

-       EuroDIG 2010 (29-30 April 2010, Madrid): first round of comments by IRP coalition and other EuroDIG participants. Subject to feasibility: organize a closed HR experts, organizations and institutions meeting.

-       From 1st May to 31st May 2010: Consultation with other HR experts and HR organizations and institutions.

-       From 1st June to 30 June 2010: HR expert group consolidates the draft

-       From 1st July to 31st August 2010: Latest (minor) comments by IRP coalition. Long period due to summer holidays. Synthesis of these comments to be provided to HR expert group by IRP representatives (this is needed given that only 10 days left for final consolidation)

-       From 1st September to 10 September: HR expert group consolidates the draft with latest comments.

-       IGF 2010 (14-17 September 2010, Vilnius): public launch of the charter

 

 

Structure and Methodology:

-       Structure: the final outcome will focus on a) the substantive rights and b) their realization, however not within the current structure in two different sections ("rights" and "principles" in the current IRP draft charter). The problem with two sections is that they present rights and principles as different layers, whereas principles - within HR terminology - represent the foundation of rights. We understand that the coalition wish to address "implementation principles", and are optimistic that this may be accomplished within the proposed Matrix model below. 

-       Methodology: the rough methodology, at this step, is to work using a matrix, where rights (article by article) are crossed with different layers (from physical to usage). The idea is to translate the rights while providing the requirements for their realization at each layer, a layer also corresponding to a category of actor. The requirements (the elements of the matrix) could be positive or negative, depending on the given right and the given layer. Moreover, the requirements could be of different kind: legal, economical, technical, behavioral, etc. Depending on progress, outcome and discussion results after the first round of consultations (April-May 2010), the IRP coalition could still consider working on implementation guidelines.

 

HR Expert Group:

-       Wolfgang Benedek (AT)

-       Rikke Frank  Joergensen (DK)

-       Meryem Marzouki (FR) - Group coordinator

-       Andrew Rens (ZA) - TBC (proposed by Anriette Esterhuysen)

-       Others experts from the South (Latin America, Asia) - Identification in process

 



--
Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
Email: Meryem.Marzouki at lip6.fr
Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
IRIS (Imaginons un r?seau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100107/30fd6748/attachment.htm>


From Robert_Bodle  Thu Jan  7 21:06:24 2010
From: Robert_Bodle (Bodle, Robert)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 14:06:24 -0500
Subject: [IRP] Folllow up on IRP meeting (1/07/10)
Message-ID: <454C400F0F7C9B479EF31631E311C325678B32363A@MSJEMAIL01.msj.edu>

Hello everyone (great hearing everyone?s voice on the conf. call),

Just a short follow up on my part ? 

I wanted to invite everyone to email me announcements for relevant events, meetings, and happenings for Internet Rights and Principles to add to the Facebook Events Calendar. 

The Facebook Events Calendar located on the left hand column of the IRP Facebook fan page can then serve as a visual reminder and planning tool for the Dynamic Coalition. 

Thank you for your participation. 

Cheers, 
Robert Bodle (snowed-in in Ohio)

http://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples 
http://twitter.com/netrights 

________________________________________
From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of M I Franklin [cos02mf at gold.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 1:49 PM
To: irp
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010

Dear All

Greetings. To follow on from Max's speed-of-light sending out of the
minutes of today's IRP phone-conference, this email is a call for
contributions to a statement from the DC as part of the open consultations
in preparation for Vilnius later this year.

Fouad's invitation for ideas and comments for the MAG meetings is pasted
below fyi so the DC statement also contributes to this side of the process;
point 4 in particular.

In short, the IRP statement can cover:

1) Contributions that take stock of last year's IGF in Sharm el Sheikh
2) Suggestions for the agenda and format of the Vilnius meeting.

Time is short, so we need your comments by Monday at the latest. I will
then cobble up a first draft for one more round. The statement has to be
ready to go by 15 January.

All input welcome on either or both of the two aspects above.

Thanks.
ciao
MF

--On Thursday, January 07, 2010 6:08 +0500 Fouad Bajwa
<fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Friends,
>
> As you are all aware about the IGF Open Consultation and MAG meetings
> in February 2010, I would like to request those people that cannot
> participate but would like to be heard to forward their interventions
> so that we can read and extend them on the floor during the Open
> Consultation. I further request statements to be brief, concise and to
> the point as the floor has to be passed on to the wide participation
> during the consultation.
>
> As for the MAG, we have a strong Civil Society MAG group including
> myself. The MAG is responsible for suggesting the design/organization
> of the IGF2010. IF you have concerns regarding the programming of the
> IGF2010, you can forward your statements for intervention to me so
> that they can be shared amongst our other team members. Once again,
> the requirement for being brief, concise and to the point applies here
> as well!
>
> Ideas for interventions can involve statements such as but not limited to:
>
> 1. Issues surfaced during the IGF2009 in Sharam.
> 2. Developing Country Participation/Inclusion Issues.
> 3. Main Program / Main Theme Issues for IGF2010.
> 4. Human Rights Issues/Rights on the Internet Issues.
> 5. Development Agenda for Internet Governance Issues.
> 6. Youth and Gender Participation Issues.
>
> For your convenience and live correspondence, I will be available on
> Skype (ID:fouadbajwa , kindly don't forget to introduce yourself
> please while adding me) throughout the three days of meetings (1 day
> open consultation + 2 days MAG meetings).
>
> I look forward to assisting your interventions.
>
> --
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> Advisor & Researcher
> ICT4D & Internet Governance
> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF)
> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
> My Blog: Internet's Governance
> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
> Follow my Tweets:
> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
> MAG Interview:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrig
> htsandprinciples.org



Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
Media & Communications
Goldsmiths, University of London
New Cross
London SE14 6NW
United Kingdom
Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php

_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org


From donc  Thu Jan  7 21:31:55 2010
From: donc (Don Cameron)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 06:31:55 +1100
Subject: [IRP] WARNING! Last chance to contribute to the Charter!
	(&	Meetingminutes)
In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B3007@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
References: <4d976d8e1001071017k528f14dbs4f64aee1f45fb1ec@mail.gmail.com>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B3007@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
Message-ID: <007901ca8fd0$12d5c710$38815530$@on.net>

Hi all,

 

I'm still getting a handle on the ethos of this group (and trying to
decipher all the acronyms!) however I can offer suggestion on a phone-based
conferencing system if it's of any worth... For monthly teleconferences
between Techsoup colleagues in .au and .us we use the ReadyTalk platform
(http://www.readytalk.com/) - it has proven economical and reliable.

 

Rgds, Don   

 

From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
[mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of Lisa
Horner
Sent: Friday, 8 January 2010 5:46 AM
To: irp
Subject: Re: [IRP] WARNING! Last chance to contribute to the Charter! (&
Meetingminutes)

 

 

Thanks Max for this.  Sorry that the quality of my connection made it really
difficult to moderate and converse properly.  I think we should consider
moving to a phone-based system based on local call rates as Max suggested,
unless anyone has any objections?  Shall we try it as a trial for our next
meeting, which I propose for Thursday 4th February.  Whether chair of the
coalition or not, I volunteer to send out a draft agenda for the next
meeting a week beforehand, along with a brief update on our work to form the
basis of discussion.

Lauren has just sent me a message to say that she was also on the call.

I'll write again soon to solicit ideas for improving our coordination and
communication,including coalition members volunteering to be responsible for
certain things.  I'll do that after the 15th, once we've put our statmement
together for the open consultations (kindly led by Marianne).

Great to catch up with everyone, albeit it in a crackly, broken-up way!

Lisa


-----Original Message-----
From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org on behalf of Max
Senges
Sent: Thu 07/01/2010 18:17
To: irp
Subject: [IRP] WARNING! Last chance to contribute to the Charter! (&
Meetingminutes)

Hi everybody

I tried to take minutes - as always hard job on a conference call :-)
anyways thanks for the productive meeting

Participants: Robert Guerra, Lisa Horner, Max Senges, Lee Hibbart, Marianne
Franklin, Robert Bodle, Carlos Affonso, Anja Kovaks, Shaila Mitry

we want to submit a IRP statement on the IGF process (open consultations) by
the 15th -- Marianne will send a message requesting comments from all of
you!

- Max checks whether the Charter on Free Culture developed by the Free
Culture Forum want to join our charter and report back

- There will be an IGF Germany and IRP has been suggested as one of the
theme

- we are looking to have some of the experts at the eurodig / IGF
prep-meeting to explain the consolidated charter and discuss with the
coalition; the decision is to be made on the list

- new steering committee and election of new chair: max will ask the
remaining steering committee members (who have not yet done so) to either
nominate someone or endorse Lisa as new chair.

- we want to have steering committee members (and possibly others) to agree
to take up roles/responsibilities for the forthcoming year

- PLEASE contribute to the charter!!! here is the latest charter version:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AeybA8_Lt-gwYWpjczg2cDlkeDJzXzMxYzQ5cXF3Yz
c
<http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AeybA8_Lt-gwYWpjczg2cDlkeDJzXzMxYzQ5cXF3Y
zc&hl=de> &hl=de
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AeybA8_Lt-gwYWpjczg2cDlkeDJzXzI5ZnJ0dnR0Yz
M
<http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AeybA8_Lt-gwYWpjczg2cDlkeDJzXzI5ZnJ0dnR0Y
zM&hl=de> &hl=de




mapping work in 2010
- please contribute events to robert brodle so he can put them on the
facebook event calendar
- Max volunteered to organize some kind of campaigning once we have the
consolidated charter
Freedom House is organizing: Feb 2010 Human Rights Summit

ok sorry that the conferencing broke down completely at the end


all the best
max

--

"The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet."
-William Gibson

...........................................................................

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com

Mobile: 01622122755



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100108/ce095c2f/attachment.htm>


From lisa  Fri Jan  8 13:30:38 2010
From: lisa (Lisa Horner)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:30:38 -0000
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
In-Reply-To: <0376F55255E23F7B1F29B9EC@[192.168.1.64]>
References: <0376F55255E23F7B1F29B9EC@[192.168.1.64]>
Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5C31@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>

Thanks for taking the lead with this Marianne.  Some very quick notes
below...would be good to hear people's thoughts and have a discussion
about the options...

1) Contributions that take stock of last year's IGF in Sharm el Sheikh

- Overall, the meeting was well organized. I think things have improved
each year.
- Remote participation seemed to work well.  However, workshop
organizers weren't given much support on how to use it properly and
technicians weren't always on hand.  More information in advance would
be useful.
- A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary sessions reaffirmed the
importance of upholding human rights in the internet age. The challenge
now is to focus on how that can actually be achieved in practice, and
what roles different stakeholders can/should play.
- Discussions, especially in plenary, seemed to be distracted by the
issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. (does anyone
have an update on the status of those discussions?)
- Links between the main sessions and the workshops still weren't great.
- Main sessions based around the "traditional" categories of openness,
diversity etc felt a bit stale.  The new themes introduced were
refreshing.
- main sessions without a large number of panelists worked better, but
we need to find better ways of ensuring that wider plenary discussion
remains coherent, dynamic and inclusive.

2) Suggestions for the agenda and format of the Vilnius meeting.

- Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, could more
specific questions or policy dilemmas be proposed in advance, that
people can debate in advance and suggest specific solutions to? 

- Related to the previous point, having sessions that look at a "human
rights agenda" or "development agenda for IG" I think would be more
useful than broad themes such as openness and diversity.  I think these
debates have been had in previous open consultations, but I haven't been
able to keep up with everything...does anyone have any insights on this?
As a coalition, we should probably discuss whether it's realistic to
propose a human rights main session...could we propose a development
main session, and then push for HRs to be a major part of that.  Should
we be proposing development/HRs as an overarching theme again?

- Again related to previous point, the coalition should propose that it
participates in the organization of the main session related to
"openness" or development/HRs/Privacy. 

- Can we suggest ways of linking the national, regional and
international IGFs better together?  It would probably be useful if this
could be done in a thematic way, for example with feedback from each IGF
on "openness" being collected beforehand and reported back in the
openness session.  Would require work though - no resources to do it??

- Can we suggest ways of linking the workshops better to the main
sessions?  There was no formal feedback session last year, and workshop
organizers weren't given a formal opportunity to feedback in the main
sessions as far as I'm aware.  



-----Original Message-----
From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
[mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of
M I Franklin
Sent: 07 January 2010 18:50
To: irp
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010

Dear All

Greetings. To follow on from Max's speed-of-light sending out of the 
minutes of today's IRP phone-conference, this email is a call for 
contributions to a statement from the DC as part of the open
consultations 
in preparation for Vilnius later this year.

Fouad's invitation for ideas and comments for the MAG meetings is pasted

below fyi so the DC statement also contributes to this side of the
process; 
point 4 in particular.

In short, the IRP statement can cover:


Time is short, so we need your comments by Monday at the latest. I will 
then cobble up a first draft for one more round. The statement has to be

ready to go by 15 January.

All input welcome on either or both of the two aspects above.

Thanks.
ciao
MF

--On Thursday, January 07, 2010 6:08 +0500 Fouad Bajwa 
<fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Friends,
>
> As you are all aware about the IGF Open Consultation and MAG meetings
> in February 2010, I would like to request those people that cannot
> participate but would like to be heard to forward their interventions
> so that we can read and extend them on the floor during the Open
> Consultation. I further request statements to be brief, concise and to
> the point as the floor has to be passed on to the wide participation
> during the consultation.
>
> As for the MAG, we have a strong Civil Society MAG group including
> myself. The MAG is responsible for suggesting the design/organization
> of the IGF2010. IF you have concerns regarding the programming of the
> IGF2010, you can forward your statements for intervention to me so
> that they can be shared amongst our other team members. Once again,
> the requirement for being brief, concise and to the point applies here
> as well!
>
> Ideas for interventions can involve statements such as but not limited
to:
>
> 1. Issues surfaced during the IGF2009 in Sharam.
> 2. Developing Country Participation/Inclusion Issues.
> 3. Main Program / Main Theme Issues for IGF2010.
> 4. Human Rights Issues/Rights on the Internet Issues.
> 5. Development Agenda for Internet Governance Issues.
> 6. Youth and Gender Participation Issues.
>
> For your convenience and live correspondence, I will be available on
> Skype (ID:fouadbajwa , kindly don't forget to introduce yourself
> please while adding me) throughout the three days of meetings (1 day
> open consultation + 2 days MAG meetings).
>
> I look forward to assisting your interventions.
>
> --
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> Advisor & Researcher
> ICT4D & Internet Governance
> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF)
> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
> My Blog: Internet's Governance
> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
> Follow my Tweets:
> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
> MAG Interview:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri
g
> htsandprinciples.org



Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
Media & Communications
Goldsmiths, University of London
New Cross
London SE14 6NW
United Kingdom
Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-me
dia.php

_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri
ghtsandprinciples.org


From ocl  Fri Jan  8 12:58:37 2010
From: ocl (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:58:37 +0100
Subject: [IRP] #1 meeting of 2010
References: <02B7B0535E8ACB4FACB46EDC26C94C5C02782F6CFF@fhex2><4d976d8e1001060704n64b5ca7dx12846d9e9f6a1b5f@mail.gmail.com><826948.13316.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com>,
	<4c18bd2c1001061542h6f84694el6f656eb86f9df0d7@mail.gmail.com>
	<454C400F0F7C9B479EF31631E311C325678B323638@MSJEMAIL01.msj.edu>
Message-ID: <BEA4C0A92C214CB38D57044CB791E49C@GIH.CO.UK>

Hello All,

sorry I did not make it to the meeting yesterday. Prior to the meeting, I 
had told Max that I was in Dubai and was flying back to (cold) Europe at the 
time the meeting was taking place. I hope it went all well.

As for the proposal of Lisa Horner as new IRP Chair, I would like to 
wholeheartedly endorse it. She is absolutely perfect for the job, and has 
proven again and again that she's up to the task and will make a real 
difference.

I look forward to reading the meeting's minutes, and hope to see you all 
soon.

With best wishes for 2010,

Olivier

-- 
Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html 



From guerra  Thu Jan  7 19:15:34 2010
From: guerra (Robert Guerra)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:15:34 -0500
Subject: [IRP] Freedom House - Feb 2010 Human Rights Summit
References: <0492A81964C44A408EDD71FBDE2E601E0278B52C36@fhex2>
Message-ID: <D350038F-CB6B-4568-AD16-5B167F9576CB@freedomhouse.org>

Dear IRP colleagues,

I would like to share with all of you news of an upcoming event that Freedom House will be organizing next month. I will briefly mention the event at the end of today's call. Further details are below as well as in the attached blurb.

I am working with my colleague Elizabeth Floyd to have the event include virtual participation as well as have one of the working groups focus on Internet Rights & Internet Freedom.

regards

Robert
--

R. Guerra
Project Director, Internet Freedom, Freedom House
131 Connecticut Ave. NW Fl.6, Washington, DC 20036
Direct: +1 202 747 7067, Main: +1 202 296 5101
Mobile +1 202 569 1800,  Fax:  +1 202 293 2840
Email: guerra at freedomhouse.org<mailto:bonner at freedomhouse.org>



Freedom House, the Center for American Progress, and Human Rights First will convene the 2010 Washington Human Rights Summit: Affirming Fundamental Freedoms, in February 2010 in Washington DC. The event will bring together the world?s leading human rights and democracy activists along with political leaders, scholars, and journalists.  Participants will examine challenges to the promotion of rights and freedoms in different parts of the world and set out a forward-looking vision for U.S. foreign policy, multilateral institutions and the international community for the years ahead. For additional information please contact Paula Schriefer <schriefer at freedomhouse.org<mailto:schriefer at freedomhouse.org>> and Elizabeth Floyd  <floyd at freedomhouse.org<mailto:floyd at freedomhouse.org>>



__________________________________________________________________________________________
Elizabeth A. Floyd | 2010 Human Rights Summit Coordinator| Democracy Web<http://www.democracyweb.org/> Project Director| Freedom House<http://www.freedomhouse.org/> | 1301 Connecticut Ave NW Washington DC 20036 |  Tel: 202.747.7008 | Fax: 202.293.2840

Supporting the right of every individual to be free.
Donate now<http://www.freedomhouse.org/donate>


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: HRsSummitConcept100709.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 45056 bytes
Desc: HRsSummitConcept100709.doc
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100107/01e83801/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100107/01e83801/attachment-0001.htm>


From guerra  Fri Jan  8 19:32:38 2010
From: guerra (Robert Guerra)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 12:32:38 -0500
Subject: [IRP] Nomination of next IRP Chair / Support Lisa Horner
In-Reply-To: <BEA4C0A92C214CB38D57044CB791E49C@GIH.CO.UK>
References: <02B7B0535E8ACB4FACB46EDC26C94C5C02782F6CFF@fhex2><4d976d8e1001060704n64b5ca7dx12846d9e9f6a1b5f@mail.gmail.com><826948.13316.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com>,
	<4c18bd2c1001061542h6f84694el6f656eb86f9df0d7@mail.gmail.com>
	<454C400F0F7C9B479EF31631E311C325678B323638@MSJEMAIL01.msj.edu>
	<BEA4C0A92C214CB38D57044CB791E49C@GIH.CO.UK>
Message-ID: <4E20AEF9-F315-40F9-9B65-2206A9D39ACF@freedomhouse.org>

I would like to echo the comments made so far in regards to having Lisa Horner serve as our next chair. If indeed she's willing, then I would support her nomination and support her as my choice should we proceed to a formal election process.

regards

Robert


On 2010-01-08, at 5:58 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

> 
> As for the proposal of Lisa Horner as new IRP Chair, I would like to 
> wholeheartedly endorse it. She is absolutely perfect for the job, and has 
> proven again and again that she's up to the task and will make a real 
> difference.
> 
> I look forward to reading the meeting's minutes, and hope to see you all 
> soon.
> 



From guerra  Fri Jan  8 19:32:38 2010
From: guerra (Robert Guerra)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 12:32:38 -0500
Subject: [IRP] Nomination of next IRP Chair / Support Lisa Horner
In-Reply-To: <BEA4C0A92C214CB38D57044CB791E49C@GIH.CO.UK>
References: <02B7B0535E8ACB4FACB46EDC26C94C5C02782F6CFF@fhex2><4d976d8e1001060704n64b5ca7dx12846d9e9f6a1b5f@mail.gmail.com><826948.13316.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com>,
	<4c18bd2c1001061542h6f84694el6f656eb86f9df0d7@mail.gmail.com>
	<454C400F0F7C9B479EF31631E311C325678B323638@MSJEMAIL01.msj.edu>
	<BEA4C0A92C214CB38D57044CB791E49C@GIH.CO.UK>
Message-ID: <4E20AEF9-F315-40F9-9B65-2206A9D39ACF@freedomhouse.org>

I would like to echo the comments made so far in regards to having Lisa Horner serve as our next chair. If indeed she's willing, then I would support her nomination and support her as my choice should we proceed to a formal election process.

regards

Robert


On 2010-01-08, at 5:58 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

> 
> As for the proposal of Lisa Horner as new IRP Chair, I would like to 
> wholeheartedly endorse it. She is absolutely perfect for the job, and has 
> proven again and again that she's up to the task and will make a real 
> difference.
> 
> I look forward to reading the meeting's minutes, and hope to see you all 
> soon.
> 



From guerra  Fri Jan  8 19:33:28 2010
From: guerra (Robert Guerra)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 12:33:28 -0500
Subject: [IRP] Nomination of next IRP Chair / Support Lisa Horner
In-Reply-To: <BEA4C0A92C214CB38D57044CB791E49C@GIH.CO.UK>
References: <02B7B0535E8ACB4FACB46EDC26C94C5C02782F6CFF@fhex2><4d976d8e1001060704n64b5ca7dx12846d9e9f6a1b5f@mail.gmail.com><826948.13316.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com>,
	<4c18bd2c1001061542h6f84694el6f656eb86f9df0d7@mail.gmail.com>
	<454C400F0F7C9B479EF31631E311C325678B323638@MSJEMAIL01.msj.edu>
	<BEA4C0A92C214CB38D57044CB791E49C@GIH.CO.UK>
Message-ID: <F7B77DB1-F687-4053-84FC-E2D4F56C7A27@freedomhouse.org>

I would like to echo the comments made so far in regards to having Lisa Horner serve as our next chair. If indeed she's willing, then I would support her nomination and support her as my choice should we proceed to a formal election process.

regards

Robert


On 2010-01-08, at 5:58 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

> 
> As for the proposal of Lisa Horner as new IRP Chair, I would like to 
> wholeheartedly endorse it. She is absolutely perfect for the job, and has 
> proven again and again that she's up to the task and will make a real 
> difference.
> 
> I look forward to reading the meeting's minutes, and hope to see you all 
> soon.
> 



From maxsenges  Fri Jan  8 22:33:51 2010
From: maxsenges (Max Senges)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 21:33:51 +0100
Subject: [IRP] procedure of the Steering Committee to choose the new IRP
	chair
In-Reply-To: <4d976d8e1001081233l596ae59cqb5f208cf0f55c1d3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4d976d8e1001081233l596ae59cqb5f208cf0f55c1d3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4d976d8e1001081233n28f4e0e4x92fb40760b873826@mail.gmail.com>

"The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
?William Gibson

...........................................................................

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com

Mobile: 01622122755


2010/1/8 Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com>

> Hello everyone
>
> I would like to suggest a procedure as to how the steering committee elects
> the new Chair:
>
> Let's keep the list open for nominations for the chair position until next
> Friday 15th of Jan.
>
> So far we have only one candidate, which would mean that the new chair can
> start the new role next friday. Should we have more than one candidate we
> can either discuss and seek to find consensus (e.g. a double chairmanship)
> or organize an election among steering committee members.
>
> I hope that's a good suggestion?!
>
> Best
> Max
>
>
>
>
>
> "The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
> ?William Gibson
>
> ...........................................................................
>
> Max Senges
> Berlin
>
> www.maxsenges.com
>
> Mobile: 01622122755
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Graciela Selaimen <graciela at nupef.org.br>wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Max.
>> Now its clear. I think it would be useful to establish deadlines - both
>> for proposing candidatures and for the voting period itself, so that people
>> don't think they're voting when they express support for a candidature.
>>
>> best,
>> Graciela
>>
>> Max Senges escreveu:
>>
>>> hi graciela
>>>
>>> sorry about the confusion. of course you can nominate several steering
>>> committee members as chair. so far we had only lisa nominated and as many
>>> steering committee members endorsed her candidature (i.e. said they are
>>> happy to have her lead the coalition) and because there were/are no
>>> alternative nominations. We agreed on the monthly call that I would reach
>>> out to those steering committee members who had not yet spoken up on the
>>> list to see whether we can elect Lisa by consensus or whether there are more
>>> candidates which of course would/will lead to an election.
>>>
>>> Hope this clarifies matters.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Max
>>>
>>> "The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
>>> ?William Gibson
>>>
>>>
>>> ...........................................................................
>>>
>>> Max Senges
>>> Berlin
>>>
>>> www.maxsenges.com <http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>>
>>> Mobile: 01622122755
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Graciela Selaimen <graciela at nupef.org.br<mailto:
>>> graciela at nupef.org.br>> wrote:
>>>
>>>    Dear all,
>>>
>>>    I'm a bit lost here, trying to understand the nomination process
>>>    and the choice proposed by Max. Can't we endorse more than one
>>>    candidature? I would endorse both candidatures - and even more, if
>>>    there are more good candidates. In my view this would make the
>>>    election of the chair more plural and democratic.
>>>
>>>    Or is the endorsement of a candidature understood as a vote?
>>>
>>>
>>>    best,
>>>    Graciela
>>>
>>>    Rafik Dammak escreveu:
>>>
>>>        Dear Max,
>>>
>>>        10 of the 14 have endorsed Lisa's candidature , does it mean
>>>        that I have to follow too? I am not sure that consensus mean
>>>        accepting choice made in conf call not planned weeks ago. as
>>>        coalition we should have more democratic ? and transparent
>>>        process.
>>>        the "we" who decided to not consider the nomination should
>>>        state it publicly.?
>>>
>>>        Regards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        2010/1/8 Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com
>>>        <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com> <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com
>>>
>>>        <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        Dear Rafik
>>>
>>>        there are two choices for you in the moment: you can either
>>>        nominate a member of the steering committee (e.g. Robert) or you
>>>        can endorse Lisa's nomination for chair. So far 10 of the 14
>>>        steering committee members have endorsed Lisa's candidature.
>>>
>>>        As for your nomination for Robert as chair please do make that
>>>        nomination publicly on the list or check back with him before to
>>>        see whether he would be interested. We did not consider your prior
>>>        nomination, because when you posted to the list it was time to
>>>        nominate for steering committee (which then in turn elects the
>>>        chair). We subsequently asked for chair nominations some weeks
>>>        ago.
>>>
>>>        Best
>>>
>>>        Max
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        "The future is here. It???s just not widely distributed yet."
>>>        ???William Gibson
>>>
>>>
>>>  ...........................................................................
>>>
>>>        Max Senges
>>>        Berlin
>>>
>>>        www.maxsenges.com <http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>>        <http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>        Mobile: 01622122755
>>>
>>>
>>>        On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Rafik Dammak
>>>        <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>        <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>        <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>        Hi Max,
>>>
>>>        before election, I have already nominated Robert Guerra, do I
>>>        need to confirm?
>>>        I am not sure if you are suggesting only two choice, either
>>>        nominate or endorse. there is no third one??
>>>
>>>
>>>        Regards
>>>
>>>        Rafik
>>>
>>>        2010/1/8 Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com
>>>        <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com>
>>>        <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        Hi there
>>>
>>>        as discussed on the conf-call we urge all steering
>>>        committee members who have not done so already to either
>>>        nominate someone for the position as IRP chair or endorse
>>>        Lisa Horner as new IRP chair
>>>
>>>        best regards,
>>>        Max
>>>
>>>
>>>        --
>>>
>>>        "The future is here. It???s just not widely distributed yet."
>>>        ???William Gibson
>>>
>>>
>>>  ...........................................................................
>>>
>>>        Max Senges
>>>        Berlin
>>>
>>>        www.maxsenges.com <http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>>        <http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>>
>>>        Mobile: 01622122755
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    --
>>>
>>>
>> --
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100108/3ac73076/attachment.htm>


From maxsenges  Sat Jan  9 00:03:26 2010
From: maxsenges (Max Senges)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 23:03:26 +0100
Subject: [IRP] procedure of the Steering Committee to choose the new IRP
	chair
In-Reply-To: <4d976d8e1001081233n28f4e0e4x92fb40760b873826@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4d976d8e1001081233l596ae59cqb5f208cf0f55c1d3@mail.gmail.com>
	<4d976d8e1001081233n28f4e0e4x92fb40760b873826@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4d976d8e1001081403t35313af3ma8839684ad8c956f@mail.gmail.com>

Hello everyone

>
>> I would like to suggest a procedure as to how the steering committee
>> elects the new Chair:
>>
>> Let's keep the list open for nominations for the chair position until next
>> Friday 15th of Jan.
>>
>> So far we have only one candidate, which would mean that the new chair can
>> start the new role next friday. Should we have more than one candidate we
>> can either discuss and seek to find consensus (e.g. a double chairmanship)
>> or organize an election among steering committee members.
>>
>> I hope that's a good suggestion?!
>>
>> Best
>> Max
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
>> ?William Gibson
>>
>>
>> ...........................................................................
>>
>> Max Senges
>> Berlin
>>
>> www.maxsenges.com
>>
>> Mobile: 01622122755
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Graciela Selaimen <graciela at nupef.org.br>wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Max.
>>> Now its clear. I think it would be useful to establish deadlines - both
>>> for proposing candidatures and for the voting period itself, so that people
>>> don't think they're voting when they express support for a candidature.
>>>
>>> best,
>>> Graciela
>>>
>>> Max Senges escreveu:
>>>
>>>> hi graciela
>>>>
>>>> sorry about the confusion. of course you can nominate several steering
>>>> committee members as chair. so far we had only lisa nominated and as many
>>>> steering committee members endorsed her candidature (i.e. said they are
>>>> happy to have her lead the coalition) and because there were/are no
>>>> alternative nominations. We agreed on the monthly call that I would reach
>>>> out to those steering committee members who had not yet spoken up on the
>>>> list to see whether we can elect Lisa by consensus or whether there are more
>>>> candidates which of course would/will lead to an election.
>>>>
>>>> Hope this clarifies matters.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Max
>>>>
>>>> "The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
>>>> ?William Gibson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...........................................................................
>>>>
>>>> Max Senges
>>>> Berlin
>>>>
>>>> www.maxsenges.com <http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>>>
>>>> Mobile: 01622122755
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Graciela Selaimen <
>>>> graciela at nupef.org.br <mailto:graciela at nupef.org.br>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>    Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>    I'm a bit lost here, trying to understand the nomination process
>>>>    and the choice proposed by Max. Can't we endorse more than one
>>>>    candidature? I would endorse both candidatures - and even more, if
>>>>    there are more good candidates. In my view this would make the
>>>>    election of the chair more plural and democratic.
>>>>
>>>>    Or is the endorsement of a candidature understood as a vote?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    best,
>>>>    Graciela
>>>>
>>>>    Rafik Dammak escreveu:
>>>>
>>>>        Dear Max,
>>>>
>>>>        10 of the 14 have endorsed Lisa's candidature , does it mean
>>>>        that I have to follow too? I am not sure that consensus mean
>>>>        accepting choice made in conf call not planned weeks ago. as
>>>>        coalition we should have more democratic ? and transparent
>>>>        process.
>>>>        the "we" who decided to not consider the nomination should
>>>>        state it publicly.?
>>>>
>>>>        Regards
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        2010/1/8 Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com
>>>>        <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com> <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>        <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        Dear Rafik
>>>>
>>>>        there are two choices for you in the moment: you can either
>>>>        nominate a member of the steering committee (e.g. Robert) or you
>>>>        can endorse Lisa's nomination for chair. So far 10 of the 14
>>>>        steering committee members have endorsed Lisa's candidature.
>>>>
>>>>        As for your nomination for Robert as chair please do make that
>>>>        nomination publicly on the list or check back with him before to
>>>>        see whether he would be interested. We did not consider your
>>>> prior
>>>>        nomination, because when you posted to the list it was time to
>>>>        nominate for steering committee (which then in turn elects the
>>>>        chair). We subsequently asked for chair nominations some weeks
>>>>        ago.
>>>>
>>>>        Best
>>>>
>>>>        Max
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        "The future is here. It???s just not widely distributed yet."
>>>>        ???William Gibson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ...........................................................................
>>>>
>>>>        Max Senges
>>>>        Berlin
>>>>
>>>>        www.maxsenges.com <http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>>>        <http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        Mobile: 01622122755
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Rafik Dammak
>>>>        <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>        <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>        <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        Hi Max,
>>>>
>>>>        before election, I have already nominated Robert Guerra, do I
>>>>        need to confirm?
>>>>        I am not sure if you are suggesting only two choice, either
>>>>        nominate or endorse. there is no third one??
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        Regards
>>>>
>>>>        Rafik
>>>>
>>>>        2010/1/8 Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com
>>>>        <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com>
>>>>        <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        Hi there
>>>>
>>>>        as discussed on the conf-call we urge all steering
>>>>        committee members who have not done so already to either
>>>>        nominate someone for the position as IRP chair or endorse
>>>>        Lisa Horner as new IRP chair
>>>>
>>>>        best regards,
>>>>        Max
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        --
>>>>
>>>>        "The future is here. It???s just not widely distributed yet."
>>>>        ???William Gibson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ...........................................................................
>>>>
>>>>        Max Senges
>>>>        Berlin
>>>>
>>>>        www.maxsenges.com <http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>>>        <http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>>>
>>>>        Mobile: 01622122755
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    --
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100108/2c2a5253/attachment-0001.htm>


From isolatedn  Fri Jan  8 20:16:25 2010
From: isolatedn (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 23:46:25 +0530
Subject: [IRP] Nomination of next IRP Chair / Support Lisa Horner
In-Reply-To: <F7B77DB1-F687-4053-84FC-E2D4F56C7A27@freedomhouse.org>
References: <02B7B0535E8ACB4FACB46EDC26C94C5C02782F6CFF@fhex2>
	<4d976d8e1001060704n64b5ca7dx12846d9e9f6a1b5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<826948.13316.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
	<4c18bd2c1001061542h6f84694el6f656eb86f9df0d7@mail.gmail.com>
	<454C400F0F7C9B479EF31631E311C325678B323638@MSJEMAIL01.msj.edu>
	<BEA4C0A92C214CB38D57044CB791E49C@GIH.CO.UK>
	<F7B77DB1-F687-4053-84FC-E2D4F56C7A27@freedomhouse.org>
Message-ID: <fecfce261001081016l5ac2ea79oa2a9904f47c0a445@mail.gmail.com>

Hello

I wish to extend my support to Lisa Horner as the next Chair of this
coalition. She has been considerably active on the list and have taken
initiatives on some of the activities of  IRP

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy


On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Robert Guerra <guerra at freedomhouse.org>wrote:

> I would like to echo the comments made so far in regards to having Lisa
> Horner serve as our next chair. If indeed she's willing, then I would
> support her nomination and support her as my choice should we proceed to a
> formal election process.
>
> regards
>
> Robert
>
>
> On 2010-01-08, at 5:58 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>
> >
> > As for the proposal of Lisa Horner as new IRP Chair, I would like to
> > wholeheartedly endorse it. She is absolutely perfect for the job, and has
> > proven again and again that she's up to the task and will make a real
> > difference.
> >
> > I look forward to reading the meeting's minutes, and hope to see you all
> > soon.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100108/3e10c163/attachment.htm>


From maxsenges  Sat Jan  9 15:25:25 2010
From: maxsenges (Max Senges)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:25:25 +0100
Subject: [IRP] charter discussion: free movement online // new URL
Message-ID: <4d976d8e1001090525k15937119w780b35e4722039e1@mail.gmail.com>

Hi folks

I want to reopen the discussion of the charter with a couple of items
(seperate mails for easier threading):

Some months ago I proposed to interpret and transpose article 13 to prohibit
national or regional restrictions for users to access public content
anywhere in the world. I still like the notion and after some reflections i
now added "publicly available content _and services_" because I it seems
important the people can not only access but also participate/create using
services:

*Article 13 - Freedom of movement*

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the
borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to
return to his country.


Freedom of movement on the internet: users should be able to access publicly
available content, irrespective of their geographical location.


please also note that the URL of the first section had to be changed due to
a technical glitch:

Section I  https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ajcs86p9dx2s_488rpfcbcc

Section II
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AeybA8_Lt-gwYWpjczg2cDlkeDJzXzI5ZnJ0dnR0YzM&hl

looking forward to read your opinion
max


--

"The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
?William Gibson

...........................................................................

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com

Mobile: 01622122755
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100109/804d5956/attachment.htm>


From maxsenges  Sat Jan  9 15:35:02 2010
From: maxsenges (Max Senges)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:35:02 +0100
Subject: [IRP] location of data in the cloud // new URL
Message-ID: <4d976d8e1001090535g41f7d629tf6a94f536ee5072e@mail.gmail.com>

Hi there

In the privacy section
<https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ajcs86p9dx2s_488rpfcbcc#Article_12_Privacy__6397468594785073>are
a couple of imprecise language like "hidden mechanisms" and I would urge our
privacy experts to take another look before we hand it over to the experts.

One point struck me particularly was: "Service providers have a
responsibility to make clear in which legal jurisdiction(s) the user's data
is being hosted, so that the user can make informed decisions."

My understanding is that with cloud computing it is impossible to say in
which jurisdiction data resides. When I travel to asia some of my files (the
ones i access from there) move (temporarily) to a data center in asia. Not
sure what the best solution is, but it seems to me that the current language
is not "future proof".

The Charter has a new URL @
https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ajcs86p9dx2s_488rpfcbcc#Article_12_Privacy__6397468594785073

Best
Max




--

"The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
?William Gibson

...........................................................................

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com

Mobile: 01622122755
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100109/ba9a7872/attachment.htm>


From lisa  Sat Jan  9 15:55:54 2010
From: lisa (Lisa Horner)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 13:55:54 -0000
Subject: [IRP] procedure of the Steering Committee to choose the new
	IRPchair
References: <4d976d8e1001081233l596ae59cqb5f208cf0f55c1d3@mail.gmail.com><4d976d8e1001081233n28f4e0e4x92fb40760b873826@mail.gmail.com>
	<4d976d8e1001081403t35313af3ma8839684ad8c956f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B300E@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>

Thanks Max, that sounds good to me.  I agree that it'd be good to have more nominations if people are interested, and think self-nomination should also be encouraged.  

All the best,
Lisa


-----Original Message-----
From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org on behalf of Max Senges
Sent: Fri 08/01/2010 22:03
To: irp
Subject: Re: [IRP] procedure of the Steering Committee to choose the new IRPchair
 
Hello everyone

>
>> I would like to suggest a procedure as to how the steering committee
>> elects the new Chair:
>>
>> Let's keep the list open for nominations for the chair position until next
>> Friday 15th of Jan.
>>
>> So far we have only one candidate, which would mean that the new chair can
>> start the new role next friday. Should we have more than one candidate we
>> can either discuss and seek to find consensus (e.g. a double chairmanship)
>> or organize an election among steering committee members.
>>
>> I hope that's a good suggestion?!
>>
>> Best
>> Max
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet."
>> -William Gibson
>>
>>
>> ...........................................................................
>>
>> Max Senges
>> Berlin
>>
>> www.maxsenges.com
>>
>> Mobile: 01622122755
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Graciela Selaimen <graciela at nupef.org.br>wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Max.
>>> Now its clear. I think it would be useful to establish deadlines - both
>>> for proposing candidatures and for the voting period itself, so that people
>>> don't think they're voting when they express support for a candidature.
>>>
>>> best,
>>> Graciela
>>>
>>> Max Senges escreveu:
>>>
>>>> hi graciela
>>>>
>>>> sorry about the confusion. of course you can nominate several steering
>>>> committee members as chair. so far we had only lisa nominated and as many
>>>> steering committee members endorsed her candidature (i.e. said they are
>>>> happy to have her lead the coalition) and because there were/are no
>>>> alternative nominations. We agreed on the monthly call that I would reach
>>>> out to those steering committee members who had not yet spoken up on the
>>>> list to see whether we can elect Lisa by consensus or whether there are more
>>>> candidates which of course would/will lead to an election.
>>>>
>>>> Hope this clarifies matters.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Max
>>>>
>>>> "The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet."
>>>> -William Gibson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...........................................................................
>>>>
>>>> Max Senges
>>>> Berlin
>>>>
>>>> www.maxsenges.com <http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>>>
>>>> Mobile: 01622122755
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Graciela Selaimen <
>>>> graciela at nupef.org.br <mailto:graciela at nupef.org.br>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>    Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>    I'm a bit lost here, trying to understand the nomination process
>>>>    and the choice proposed by Max. Can't we endorse more than one
>>>>    candidature? I would endorse both candidatures - and even more, if
>>>>    there are more good candidates. In my view this would make the
>>>>    election of the chair more plural and democratic.
>>>>
>>>>    Or is the endorsement of a candidature understood as a vote?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    best,
>>>>    Graciela
>>>>
>>>>    Rafik Dammak escreveu:
>>>>
>>>>        Dear Max,
>>>>
>>>>        10 of the 14 have endorsed Lisa's candidature , does it mean
>>>>        that I have to follow too? I am not sure that consensus mean
>>>>        accepting choice made in conf call not planned weeks ago. as
>>>>        coalition we should have more democratic ? and transparent
>>>>        process.
>>>>        the "we" who decided to not consider the nomination should
>>>>        state it publicly.?
>>>>
>>>>        Regards
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        2010/1/8 Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com
>>>>        <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com> <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>        <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        Dear Rafik
>>>>
>>>>        there are two choices for you in the moment: you can either
>>>>        nominate a member of the steering committee (e.g. Robert) or you
>>>>        can endorse Lisa's nomination for chair. So far 10 of the 14
>>>>        steering committee members have endorsed Lisa's candidature.
>>>>
>>>>        As for your nomination for Robert as chair please do make that
>>>>        nomination publicly on the list or check back with him before to
>>>>        see whether he would be interested. We did not consider your
>>>> prior
>>>>        nomination, because when you posted to the list it was time to
>>>>        nominate for steering committee (which then in turn elects the
>>>>        chair). We subsequently asked for chair nominations some weeks
>>>>        ago.
>>>>
>>>>        Best
>>>>
>>>>        Max
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        "The future is here. It??Ts just not widely distributed yet."
>>>>        ??"William Gibson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ...........................................................................
>>>>
>>>>        Max Senges
>>>>        Berlin
>>>>
>>>>        www.maxsenges.com <http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>>>        <http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        Mobile: 01622122755
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Rafik Dammak
>>>>        <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>        <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>        <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        Hi Max,
>>>>
>>>>        before election, I have already nominated Robert Guerra, do I
>>>>        need to confirm?
>>>>        I am not sure if you are suggesting only two choice, either
>>>>        nominate or endorse. there is no third one??
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        Regards
>>>>
>>>>        Rafik
>>>>
>>>>        2010/1/8 Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com
>>>>        <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com>
>>>>        <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        Hi there
>>>>
>>>>        as discussed on the conf-call we urge all steering
>>>>        committee members who have not done so already to either
>>>>        nominate someone for the position as IRP chair or endorse
>>>>        Lisa Horner as new IRP chair
>>>>
>>>>        best regards,
>>>>        Max
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        --
>>>>
>>>>        "The future is here. It??Ts just not widely distributed yet."
>>>>        ??"William Gibson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ...........................................................................
>>>>
>>>>        Max Senges
>>>>        Berlin
>>>>
>>>>        www.maxsenges.com <http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>>>        <http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>>>
>>>>        Mobile: 01622122755
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    --
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100109/4ec0753b/attachment-0001.htm>


From katitza  Sat Jan  9 16:20:35 2010
From: katitza (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 09:20:35 -0500
Subject: [IRP] Fwd: [Privacy-coalition] location of data in the cloud // new
	URL
References: <C582F349-A46B-4D86-9F93-B31F6496D6D8@epic.org>
Message-ID: <012DC780-5CB3-4C69-B276-8D6B23DAD05A@datos-personales.org>

fyi,

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg at epic.org>
> Date: January 9, 2010 8:50:31 AM EST
> To: privacy-coalition at lists.apc.org
> Subject: Re: [Privacy-coalition] location of data in the cloud //  
> new URL
> Reply-To: privacy-coalition at lists.apc.org
>
> Max -
>
> It is precisely because it may be unclear to the user with cloud
> computing in which jurisdiction data resides that the service
> provider should have the responsibility to resolve this question.
>
> This is not only a matter of fairness and transparency but also it
> is economically efficient. The provider is "the least cost avoider"
> and most likely to have access to the relevant information.
> For the user, it could be impossible to determine.
>
> This is an excellent principle and it should be enacted into law.
>
> On this point, I was also very pleased to see that the US FTC
> has told the FCC it will be pursue the EPIC complaint on
> cloud computing and privacy. Perhaps one of the outcomes
> will be the adoption of this principle!
>
> Regards,
>
> Marc Rotenberg
>
> On Jan 9, 2010, at 8:35 AM, Max Senges wrote:
>
>> Hi there
>>
>> In the privacy section are a couple of imprecise language like  
>> "hidden mechanisms" and I would urge our privacy experts to take  
>> another look before we hand it over to the experts.
>>
>> One point struck me particularly was: "Service providers have a  
>> responsibility to make clear in which legal jurisdiction(s) the  
>> user's data is being hosted, so that the user can make informed  
>> decisions."
>>
>> My understanding is that with cloud computing it is impossible to  
>> say in which jurisdiction data resides. When I travel to asia some  
>> of my files (the ones i access from there) move (temporarily) to a  
>> data center in asia. Not sure what the best solution is, but it  
>> seems to me that the current language is not "future proof".
>>
>> The Charter has a new URL @ https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ajcs86p9dx2s_488rpfcbcc 
>> #Article_12_Privacy__6397468594785073
>>
>> Best
>> Max
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> "The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
>> ?William Gibson
>>
>> ...........................................................................
>>
>> Max Senges
>> Berlin
>>
>> www.maxsenges.com
>>
>> Mobile: 01622122755
>> _______________________________________________
>> Privacy-coalition mailing list
>> Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/privacy-coalition
>> To unsubscribe, email privacy-coalition-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Privacy-coalition mailing list
> Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/privacy-coalition
> To unsubscribe, email privacy-coalition-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100109/ee360be9/attachment.htm>


From katitza  Sat Jan  9 16:31:49 2010
From: katitza (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 09:31:49 -0500
Subject: [IRP] Fwd: [Privacy-coalition] location of data in the cloud // new
	URL
References: <629798.89091.qm@web50607.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4EC81FC6-E1C2-43CE-BF05-85BB93FCE212@datos-personales.org>

fyi,

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Cristos Velasco <cristosuofa at yahoo.com>
> Date: January 9, 2010 9:26:17 AM EST
> To: privacy-coalition at lists.apc.org
> Subject: Re: [Privacy-coalition] location of data in the cloud //  
> new URL
> Reply-To: privacy-coalition at lists.apc.org
>
> From a user perspective is very difficult to know exactly where my  
> personal data resides since  there are multiple contractual  
> arrangements by and between cloud and access service providers that  
> the user is not completely aware of. Therefore I would like to  
> remind about a point I made during my presentation in the Public  
> Voice Panel on Cloud Computing in Madrid.
>
>
>
> ?Cloud companies and service providers should be directly  
> responsible for handling and processing of personal information in  
> the cloud. Companies and service providers should both provide high  
> security levels to protect personal and confidential information of  
> users, and be prepared to provide prompt notice in case of  
> information leaks, security breaches, or when misuse of personal  
> information has occurred in the cloud, as well as to establish  
> efficient mechanisms to submit complaints and obtain redress in a  
> fair and timely manner and without undue cost or burden to the user. ?
>
>
>
> I agree with Marc in the sense that the principle should evolve and  
> be further developed within the sphere of international and regional  
> organizations as well as at the national level.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Cristos.
>
>
> --- On Sat, 1/9/10, Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg at epic.org> wrote:
>
> From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg at epic.org>
> Subject: Re: [Privacy-coalition] location of data in the cloud //  
> new URL
> To: privacy-coalition at lists.apc.org
> Date: Saturday, January 9, 2010, 8:50 AM
>
> Max -
>
> It is precisely because it may be unclear to the user with cloud
> computing in which jurisdiction data resides that the service
> provider should have the responsibility to resolve this question.
>
> This is not only a matter of fairness and transparency but also it
> is economically efficient. The provider is "the least cost avoider"
> and most likely to have access to the relevant information.
> For the user, it could be impossible to determine.
>
> This is an excellent principle and it should be enacted into law.
>
> On this point, I was also very pleased to see that the US FTC
> has told the FCC it will be pursue the EPIC complaint on
> cloud computing and privacy. Perhaps one of the outcomes
> will be the adoption of this principle!
>
> Regards,
>
> Marc Rotenberg
>
> On Jan 9, 2010, at 8:35 AM, Max Senges wrote:
>
>> Hi there
>>
>> In the privacy section are a couple of imprecise language like  
>> "hidden mechanisms" and I would urge our privacy experts to take  
>> another look before we hand it over to the experts.
>>
>> One point struck me particularly was: "Service providers have a  
>> responsibility to make clear in which legal jurisdiction(s) the  
>> user's data is being hosted, so that the user can make informed  
>> decisions."
>>
>> My understanding is that with cloud computing it is impossible to  
>> say in which jurisdiction data resides. When I travel to asia some  
>> of my files (the ones i access from there) move (temporarily) to a  
>> data center in asia. Not sure what the best solution is, but it  
>> seems to me that the current language is not "future proof".
>>
>> The Charter has a new URL @ https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ajcs86p9dx2s_488rpfcbcc 
>> #Article_12_Privacy__6397468594785073
>>
>> Best
>> Max
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> "The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
>> ?William Gibson
>>
>> ...........................................................................
>>
>> Max Senges
>> Berlin
>>
>> www.maxsenges.com
>>
>> Mobile: 01622122755
>> _______________________________________________
>> Privacy-coalition mailing list
>> Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/privacy-coalition
>> To unsubscribe, email privacy-coalition-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Privacy-coalition mailing list
> Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/privacy-coalition
> To unsubscribe, email privacy-coalition-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Privacy-coalition mailing list
> Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/privacy-coalition
> To unsubscribe, email privacy-coalition-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100109/55921eb7/attachment.htm>


From cos02mf  Mon Jan 11 12:29:21 2010
From: cos02mf (M I Franklin)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:29:21 +0000
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5C31@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
References: <0376F55255E23F7B1F29B9EC@[192.168.1.64]>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5C31@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
Message-ID: <D6424EFCBDF5BAF0C74425C1@CO223>

Dear All

Thanks Lisa for these comments.

Anyone else have anything to add?

Cheers
MF

--On 08 January 2010 11:30 +0000 Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk> 
wrote:

> Thanks for taking the lead with this Marianne.  Some very quick notes
> below...would be good to hear people's thoughts and have a discussion
> about the options...
>
> 1) Contributions that take stock of last year's IGF in Sharm el Sheikh
>
> - Overall, the meeting was well organized. I think things have improved
> each year.
> - Remote participation seemed to work well.  However, workshop
> organizers weren't given much support on how to use it properly and
> technicians weren't always on hand.  More information in advance would
> be useful.
> - A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary sessions reaffirmed the
> importance of upholding human rights in the internet age. The challenge
> now is to focus on how that can actually be achieved in practice, and
> what roles different stakeholders can/should play.
> - Discussions, especially in plenary, seemed to be distracted by the
> issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. (does anyone
> have an update on the status of those discussions?)
> - Links between the main sessions and the workshops still weren't great.
> - Main sessions based around the "traditional" categories of openness,
> diversity etc felt a bit stale.  The new themes introduced were
> refreshing.
> - main sessions without a large number of panelists worked better, but
> we need to find better ways of ensuring that wider plenary discussion
> remains coherent, dynamic and inclusive.
>
> 2) Suggestions for the agenda and format of the Vilnius meeting.
>
> - Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, could more
> specific questions or policy dilemmas be proposed in advance, that
> people can debate in advance and suggest specific solutions to?
>
> - Related to the previous point, having sessions that look at a "human
> rights agenda" or "development agenda for IG" I think would be more
> useful than broad themes such as openness and diversity.  I think these
> debates have been had in previous open consultations, but I haven't been
> able to keep up with everything...does anyone have any insights on this?
> As a coalition, we should probably discuss whether it's realistic to
> propose a human rights main session...could we propose a development
> main session, and then push for HRs to be a major part of that.  Should
> we be proposing development/HRs as an overarching theme again?
>
> - Again related to previous point, the coalition should propose that it
> participates in the organization of the main session related to
> "openness" or development/HRs/Privacy.
>
> - Can we suggest ways of linking the national, regional and
> international IGFs better together?  It would probably be useful if this
> could be done in a thematic way, for example with feedback from each IGF
> on "openness" being collected beforehand and reported back in the
> openness session.  Would require work though - no resources to do it??
>
> - Can we suggest ways of linking the workshops better to the main
> sessions?  There was no formal feedback session last year, and workshop
> organizers weren't given a formal opportunity to feedback in the main
> sessions as far as I'm aware.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of
> M I Franklin
> Sent: 07 January 2010 18:50
> To: irp
> Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
>
> Dear All
>
> Greetings. To follow on from Max's speed-of-light sending out of the
> minutes of today's IRP phone-conference, this email is a call for
> contributions to a statement from the DC as part of the open
> consultations
> in preparation for Vilnius later this year.
>
> Fouad's invitation for ideas and comments for the MAG meetings is pasted
>
> below fyi so the DC statement also contributes to this side of the
> process;
> point 4 in particular.
>
> In short, the IRP statement can cover:
>
>
> Time is short, so we need your comments by Monday at the latest. I will
> then cobble up a first draft for one more round. The statement has to be
>
> ready to go by 15 January.
>
> All input welcome on either or both of the two aspects above.
>
> Thanks.
> ciao
> MF
>
> --On Thursday, January 07, 2010 6:08 +0500 Fouad Bajwa
> <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Friends,
>>
>> As you are all aware about the IGF Open Consultation and MAG meetings
>> in February 2010, I would like to request those people that cannot
>> participate but would like to be heard to forward their interventions
>> so that we can read and extend them on the floor during the Open
>> Consultation. I further request statements to be brief, concise and to
>> the point as the floor has to be passed on to the wide participation
>> during the consultation.
>>
>> As for the MAG, we have a strong Civil Society MAG group including
>> myself. The MAG is responsible for suggesting the design/organization
>> of the IGF2010. IF you have concerns regarding the programming of the
>> IGF2010, you can forward your statements for intervention to me so
>> that they can be shared amongst our other team members. Once again,
>> the requirement for being brief, concise and to the point applies here
>> as well!
>>
>> Ideas for interventions can involve statements such as but not limited
> to:
>>
>> 1. Issues surfaced during the IGF2009 in Sharam.
>> 2. Developing Country Participation/Inclusion Issues.
>> 3. Main Program / Main Theme Issues for IGF2010.
>> 4. Human Rights Issues/Rights on the Internet Issues.
>> 5. Development Agenda for Internet Governance Issues.
>> 6. Youth and Gender Participation Issues.
>>
>> For your convenience and live correspondence, I will be available on
>> Skype (ID:fouadbajwa , kindly don't forget to introduce yourself
>> please while adding me) throughout the three days of meetings (1 day
>> open consultation + 2 days MAG meetings).
>>
>> I look forward to assisting your interventions.
>>
>> --
>> Regards.
>> --------------------------
>> Fouad Bajwa
>> Advisor & Researcher
>> ICT4D & Internet Governance
>> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF)
>> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
>> My Blog: Internet's Governance
>> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
>> Follow my Tweets:
>> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>> MAG Interview:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri
> g
>> htsandprinciples.org
>
>
>
> Dr Marianne Franklin
> Reader
> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
> Media & Communications
> Goldsmiths, University of London
> New Cross
> London SE14 6NW
> United Kingdom
> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-me
> dia.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri
> ghtsandprinciples.org
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrig
> htsandprinciples.org



Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
Media & Communications
Goldsmiths, University of London
New Cross
London SE14 6NW
United Kingdom
Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php


From lisa  Mon Jan 11 12:56:38 2010
From: lisa (Lisa Horner)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:56:38 -0000
Subject: [IRP] [Privacy-coalition] location of data in the cloud // new
	URL
In-Reply-To: <a06240807c76e8c083e72@[192.168.1.34]>
References: <a06240807c76e8c083e72@[192.168.1.34]>
Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5CDE@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>

Thanks for these edits Cedric.  I've copied in the IRP mailing list so that discussion can continue there.   It's great to have this involvement from the Privacy coalition in the drafting of the Charter on Human Rights and Principles for the Internet.

 

All are welcome to join the IRP list at 

http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org

 

The Charter draft is at https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AeybA8_Lt-gwYWpjczg2cDlkeDJzXzMxYzQ5cXF3Yzc&hl

And is open for edits until 15th Jan, at which point it is going to an expert committee for consolidation and to ensure it is in line with international standards.

 

All the best,

Lisa

 

From: Cedric Laurant [mailto:cedric at laurant.org] 
Sent: 09 January 2010 19:46
To: Lisa Horner
Cc: Meryem.Marzouki at lip6.fr; Katitza Rodriguez
Subject: Fwd: [Privacy-coalition] location of data in the cloud // new URL

 

Hi Lisa,

 

My edits to Art. 12 of the "Internet Rights and Principles Coalition" should be displayed here: https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ajcs86p9dx2s_488rpfcbcc#Article_12_Privacy__6397468594785073

 

If you cannot see them, here is the text I edited in that document:

 

Article 12 - Privacy

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.


The right to data protection Public or private organisations that require personal information from individuals must collect only the minimal data necessary and for the minimal period of time needed. They must only process data for the minimal stated purposes. Collection, use, disclosure and retention of this information must comply with a transparent privacy policy which allows people to find out what is collected about them and to correct inaccurate information. Data collected must be protected from unauthorised disclosure and security errors should be rectified without delay. Data must be deleted when it is no longer necessary for the purposes for which it was collected. The public must be warned about the potential for misuse of data supplied. Organisations have a responsibility to notify people when the information has been abused, lost, or stolen.

The right to freedom from surveillance People should be able to communicate free of the threat of surveillance and interception.

Personal data must be protected.  Fair Information Practices that place obligations on those companies and governments who collect and process personal data, and gives rights to those individuals whose personal data is collected, should be enacted into national law. [I propose to use only one term, "personal data", instead of several ("personal information", "information", "data") in order to avoid confusion and because it is the term used in the Convention 108, the OECD Guidelines and the EU Data Protection Directive. - C?dric Laurant]


National legislation should be based upon international privacy frameworks that comply with the rule of law, respect fundamental human rights, and support democratic institutions, such as the 1995 European Union Data Protection Directive, the 1980 OECD Privacy Guidelines, the Council of Europe Convention 108, together with the Protocol of 200.


Governments should ratify the Council of Europe Convention 108 together with the Protocol of 2001 as expeditiously as possible.


Companies should provide genuine privacy enhancing techniques that minimize or eliminate the collection of personal data.


An individual must be free to communicate anonymously on the Internet and use encryption technology.


Note: encryption does not equal anonymity and in some cases may even tie the message conclusively to the message originator - I would suggest "such as through the use of encryption" be removed - Mike Silber 11/15/09 1:16 PM.

Collection, use, disclosure and retention of personal data must comply with a transparent privacy policy, specifying the collector, the personal data collected and the specific purpose of the collection. People should hence be able to access and retrieve the personal data collected from them.  People must be free and able to exercise control and informed decision-making over the personal data collected about them and their usage.


Personal data collected must be protected from unauthorised disclosure and errors should be rectified without delay. Individuals must be informed when their personal data is forwarded for use to third parties, or for a purpose other other than that for which it was collected.


Individuals should be promptly notified when their personal data are improperly disclosed or used in a manner inconsistent with its collection.



Unless otherwise explicitly agreed, personal data should be deleted when it is no longer necessary for the purposes for which it was collected, or for legal reasons.


The public must be warned about the potential for misuse of data supplied. I question whether this principle has any real practical value?-Mike Silber 11/15/09 1:14 PMOrganisations have a responsibility to notify people when the personal data have been abused, lost, or stolen.


An individual must be free to communicate without arbitrary surveillance or interception, or the threat of surveillance or interception. This includes the use of technologies such as deep packet inspection, behavioural tracking and the exercise of control over individuals such as in instances of domestic violence and cyberstalking.


Public or private organisations or companies, including social networks and service providers, which require personal data from individuals should raise awareness and request the individual's informed consent regarding the content, purposes, storage location, duration and mechanisms for access, retrieval and correction of their personal data.  Social media networks must disclose when hidden mechanisms are being employed to harvest email personal data bases.


Service providers have a responsibility to make clear in which legal jurisdiction(s) the user's personal data is being hosted, so that the user can make informed decisions.


Service providers should communicate clearly with users the circumstances under which personal data will be shared with governments and/or with other private entities. Simultaneously provide options for unsubscribing from such networks.


An individual should have the possibility: a) to obtain from a behavioural tracker, or otherwise, confirmation of whether or not the behavioural tracker has data relating to him;  b) to have communicated to him data relating to him within a reasonable time; at a charge, if any, that is not excessive; in a reasonable manner; and in a form that is readily intelligible to him; c) to be given reasons if a request made under subparagraphs (a) and (b) is denied, and to be able to challenge such denial; and d) to challenge data relating to him and, if the challenge is successful, to have the data erased, rectified, completed or amended [Legislative Primer September 2009


            In the information society the right to privacy has to be supported by a guarantee (or principle) of confidentiality                   and integrity of IT-Systems, providing the protection against others accessing IT-Systems without consent.

 

Cedric

---

 

 

-- 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100111/d6a7be81/attachment-0001.htm>


From lisa  Mon Jan 11 13:18:19 2010
From: lisa (Lisa Horner)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:18:19 -0000
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
In-Reply-To: <D6424EFCBDF5BAF0C74425C1@CO223>
References: <0376F55255E23F7B1F29B9EC@[192.168.1.64]>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5C31@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<D6424EFCBDF5BAF0C74425C1@CO223>
Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5CE6@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>

Everyone, please send your ideas through for the Open Consultations.  We
should focus on practical suggestions for the 2010 agenda.  It's really
important that we get our ideas in now, before the agenda is agreed and
it's too late.  We need your ideas NOW as we need to draft a statement
and get it submitted by the 15th.

I guess if no one has anything to add, we should keep it short and
succinct, focusing on human rights rather than the process issues.

In addition to my previous comments, I'd like to add another...

The IGF (including regional and international) needs to find ways of
better involving everyday internet users in the discussions, and of
improving participation from developing countries.  This is particularly
important if we are to uphold human rights in and through IG - users
need to know what their rights are and how to claim them, as well as
contribute to the formation of policies that affect them.

In terms of practical suggestions of how this might happen....
A main session on what users need from the IGF, including discussion of
how to better include users in any future incarnations of the IGF?
Session organizers agreeing to consult with users, and explaining how
they have on feedback forms/in session reports?  
National IGFs formalizing participation from users, including outreach
and information campaign?
Setting up some kind of portal/interface for everyday users to explain
ideas and needs?
More focus on the discussion RE funding for a wider range of
participants.

Any thoughts?

Lisa



-----Original Message-----
From: M I Franklin [mailto:cos02mf at gold.ac.uk] 
Sent: 11 January 2010 10:29
To: Lisa Horner; irp
Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010

Dear All

Thanks Lisa for these comments.

Anyone else have anything to add?

Cheers
MF

--On 08 January 2010 11:30 +0000 Lisa Horner
<lisa at global-partners.co.uk> 
wrote:

> Thanks for taking the lead with this Marianne.  Some very quick notes
> below...would be good to hear people's thoughts and have a discussion
> about the options...
>
> 1) Contributions that take stock of last year's IGF in Sharm el Sheikh
>
> - Overall, the meeting was well organized. I think things have
improved
> each year.
> - Remote participation seemed to work well.  However, workshop
> organizers weren't given much support on how to use it properly and
> technicians weren't always on hand.  More information in advance would
> be useful.
> - A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary sessions reaffirmed the
> importance of upholding human rights in the internet age. The
challenge
> now is to focus on how that can actually be achieved in practice, and
> what roles different stakeholders can/should play.
> - Discussions, especially in plenary, seemed to be distracted by the
> issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. (does anyone
> have an update on the status of those discussions?)
> - Links between the main sessions and the workshops still weren't
great.
> - Main sessions based around the "traditional" categories of openness,
> diversity etc felt a bit stale.  The new themes introduced were
> refreshing.
> - main sessions without a large number of panelists worked better, but
> we need to find better ways of ensuring that wider plenary discussion
> remains coherent, dynamic and inclusive.
>
> 2) Suggestions for the agenda and format of the Vilnius meeting.
>
> - Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, could
more
> specific questions or policy dilemmas be proposed in advance, that
> people can debate in advance and suggest specific solutions to?
>
> - Related to the previous point, having sessions that look at a "human
> rights agenda" or "development agenda for IG" I think would be more
> useful than broad themes such as openness and diversity.  I think
these
> debates have been had in previous open consultations, but I haven't
been
> able to keep up with everything...does anyone have any insights on
this?
> As a coalition, we should probably discuss whether it's realistic to
> propose a human rights main session...could we propose a development
> main session, and then push for HRs to be a major part of that.
Should
> we be proposing development/HRs as an overarching theme again?
>
> - Again related to previous point, the coalition should propose that
it
> participates in the organization of the main session related to
> "openness" or development/HRs/Privacy.
>
> - Can we suggest ways of linking the national, regional and
> international IGFs better together?  It would probably be useful if
this
> could be done in a thematic way, for example with feedback from each
IGF
> on "openness" being collected beforehand and reported back in the
> openness session.  Would require work though - no resources to do it??
>
> - Can we suggest ways of linking the workshops better to the main
> sessions?  There was no formal feedback session last year, and
workshop
> organizers weren't given a formal opportunity to feedback in the main
> sessions as far as I'm aware.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf
Of
> M I Franklin
> Sent: 07 January 2010 18:50
> To: irp
> Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
>
> Dear All
>
> Greetings. To follow on from Max's speed-of-light sending out of the
> minutes of today's IRP phone-conference, this email is a call for
> contributions to a statement from the DC as part of the open
> consultations
> in preparation for Vilnius later this year.
>
> Fouad's invitation for ideas and comments for the MAG meetings is
pasted
>
> below fyi so the DC statement also contributes to this side of the
> process;
> point 4 in particular.
>
> In short, the IRP statement can cover:
>
>
> Time is short, so we need your comments by Monday at the latest. I
will
> then cobble up a first draft for one more round. The statement has to
be
>
> ready to go by 15 January.
>
> All input welcome on either or both of the two aspects above.
>
> Thanks.
> ciao
> MF
>
> --On Thursday, January 07, 2010 6:08 +0500 Fouad Bajwa
> <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Friends,
>>
>> As you are all aware about the IGF Open Consultation and MAG meetings
>> in February 2010, I would like to request those people that cannot
>> participate but would like to be heard to forward their interventions
>> so that we can read and extend them on the floor during the Open
>> Consultation. I further request statements to be brief, concise and
to
>> the point as the floor has to be passed on to the wide participation
>> during the consultation.
>>
>> As for the MAG, we have a strong Civil Society MAG group including
>> myself. The MAG is responsible for suggesting the design/organization
>> of the IGF2010. IF you have concerns regarding the programming of the
>> IGF2010, you can forward your statements for intervention to me so
>> that they can be shared amongst our other team members. Once again,
>> the requirement for being brief, concise and to the point applies
here
>> as well!
>>
>> Ideas for interventions can involve statements such as but not
limited
> to:
>>
>> 1. Issues surfaced during the IGF2009 in Sharam.
>> 2. Developing Country Participation/Inclusion Issues.
>> 3. Main Program / Main Theme Issues for IGF2010.
>> 4. Human Rights Issues/Rights on the Internet Issues.
>> 5. Development Agenda for Internet Governance Issues.
>> 6. Youth and Gender Participation Issues.
>>
>> For your convenience and live correspondence, I will be available on
>> Skype (ID:fouadbajwa , kindly don't forget to introduce yourself
>> please while adding me) throughout the three days of meetings (1 day
>> open consultation + 2 days MAG meetings).
>>
>> I look forward to assisting your interventions.
>>
>> --
>> Regards.
>> --------------------------
>> Fouad Bajwa
>> Advisor & Researcher
>> ICT4D & Internet Governance
>> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF)
>> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
>> My Blog: Internet's Governance
>> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
>> Follow my Tweets:
>> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>> MAG Interview:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>
>
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri
> g
>> htsandprinciples.org
>
>
>
> Dr Marianne Franklin
> Reader
> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
> Media & Communications
> Goldsmiths, University of London
> New Cross
> London SE14 6NW
> United Kingdom
> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
>
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-me
> dia.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri
> ghtsandprinciples.org
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri
g
> htsandprinciples.org



Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
Media & Communications
Goldsmiths, University of London
New Cross
London SE14 6NW
United Kingdom
Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-me
dia.php


From ocl  Mon Jan 11 13:24:34 2010
From: ocl (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:24:34 +0100
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
In-Reply-To: <D6424EFCBDF5BAF0C74425C1@CO223>
References: <0376F55255E23F7B1F29B9EC@[192.168.1.64]>	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5C31@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<D6424EFCBDF5BAF0C74425C1@CO223>
Message-ID: <4B4B0A72.3090806@gih.com>



Le 11/01/2010 11:29, M I Franklin a ?crit :
> Dear All
>
> Thanks Lisa for these comments.
>
> Anyone else have anything to add?
>
> Cheers
> MF
>
> --On 08 January 2010 11:30 +0000 Lisa Horner 
> <lisa at global-partners.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for taking the lead with this Marianne.  Some very quick notes
>> below...would be good to hear people's thoughts and have a discussion
>> about the options...
>>
>> 1) Contributions that take stock of last year's IGF in Sharm el Sheikh
>>
>> - Overall, the meeting was well organized. I think things have improved
>> each year.

Improved yes - definitely. Considering the resources which were 
available, I am amazed at how *well* it went. The IGF is effectively 
running on a shoestring budget, and the volunteer group running the 
operations have to be commended for how good a job they did. I saw them 
work late at night each day, and early in the morning too. Well done to 
them.

>> - Remote participation seemed to work well.  However, workshop
>> organizers weren't given much support on how to use it properly and
>> technicians weren't always on hand.  More information in advance would
>> be useful.
>>

IMHO the IGF is suffering from lack of resources. We missed out on full 
workshop remote participation because (1) nowhere was there a document 
entitled "remote participation in Sharm el Sheikh - how to set it up" 
detailing software, processes etc., and (2) no technicians were at hand 
to explain how things worked.
I am sorry to say that to this date, the experience I had chairing the 
workshop I chaired was the most DIY job I've *ever* had to do in any 
conference. Considering the importance and significance of the subjects 
discussed, this is deplorable, and the only way in the future is to have 
more dedicated staff to run those things.

>> - Discussions, especially in plenary, seemed to be distracted by the
>> issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. (does anyone
>> have an update on the status of those discussions?)
>> - Links between the main sessions and the workshops still weren't great.

Indeed - it often looked as though there was no link whatsoever - even 
two separate conferences taking place side by side.

Can I add that I completely agree with Lisa's other points.

Warmest regards,

Olivier

-- 
Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html



From gpaque  Mon Jan 11 13:38:09 2010
From: gpaque (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 07:08:09 -0430
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
In-Reply-To: <D6424EFCBDF5BAF0C74425C1@CO223>
References: <0376F55255E23F7B1F29B9EC@[192.168.1.64]>	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5C31@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<D6424EFCBDF5BAF0C74425C1@CO223>
Message-ID: <4B4B0DA1.4000500@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100111/b9312fc8/attachment-0001.htm>


From cos02mf  Mon Jan 11 14:27:20 2010
From: cos02mf (M I Franklin)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:27:20 +0000
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
In-Reply-To: <4B4B0DA1.4000500@gmail.com>
References: <0376F55255E23F7B1F29B9EC@[192.168.1.64]>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5C31@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<D6424EFCBDF5BAF0C74425C1@CO223> <4B4B0DA1.4000500@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C71D6B6A2CECB3064139DF2A@CO223>

Thanks all

Due to the limited time-window, I can only incorporate comments coming in 
up to midnight GMT. Will have the first version ready later in the day on 
Tuesday, 12/01 to allow time for other timezones.

So, go for it!

cheers
MF

--On 11 January 2010 07:08 -0430 Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think this is a good approach.
>
> Could you please re-word slightly the note on Remote Participation?
>
> The Remote Participation Working Group (RPWG) proposes a short training
> session for panel moderators and remote moderators before the start of
> the IGF meeting. We also propose that the Workshop design include not
> only a moderator, but an online moderator, so that someone on the panel
> is monitoring the remote participation. This can be a panel member or
> rapporteur, even the panel moderator if necessary, but a remote moderator
> should be assigned to handle remote participation, and should have
> orientation before the meeting starts. This is the most significant
> change that needs to be added for IGF 2010.
>
> The RPWG is finally setting up the definitive webpage at
> www.igfremote.info, as www.igfremote.org was hijacked. Information will
> be more readily available this year, for Remote Hubs, and for remote
> individuals and remote presenters.
>
> Best, Ginger
>
> M I Franklin wrote:
>
> Dear All
>
> Thanks Lisa for these comments.
>
> Anyone else have anything to add?
>
> Cheers
> MF
>
> --On 08 January 2010 11:30 +0000 Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for taking the lead with this Marianne.  Some very quick notes
> below...would be good to hear people's thoughts and have a discussion
> about the options...
>
> 1) Contributions that take stock of last year's IGF in Sharm el Sheikh
>
> - Overall, the meeting was well organized. I think things have improved
> each year.
> - Remote participation seemed to work well.  However, workshop
> organizers weren't given much support on how to use it properly and
> technicians weren't always on hand.  More information in advance would
> be useful.
> - A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary sessions reaffirmed the
> importance of upholding human rights in the internet age. The challenge
> now is to focus on how that can actually be achieved in practice, and
> what roles different stakeholders can/should play.
> - Discussions, especially in plenary, seemed to be distracted by the
> issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. (does anyone
> have an update on the status of those discussions?)
> - Links between the main sessions and the workshops still weren't great.
> - Main sessions based around the "traditional" categories of openness,
> diversity etc felt a bit stale.  The new themes introduced were
> refreshing.
> - main sessions without a large number of panelists worked better, but
> we need to find better ways of ensuring that wider plenary discussion
> remains coherent, dynamic and inclusive.
>
> 2) Suggestions for the agenda and format of the Vilnius meeting.
>
> - Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, could more
> specific questions or policy dilemmas be proposed in advance, that
> people can debate in advance and suggest specific solutions to?
>
> - Related to the previous point, having sessions that look at a "human
> rights agenda" or "development agenda for IG" I think would be more
> useful than broad themes such as openness and diversity.  I think these
> debates have been had in previous open consultations, but I haven't been
> able to keep up with everything...does anyone have any insights on this?
> As a coalition, we should probably discuss whether it's realistic to
> propose a human rights main session...could we propose a development
> main session, and then push for HRs to be a major part of that.  Should
> we be proposing development/HRs as an overarching theme again?
>
> - Again related to previous point, the coalition should propose that it
> participates in the organization of the main session related to
> "openness" or development/HRs/Privacy.
>
> - Can we suggest ways of linking the national, regional and
> international IGFs better together?  It would probably be useful if this
> could be done in a thematic way, for example with feedback from each IGF
> on "openness" being collected beforehand and reported back in the
> openness session.  Would require work though - no resources to do it??
>
> - Can we suggest ways of linking the workshops better to the main
> sessions?  There was no formal feedback session last year, and workshop
> organizers weren't given a formal opportunity to feedback in the main
> sessions as far as I'm aware.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of
> M I Franklin
> Sent: 07 January 2010 18:50
> To: irp
> Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
>
> Dear All
>
> Greetings. To follow on from Max's speed-of-light sending out of the
> minutes of today's IRP phone-conference, this email is a call for
> contributions to a statement from the DC as part of the open
> consultations
> in preparation for Vilnius later this year.
>
> Fouad's invitation for ideas and comments for the MAG meetings is pasted
>
> below fyi so the DC statement also contributes to this side of the
> process;
> point 4 in particular.
>
> In short, the IRP statement can cover:
>
>
> Time is short, so we need your comments by Monday at the latest. I will
> then cobble up a first draft for one more round. The statement has to be
>
> ready to go by 15 January.
>
> All input welcome on either or both of the two aspects above.
>
> Thanks.
> ciao
> MF
>
> --On Thursday, January 07, 2010 6:08 +0500 Fouad Bajwa
> <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> As you are all aware about the IGF Open Consultation and MAG meetings
> in February 2010, I would like to request those people that cannot
> participate but would like to be heard to forward their interventions
> so that we can read and extend them on the floor during the Open
> Consultation. I further request statements to be brief, concise and to
> the point as the floor has to be passed on to the wide participation
> during the consultation.
>
> As for the MAG, we have a strong Civil Society MAG group including
> myself. The MAG is responsible for suggesting the design/organization
> of the IGF2010. IF you have concerns regarding the programming of the
> IGF2010, you can forward your statements for intervention to me so
> that they can be shared amongst our other team members. Once again,
> the requirement for being brief, concise and to the point applies here
> as well!
>
> Ideas for interventions can involve statements such as but not limited
>
> to:
>
>
> 1. Issues surfaced during the IGF2009 in Sharam.
> 2. Developing Country Participation/Inclusion Issues.
> 3. Main Program / Main Theme Issues for IGF2010.
> 4. Human Rights Issues/Rights on the Internet Issues.
> 5. Development Agenda for Internet Governance Issues.
> 6. Youth and Gender Participation Issues.
>
> For your convenience and live correspondence, I will be available on
> Skype (ID:fouadbajwa , kindly don't forget to introduce yourself
> please while adding me) throughout the three days of meetings (1 day
> open consultation + 2 days MAG meetings).
>
> I look forward to assisting your interventions.
>
> --
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> Advisor & Researcher
> ICT4D & Internet Governance
> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF)
> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
> My Blog: Internet's Governance
> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
> Follow my Tweets:
> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
> MAG Interview:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
>
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri
> g
>
> htsandprinciples.org
>
>
>
>
> Dr Marianne Franklin
> Reader
> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
> Media & Communications
> Goldsmiths, University of London
> New Cross
> London SE14 6NW
> United Kingdom
> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-me
> dia.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri
> ghtsandprinciples.org
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrig
> htsandprinciples.org
>
>
>
>
> Dr Marianne Franklin
> Reader
> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
> Media & Communications
> Goldsmiths, University of London
> New Cross
> London SE14 6NW
> United Kingdom
> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-med
> ia.php
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrig
> htsandprinciples.org
>
>



Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
Media & Communications
Goldsmiths, University of London
New Cross
London SE14 6NW
United Kingdom
Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php



From katitza  Mon Jan 11 14:59:17 2010
From: katitza (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 07:59:17 -0500
Subject: [IRP] Body scanners can store, send images, group says
References: <5773AB36-5C74-4B20-94FB-40DCC36BCAB6@epic.org>
Message-ID: <42A9260F-B34D-466A-9EBD-9EEF20750C38@datos-personales.org>

fyi,


http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/11/body.scanners/
CNN.com 	

Body scanners can store, send images, group says
By Jeanne Meserve and Mike M. Ahlers (CNN)

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

    * 2008 documents indicate machines must have image storing,
    sending capabilities, group says

    * Electronic Privacy Information Center says requirement
    could lead to abuse

    * Written guidelines appear to contradict assurances made by
    TSA

    * A TSA official says image saving can be done only in TSA
    test facilities

Washington (CNN) -- A privacy group says the Transportation
Security Administration is misleading the public with claims
that full-body scanners at airports cannot store or send their
graphic images.

The TSA specified in 2008 documents that the machines must have
image storage and sending abilities, the Washington-based
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) said.

In the documents, obtained by the privacy group and provided to
CNN, the TSA specifies that the body scanners it purchases must
have the ability to store and send images when in "test mode."

That requirement leaves open the possibility the machines --
which can see beneath people's clothing -- can be abused by TSA
insiders and hacked by outsiders, said EPIC Executive Director
Marc Rotenberg.

EPIC, a public-interest group focused on privacy and civil
rights, obtained the technical specifications and vendor
contracts through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

The written requirements also appear to contradict numerous
assurances the TSA has given the public about the machines'
privacy protections.

"The machines have zero storage capability," the TSA Web site
says.

A TSA video assures passengers "the system has no way to save,
transmit or print the image."

And the TSA has distributed numerous news releases with similar
language as it lobbies for public acceptance of the machines as
a less intrusive alternative to pat-downs.

A TSA official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the
official is not authorized to speak on the record said all
full-body scanners have "strong privacy protections in place"
and are delivered to airports "without the capability to store,
print or transmit images."

"There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put
the machine into the test mode," the official said, adding that
test mode can be enabled only in TSA test facilities. But the
official declined to say whether activating test mode requires
additional hardware, software or simply additional knowledge of
how the machines operate.

The controversy arises as the TSA is promoting the machines as a
possible way to prevent assaults on U.S. airliners, such as the
Christmas attempt on Northwest Flight 253.

About 40 machines are already in use at 19 airports, and the TSA
says it will deploy 150 more nationwide this year, while
appropriating money for an additional 300 machines for 2011.

"I don't think the TSA has been forthcoming with the American
public about the true capability of these devices," EPIC's
Rotenberg said. "They've done a bunch of very slick promotions
where they show people -- including journalists -- going through
the devices. And then they reassure people, based on the images
that have been produced, that there's not any privacy concerns.

"But if you look at the actual technical specifications and you
read the vendor contracts, you come to understand that these
machines are capable of doing far more than the TSA has let on,"
he said.

The TSA should suspend further deployment of the machines until
privacy and security questions are resolved, Rotenberg said.

TSA officials say they have taken sufficient measures to protect
privacy.

The TSA officer viewing the image cannot see the actual
passenger. No cameras, cell phones or other devices capable of
capturing an image are allowed in the room where the image is
displayed, according to the TSA. The agency adds that images are
deleted from the system after the operator reviews them. And
employees who misuse the machines are subject to serious
discipline or removal.

Further, the TSA says, the machines are not networked and cannot
be hacked.

EPIC said it is pursuing a lawsuit to obtain additional
documents about the machines from the TSA.



From isolatedn  Mon Jan 11 18:55:00 2010
From: isolatedn (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:25:00 +0530
Subject: [IRP] Body scanners can store, send images, group says
In-Reply-To: <42A9260F-B34D-466A-9EBD-9EEF20750C38@datos-personales.org>
References: <5773AB36-5C74-4B20-94FB-40DCC36BCAB6@epic.org>
	<42A9260F-B34D-466A-9EBD-9EEF20750C38@datos-personales.org>
Message-ID: <fecfce261001110855o1b908edbw8f3bcbdf217a6a27@mail.gmail.com>

Hello

While Privacy organizations are doing their part to oppose body scanners in
airports, the proponents ( Government / TSA / Security Agencies ) are
engaged in propaganda, that air travelers strongly approve of body scanners
in airports.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/item.aspx?type=blog&ak=14412.blog

This report says that e "most [passengers are] OK" with body scanners.
Privacy campaigns need to be stepped up, and all that it would take the
Governments to brush aside the opposition would be a bit more of such
propaganda.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com
facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz




On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <
katitza at datos-personales.org> wrote:

> fyi,
>
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/11/body.scanners/
> CNN.com
>
> Body scanners can store, send images, group says
> By Jeanne Meserve and Mike M. Ahlers (CNN)
>
> STORY HIGHLIGHTS
>
>   * 2008 documents indicate machines must have image storing,
>   sending capabilities, group says
>
>   * Electronic Privacy Information Center says requirement
>   could lead to abuse
>
>   * Written guidelines appear to contradict assurances made by
>   TSA
>
>   * A TSA official says image saving can be done only in TSA
>   test facilities
>
> Washington (CNN) -- A privacy group says the Transportation
> Security Administration is misleading the public with claims
> that full-body scanners at airports cannot store or send their
> graphic images.
>
> The TSA specified in 2008 documents that the machines must have
> image storage and sending abilities, the Washington-based
> Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) said.
>
> In the documents, obtained by the privacy group and provided to
> CNN, the TSA specifies that the body scanners it purchases must
> have the ability to store and send images when in "test mode."
>
> That requirement leaves open the possibility the machines --
> which can see beneath people's clothing -- can be abused by TSA
> insiders and hacked by outsiders, said EPIC Executive Director
> Marc Rotenberg.
>
> EPIC, a public-interest group focused on privacy and civil
> rights, obtained the technical specifications and vendor
> contracts through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
>
> The written requirements also appear to contradict numerous
> assurances the TSA has given the public about the machines'
> privacy protections.
>
> "The machines have zero storage capability," the TSA Web site
> says.
>
> A TSA video assures passengers "the system has no way to save,
> transmit or print the image."
>
> And the TSA has distributed numerous news releases with similar
> language as it lobbies for public acceptance of the machines as
> a less intrusive alternative to pat-downs.
>
> A TSA official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the
> official is not authorized to speak on the record said all
> full-body scanners have "strong privacy protections in place"
> and are delivered to airports "without the capability to store,
> print or transmit images."
>
> "There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put
> the machine into the test mode," the official said, adding that
> test mode can be enabled only in TSA test facilities. But the
> official declined to say whether activating test mode requires
> additional hardware, software or simply additional knowledge of
> how the machines operate.
>
> The controversy arises as the TSA is promoting the machines as a
> possible way to prevent assaults on U.S. airliners, such as the
> Christmas attempt on Northwest Flight 253.
>
> About 40 machines are already in use at 19 airports, and the TSA
> says it will deploy 150 more nationwide this year, while
> appropriating money for an additional 300 machines for 2011.
>
> "I don't think the TSA has been forthcoming with the American
> public about the true capability of these devices," EPIC's
> Rotenberg said. "They've done a bunch of very slick promotions
> where they show people -- including journalists -- going through
> the devices. And then they reassure people, based on the images
> that have been produced, that there's not any privacy concerns.
>
> "But if you look at the actual technical specifications and you
> read the vendor contracts, you come to understand that these
> machines are capable of doing far more than the TSA has let on,"
> he said.
>
> The TSA should suspend further deployment of the machines until
> privacy and security questions are resolved, Rotenberg said.
>
> TSA officials say they have taken sufficient measures to protect
> privacy.
>
> The TSA officer viewing the image cannot see the actual
> passenger. No cameras, cell phones or other devices capable of
> capturing an image are allowed in the room where the image is
> displayed, according to the TSA. The agency adds that images are
> deleted from the system after the operator reviews them. And
> employees who misuse the machines are subject to serious
> discipline or removal.
>
> Further, the TSA says, the machines are not networked and cannot
> be hacked.
>
> EPIC said it is pursuing a lawsuit to obtain additional
> documents about the machines from the TSA.
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100111/80cecb7b/attachment-0001.htm>


From rebecca.mackinnon  Tue Jan 12 16:34:16 2010
From: rebecca.mackinnon (Rebecca MacKinnon)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 07:34:16 -0700
Subject: [IRP] Freedom House - Feb 2010 Human Rights Summit
In-Reply-To: <D350038F-CB6B-4568-AD16-5B167F9576CB@freedomhouse.org>
References: <0492A81964C44A408EDD71FBDE2E601E0278B52C36@fhex2>
	<D350038F-CB6B-4568-AD16-5B167F9576CB@freedomhouse.org>
Message-ID: <58762b1a1001120634g7b9a9a83k6990fc25bb1cb216@mail.gmail.com>

Hi there. Any details about virtual participation? Not seeing any info on
the FH website.
Best,
R

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Robert Guerra <guerra at freedomhouse.org>wrote:

> Dear IRP colleagues,
>
> I would like to share with all of you news of an upcoming event that
> Freedom House will be organizing next month. I will briefly mention the
> event at the end of today's call. Further details are below as well as in
> the attached blurb.
>
> I am working with my colleague Elizabeth Floyd to have the event include
> virtual participation as well as have one of the working groups focus on
> Internet Rights & Internet Freedom.
>
> regards
>
> Robert
> --
>
> R. Guerra
> Project Director, Internet Freedom, Freedom House
> 131 Connecticut Ave. NW Fl.6, Washington, DC 20036
> Direct: +1 202 747 7067, Main: +1 202 296 5101
> Mobile +1 202 569 1800,  Fax:  +1 202 293 2840
> Email: guerra at freedomhouse.org<mailto:bonner at freedomhouse.org>
>
>
>
> Freedom House, the Center for American Progress, and Human Rights First
> will convene the 2010 Washington Human Rights Summit: Affirming Fundamental
> Freedoms, in February 2010 in Washington DC. The event will bring together
> the world?s leading human rights and democracy activists along with
> political leaders, scholars, and journalists.  Participants will examine
> challenges to the promotion of rights and freedoms in different parts of the
> world and set out a forward-looking vision for U.S. foreign policy,
> multilateral institutions and the international community for the years
> ahead. For additional information please contact Paula Schriefer <
> schriefer at freedomhouse.org<mailto:schriefer at freedomhouse.org>> and
> Elizabeth Floyd  <floyd at freedomhouse.org<mailto:floyd at freedomhouse.org>>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________________________
> Elizabeth A. Floyd | 2010 Human Rights Summit Coordinator| Democracy Web<
> http://www.democracyweb.org/> Project Director| Freedom House<
> http://www.freedomhouse.org/> | 1301 Connecticut Ave NW Washington DC
> 20036 |  Tel: 202.747.7008 | Fax: 202.293.2840
>
> Supporting the right of every individual to be free.
> Donate now<http://www.freedomhouse.org/donate>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
>


-- 
IMPORTANT: My Hong Kong University e-mail (rmack at hku.hk) will soon be
de-activated. Please use my gmail instead (see below).

Rebecca MacKinnon
Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org
Tel: +1-617-939-3493
E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com
Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack
Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100112/4b48209a/attachment.htm>


From guerra  Tue Jan 12 16:37:11 2010
From: guerra (Robert Guerra)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:37:11 -0500
Subject: [IRP] Freedom House - Feb 2010 Human Rights Summit
In-Reply-To: <58762b1a1001120634g7b9a9a83k6990fc25bb1cb216@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0492A81964C44A408EDD71FBDE2E601E0278B52C36@fhex2>
	<D350038F-CB6B-4568-AD16-5B167F9576CB@freedomhouse.org>,
	<58762b1a1001120634g7b9a9a83k6990fc25bb1cb216@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <02B7B0535E8ACB4FACB46EDC26C94C5C027830E2D1@fhex2>

Address where the event will be streamed - 

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/freedom-house

Address where the event will be archived after the fact - 

http://blip.tv/internetfreedom
________________________________________
From: Rebecca MacKinnon [rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com]
Sent: January 12, 2010 9:34 AM
To: Robert Guerra
Cc: Max Senges; Elfa.Gylfadottir; Elizabeth Floyd; Andrea Beccalli; Shaila Mistry; HIBBARD Lee; Graciela Selaimen; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; Carlos, Affonso Pereira de Souza; malte.spitz; Biel Company Perez; johan.hallenborg
Subject: Re: [IRP] Freedom House - Feb 2010 Human Rights Summit

Hi there. Any details about virtual participation? Not seeing any info on the FH website.
Best,
R

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Robert Guerra <guerra at freedomhouse.org<mailto:guerra at freedomhouse.org>> wrote:
Dear IRP colleagues,

I would like to share with all of you news of an upcoming event that Freedom House will be organizing next month. I will briefly mention the event at the end of today's call. Further details are below as well as in the attached blurb.

I am working with my colleague Elizabeth Floyd to have the event include virtual participation as well as have one of the working groups focus on Internet Rights & Internet Freedom.

regards

Robert
--

R. Guerra
Project Director, Internet Freedom, Freedom House
131 Connecticut Ave. NW Fl.6, Washington, DC 20036
Direct: +1 202 747 7067, Main: +1 202 296 5101
Mobile +1 202 569 1800,  Fax:  +1 202 293 2840
Email: guerra at freedomhouse.org<mailto:guerra at freedomhouse.org><mailto:bonner at freedomhouse.org<mailto:bonner at freedomhouse.org>>



Freedom House, the Center for American Progress, and Human Rights First will convene the 2010 Washington Human Rights Summit: Affirming Fundamental Freedoms, in February 2010 in Washington DC. The event will bring together the world?s leading human rights and democracy activists along with political leaders, scholars, and journalists.  Participants will examine challenges to the promotion of rights and freedoms in different parts of the world and set out a forward-looking vision for U.S. foreign policy, multilateral institutions and the international community for the years ahead. For additional information please contact Paula Schriefer <schriefer at freedomhouse.org<mailto:schriefer at freedomhouse.org><mailto:schriefer at freedomhouse.org<mailto:schriefer at freedomhouse.org>>> and Elizabeth Floyd  <floyd at freedomhouse.org<mailto:floyd at freedomhouse.org><mailto:floyd at freedomhouse.org<mailto:floyd at freedomhouse.org>>>



__________________________________________________________________________________________
Elizabeth A. Floyd | 2010 Human Rights Summit Coordinator| Democracy Web<http://www.democracyweb.org/> Project Director| Freedom House<http://www.freedomhouse.org/> | 1301 Connecticut Ave NW Washington DC 20036 |  Tel: 202.747.7008 | Fax: 202.293.2840

Supporting the right of every individual to be free.
Donate now<http://www.freedomhouse.org/donate>



_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org<mailto:IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org




--
IMPORTANT: My Hong Kong University e-mail (rmack at hku.hk<mailto:rmack at hku.hk>) will soon be de-activated. Please use my gmail instead (see below).

Rebecca MacKinnon
Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org
Tel: +1-617-939-3493
E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com<mailto:rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com>
Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack
Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack



From rebecca.mackinnon  Tue Jan 12 16:36:26 2010
From: rebecca.mackinnon (Rebecca MacKinnon)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 07:36:26 -0700
Subject: [IRP] Freedom House - Feb 2010 Human Rights Summit
In-Reply-To: <58762b1a1001120634g7b9a9a83k6990fc25bb1cb216@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0492A81964C44A408EDD71FBDE2E601E0278B52C36@fhex2>
	<D350038F-CB6B-4568-AD16-5B167F9576CB@freedomhouse.org>
	<58762b1a1001120634g7b9a9a83k6990fc25bb1cb216@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <58762b1a1001120636i63d23a69o8d73c5b5f858124@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry I replied to the wrong email. Was asking about the Freedom in the
World event allegedly taking place right now, which I thought was going to
be streamed. I guess not.
Best,
R

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Rebecca MacKinnon <
rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi there. Any details about virtual participation? Not seeing any info on
> the FH website.
> Best,
> R
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Robert Guerra <guerra at freedomhouse.org>wrote:
>
>> Dear IRP colleagues,
>>
>> I would like to share with all of you news of an upcoming event that
>> Freedom House will be organizing next month. I will briefly mention the
>> event at the end of today's call. Further details are below as well as in
>> the attached blurb.
>>
>> I am working with my colleague Elizabeth Floyd to have the event include
>> virtual participation as well as have one of the working groups focus on
>> Internet Rights & Internet Freedom.
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Robert
>> --
>>
>> R. Guerra
>> Project Director, Internet Freedom, Freedom House
>> 131 Connecticut Ave. NW Fl.6, Washington, DC 20036
>> Direct: +1 202 747 7067, Main: +1 202 296 5101
>> Mobile +1 202 569 1800,  Fax:  +1 202 293 2840
>> Email: guerra at freedomhouse.org<mailto:bonner at freedomhouse.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> Freedom House, the Center for American Progress, and Human Rights First
>> will convene the 2010 Washington Human Rights Summit: Affirming Fundamental
>> Freedoms, in February 2010 in Washington DC. The event will bring together
>> the world?s leading human rights and democracy activists along with
>> political leaders, scholars, and journalists.  Participants will examine
>> challenges to the promotion of rights and freedoms in different parts of the
>> world and set out a forward-looking vision for U.S. foreign policy,
>> multilateral institutions and the international community for the years
>> ahead. For additional information please contact Paula Schriefer <
>> schriefer at freedomhouse.org<mailto:schriefer at freedomhouse.org>> and
>> Elizabeth Floyd  <floyd at freedomhouse.org<mailto:floyd at freedomhouse.org>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________________________
>> Elizabeth A. Floyd | 2010 Human Rights Summit Coordinator| Democracy Web<
>> http://www.democracyweb.org/> Project Director| Freedom House<
>> http://www.freedomhouse.org/> | 1301 Connecticut Ave NW Washington DC
>> 20036 |  Tel: 202.747.7008 | Fax: 202.293.2840
>>
>> Supporting the right of every individual to be free.
>> Donate now<http://www.freedomhouse.org/donate>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> IMPORTANT: My Hong Kong University e-mail (rmack at hku.hk) will soon be
> de-activated. Please use my gmail instead (see below).
>
> Rebecca MacKinnon
> Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org
> Tel: +1-617-939-3493
> E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com
> Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack
> Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack
>
>


-- 
IMPORTANT: My Hong Kong University e-mail (rmack at hku.hk) will soon be
de-activated. Please use my gmail instead (see below).

Rebecca MacKinnon
Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org
Tel: +1-617-939-3493
E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com
Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack
Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100112/c49cb503/attachment.htm>


From shailam  Tue Jan 12 18:38:49 2010
From: shailam (shaila mistry)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:38:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [IRP] Freedom House - Feb 2010 Human Rights Summit
In-Reply-To: <02B7B0535E8ACB4FACB46EDC26C94C5C027830E2D1@fhex2>
References: <0492A81964C44A408EDD71FBDE2E601E0278B52C36@fhex2>
	<D350038F-CB6B-4568-AD16-5B167F9576CB@freedomhouse.org>,
	<58762b1a1001120634g7b9a9a83k6990fc25bb1cb216@mail.gmail.com>
	<02B7B0535E8ACB4FACB46EDC26C94C5C027830E2D1@fhex2>
Message-ID: <987538.58934.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com>

Hi I tried to participate but it asks for a password
shaila  from IRP 
CA 

 
Life is too short ....challenge the rules
Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly
Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! 
 




________________________________
From: Robert Guerra <guerra at freedomhouse.org>
To: Rebecca MacKinnon <rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com>
Cc: Elfa.Gylfadottir <Elfa.Gylfadottir at mrn.stjr.is>; Elizabeth Floyd <floyd at freedomhouse.org>; Andrea Beccalli <a.beccalli at unesco.org>; HIBBARD Lee <Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int>; "Carlos, Affonso Pereira de Souza" <caffsouza at gmail.com>; Shaila Mistry <shailam at jaycopanels.com>; Max Senges <maxsenges at google.com>; malte.spitz <malte.spitz at gruene.de>; Biel Company Perez <bcompanyp at uoc.edu>; Graciela Selaimen <graciela at rits.org.br>; johan.hallenborg <johan.hallenborg at foreign.ministry.se>; "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" <irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 6:37:11 AM
Subject: Re: [IRP] Freedom House - Feb 2010 Human Rights Summit

Address where the event will be streamed - 

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/freedom-house

Address where the event will be archived after the fact - 

http://blip.tv/internetfreedom
________________________________________
From: Rebecca MacKinnon [rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com]
Sent: January 12, 2010 9:34 AM
To: Robert Guerra
Cc: Max Senges; Elfa.Gylfadottir; Elizabeth Floyd; Andrea Beccalli; Shaila Mistry; HIBBARD Lee; Graciela Selaimen; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; Carlos, Affonso Pereira de Souza; malte.spitz; Biel Company Perez; johan.hallenborg
Subject: Re: [IRP] Freedom House - Feb 2010 Human Rights Summit

Hi there. Any details about virtual participation? Not seeing any info on the FH website.
Best,
R

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Robert Guerra <guerra at freedomhouse.org<mailto:guerra at freedomhouse.org>> wrote:
Dear IRP colleagues,

I would like to share with all of you news of an upcoming event that Freedom House will be organizing next month. I will briefly mention the event at the end of today's call. Further details are below as well as in the attached blurb.

I am working with my colleague Elizabeth Floyd to have the event include virtual participation as well as have one of the working groups focus on Internet Rights & Internet Freedom.

regards

Robert
--

R. Guerra
Project Director, Internet Freedom, Freedom House
131 Connecticut Ave. NW Fl.6, Washington, DC 20036
Direct: +1 202 747 7067, Main: +1 202 296 5101
Mobile +1 202 569 1800,  Fax:  +1 202 293 2840
Email: guerra at freedomhouse.org<mailto:guerra at freedomhouse.org><mailto:bonner at freedomhouse.org<mailto:bonner at freedomhouse.org>>



Freedom House, the Center for American Progress, and Human Rights First will convene the 2010 Washington Human Rights Summit: Affirming Fundamental Freedoms, in February 2010 in Washington DC. The event will bring together the world?s leading human rights and democracy activists along with political leaders, scholars, and journalists.  Participants will examine challenges to the promotion of rights and freedoms in different parts of the world and set out a forward-looking vision for U.S. foreign policy, multilateral institutions and the international community for the years ahead. For additional information please contact Paula Schriefer <schriefer at freedomhouse.org<mailto:schriefer at freedomhouse.org><mailto:schriefer at freedomhouse.org<mailto:schriefer at freedomhouse.org>>> and Elizabeth Floyd  <floyd at freedomhouse.org<mailto:floyd at freedomhouse.org><mailto:floyd at freedomhouse.org<mailto:floyd at freedomhouse.org>>>



__________________________________________________________________________________________
Elizabeth A. Floyd | 2010 Human Rights Summit Coordinator| Democracy Web<http://www.democracyweb.org/> Project Director| Freedom House<http://www.freedomhouse.org/> | 1301 Connecticut Ave NW Washington DC 20036 |  Tel: 202.747.7008 | Fax: 202.293.2840

Supporting the right of every individual to be free.
Donate now<http://www.freedomhouse.org/donate>



_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org<mailto:IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org




--
IMPORTANT: My Hong Kong University e-mail (rmack at hku.hk<mailto:rmack at hku.hk>) will soon be de-activated. Please use my gmail instead (see below).

Rebecca MacKinnon
Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org
Tel: +1-617-939-3493
E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com<mailto:rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com>
Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack
Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack

_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100112/84006d97/attachment-0001.htm>


From lisa  Tue Jan 12 18:57:16 2010
From: lisa (Lisa Horner)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:57:16 -0000
Subject: [IRP] IRP list - please don't copy lots of contacts in
Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5E1A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>

Hi all

 

Please DO NOT "reply to all" when responding to the email thread with
the long list of recipients.  They keep getting caught in the
administrative system as the list of recipients is too long.  Most of
the people copied into that thread are on the mailing list anyway.
Please just reply to the list
(irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org).  Only copy people in if you
know they are not on the list (and encourage them to join!).

 

Thanks,

 

Lisa

 

___________________________________________________________

Lisa Horner

Head of Research & Policy  Global Partners and Associates

338 City Road, London, EC1V 2PY, UK

Office: + 44 207 239 8251     Mobile: +44 7867 795859

lisa at global-partners.co.uk <mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk>
www.global-partners.co.uk <http://www.global-partners.co.uk/>  

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100112/8ab08477/attachment.htm>


From graciela  Tue Jan 12 22:07:24 2010
From: graciela (Graciela Selaimen)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:07:24 -0200
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5CE6@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
References: <0376F55255E23F7B1F29B9EC@[192.168.1.64]>	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5C31@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>	<D6424EFCBDF5BAF0C74425C1@CO223>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5CE6@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
Message-ID: <4B4CD67C.6020505@nupef.org.br>

Dear Lisa and all,

I'm comfortable with all the suggestions to the statement presented so 
far, but I feel deeply concerned with the adoption of the term "users" 
as a general category. Who are the everyday Internet users?

I think we should stress the importance of assuring diversity of voices, 
of regional and linguistical representation, the participation of 
underepresented groups, etc, etc, but I see the proposal of bringing the 
"everyday internet users" to the IGF quite dangerous.
Besides, I guess everyone who goes to the IGF is an everyday internet user.

best,
Graciela


Lisa Horner escreveu:
> Everyone, please send your ideas through for the Open Consultations.  We
> should focus on practical suggestions for the 2010 agenda.  It's really
> important that we get our ideas in now, before the agenda is agreed and
> it's too late.  We need your ideas NOW as we need to draft a statement
> and get it submitted by the 15th.
>
> I guess if no one has anything to add, we should keep it short and
> succinct, focusing on human rights rather than the process issues.
>
> In addition to my previous comments, I'd like to add another...
>
> The IGF (including regional and international) needs to find ways of
> better involving everyday internet users in the discussions, and of
> improving participation from developing countries.  This is particularly
> important if we are to uphold human rights in and through IG - users
> need to know what their rights are and how to claim them, as well as
> contribute to the formation of policies that affect them.
>
> In terms of practical suggestions of how this might happen....
> A main session on what users need from the IGF, including discussion of
> how to better include users in any future incarnations of the IGF?
> Session organizers agreeing to consult with users, and explaining how
> they have on feedback forms/in session reports?  
> National IGFs formalizing participation from users, including outreach
> and information campaign?
> Setting up some kind of portal/interface for everyday users to explain
> ideas and needs?
> More focus on the discussion RE funding for a wider range of
> participants.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Lisa
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: M I Franklin [mailto:cos02mf at gold.ac.uk] 
> Sent: 11 January 2010 10:29
> To: Lisa Horner; irp
> Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
>
> Dear All
>
> Thanks Lisa for these comments.
>
> Anyone else have anything to add?
>
> Cheers
> MF
>
> --On 08 January 2010 11:30 +0000 Lisa Horner
> <lisa at global-partners.co.uk> 
> wrote:
>
>   
>> Thanks for taking the lead with this Marianne.  Some very quick notes
>> below...would be good to hear people's thoughts and have a discussion
>> about the options...
>>
>> 1) Contributions that take stock of last year's IGF in Sharm el Sheikh
>>
>> - Overall, the meeting was well organized. I think things have
>>     
> improved
>   
>> each year.
>> - Remote participation seemed to work well.  However, workshop
>> organizers weren't given much support on how to use it properly and
>> technicians weren't always on hand.  More information in advance would
>> be useful.
>> - A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary sessions reaffirmed the
>> importance of upholding human rights in the internet age. The
>>     
> challenge
>   
>> now is to focus on how that can actually be achieved in practice, and
>> what roles different stakeholders can/should play.
>> - Discussions, especially in plenary, seemed to be distracted by the
>> issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. (does anyone
>> have an update on the status of those discussions?)
>> - Links between the main sessions and the workshops still weren't
>>     
> great.
>   
>> - Main sessions based around the "traditional" categories of openness,
>> diversity etc felt a bit stale.  The new themes introduced were
>> refreshing.
>> - main sessions without a large number of panelists worked better, but
>> we need to find better ways of ensuring that wider plenary discussion
>> remains coherent, dynamic and inclusive.
>>
>> 2) Suggestions for the agenda and format of the Vilnius meeting.
>>
>> - Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, could
>>     
> more
>   
>> specific questions or policy dilemmas be proposed in advance, that
>> people can debate in advance and suggest specific solutions to?
>>
>> - Related to the previous point, having sessions that look at a "human
>> rights agenda" or "development agenda for IG" I think would be more
>> useful than broad themes such as openness and diversity.  I think
>>     
> these
>   
>> debates have been had in previous open consultations, but I haven't
>>     
> been
>   
>> able to keep up with everything...does anyone have any insights on
>>     
> this?
>   
>> As a coalition, we should probably discuss whether it's realistic to
>> propose a human rights main session...could we propose a development
>> main session, and then push for HRs to be a major part of that.
>>     
> Should
>   
>> we be proposing development/HRs as an overarching theme again?
>>
>> - Again related to previous point, the coalition should propose that
>>     
> it
>   
>> participates in the organization of the main session related to
>> "openness" or development/HRs/Privacy.
>>
>> - Can we suggest ways of linking the national, regional and
>> international IGFs better together?  It would probably be useful if
>>     
> this
>   
>> could be done in a thematic way, for example with feedback from each
>>     
> IGF
>   
>> on "openness" being collected beforehand and reported back in the
>> openness session.  Would require work though - no resources to do it??
>>
>> - Can we suggest ways of linking the workshops better to the main
>> sessions?  There was no formal feedback session last year, and
>>     
> workshop
>   
>> organizers weren't given a formal opportunity to feedback in the main
>> sessions as far as I'm aware.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf
>>     
> Of
>   
>> M I Franklin
>> Sent: 07 January 2010 18:50
>> To: irp
>> Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
>>
>> Dear All
>>
>> Greetings. To follow on from Max's speed-of-light sending out of the
>> minutes of today's IRP phone-conference, this email is a call for
>> contributions to a statement from the DC as part of the open
>> consultations
>> in preparation for Vilnius later this year.
>>
>> Fouad's invitation for ideas and comments for the MAG meetings is
>>     
> pasted
>   
>> below fyi so the DC statement also contributes to this side of the
>> process;
>> point 4 in particular.
>>
>> In short, the IRP statement can cover:
>>
>>
>> Time is short, so we need your comments by Monday at the latest. I
>>     
> will
>   
>> then cobble up a first draft for one more round. The statement has to
>>     
> be
>   
>> ready to go by 15 January.
>>
>> All input welcome on either or both of the two aspects above.
>>
>> Thanks.
>> ciao
>> MF
>>
>> --On Thursday, January 07, 2010 6:08 +0500 Fouad Bajwa
>> <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Dear Friends,
>>>
>>> As you are all aware about the IGF Open Consultation and MAG meetings
>>> in February 2010, I would like to request those people that cannot
>>> participate but would like to be heard to forward their interventions
>>> so that we can read and extend them on the floor during the Open
>>> Consultation. I further request statements to be brief, concise and
>>>       
> to
>   
>>> the point as the floor has to be passed on to the wide participation
>>> during the consultation.
>>>
>>> As for the MAG, we have a strong Civil Society MAG group including
>>> myself. The MAG is responsible for suggesting the design/organization
>>> of the IGF2010. IF you have concerns regarding the programming of the
>>> IGF2010, you can forward your statements for intervention to me so
>>> that they can be shared amongst our other team members. Once again,
>>> the requirement for being brief, concise and to the point applies
>>>       
> here
>   
>>> as well!
>>>
>>> Ideas for interventions can involve statements such as but not
>>>       
> limited
>   
>> to:
>>     
>>> 1. Issues surfaced during the IGF2009 in Sharam.
>>> 2. Developing Country Participation/Inclusion Issues.
>>> 3. Main Program / Main Theme Issues for IGF2010.
>>> 4. Human Rights Issues/Rights on the Internet Issues.
>>> 5. Development Agenda for Internet Governance Issues.
>>> 6. Youth and Gender Participation Issues.
>>>
>>> For your convenience and live correspondence, I will be available on
>>> Skype (ID:fouadbajwa , kindly don't forget to introduce yourself
>>> please while adding me) throughout the three days of meetings (1 day
>>> open consultation + 2 days MAG meetings).
>>>
>>> I look forward to assisting your interventions.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards.
>>> --------------------------
>>> Fouad Bajwa
>>> Advisor & Researcher
>>> ICT4D & Internet Governance
>>> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF)
>>> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
>>> My Blog: Internet's Governance
>>> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
>>> Follow my Tweets:
>>> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>>> MAG Interview:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IRP mailing list
>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>>
>>>       
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri
>   
>> g
>>     
>>> htsandprinciples.org
>>>       
>>
>> Dr Marianne Franklin
>> Reader
>> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
>> Media & Communications
>> Goldsmiths, University of London
>> New Cross
>> London SE14 6NW
>> United Kingdom
>> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
>> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
>> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
>> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
>>
>>     
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-me
>   
>> dia.php
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>
>>     
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri
>   
>> ghtsandprinciples.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>
>>     
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri
> g
>   
>> htsandprinciples.org
>>     
>
>
>
> Dr Marianne Franklin
> Reader
> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
> Media & Communications
> Goldsmiths, University of London
> New Cross
> London SE14 6NW
> United Kingdom
> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-me
> dia.php
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
>   

-- 


From donc  Wed Jan 13 04:02:44 2010
From: donc (Don Cameron)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:32:44 +1030
Subject: [IRP] Google's  new approach to China - freedom of speech
Message-ID: <14116.1263348164@internode.on.net>

 http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html 
A NEW APPROACH TO CHINA [1]  
 
  1/12/2010 03:00:00 PM Like many other well-known organizations, we 
face cyber attacks of varying degrees on a regular basis. In 
mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack 
on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted 
in the theft of intellectual property from Google. However, it soon 
became clear that what at first appeared to be solely a security 
incident--albeit a significant one--was something quite different. 
 First, this attack was not just on Google. As part of our 
investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large 
companies from a wide range of businesses--including the Internet, 
finance, technology, media and chemical sectors--have been similarly 
targeted. We are currently in the process of notifying those 
companies, and we are also working with the relevant U.S. authorities. 
 Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the 
attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights 
activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack 
did not achieve that objective. Only two Gmail accounts appear to have 
been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information 
(such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather 
than the content of emails themselves. 
 Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack 
on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, 
China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights 
in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties. 
These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at 
Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the 
users' computers. 
 We have already used information gained from this attack to make 
infrastructure and architectural improvements that enhance security 
for Google and for our users. In terms of individual users, we would 
advise people to deploy reputable anti-virus and anti-spyware programs 
on their computers, to install patches for their operating systems and 
to update their web browsers. Always be cautious when clicking on 
links appearing in instant messages and emails, or when asked to share 
personal information like passwords online. You can read more here [2] 
about our cyber-security recommendations. People wanting to learn more 
about these kinds of attacks can read this U.S. government report [3] 
(PDF), Nart Villeneuve\'s blog [4] and this [5] presentation on the 
GhostNet spying incident. 
 We have taken the unusual step of sharing information about these 
attacks with a broad audience not just because of the security and 
human rights implications of what we have unearthed, but also because 
this information goes to the heart of a much bigger global debate 
about freedom of speech. In the last two decades, China's economic 
reform programs and its citizens' entrepreneurial flair have lifted 
hundreds of millions of Chinese people out of poverty. Indeed, this 
great nation is at the heart of much economic progress and development 
in the world today. 
 We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the 
benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a 
more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor 
some results. At the time we made clear [6] that "we will carefully 
monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions 
on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the 
objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to 
China." 
 These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered--combined 
with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on 
the web--have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility 
of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer 
willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over 
the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government 
the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within 
the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to 
shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China. 
 The decision to review our business operations in China has been 
incredibly hard, and we know that it will have potentially 
far-reaching consequences. We want to make clear that this move was 
driven by our executives in the United States, without the knowledge 
or involvement of our employees in China who have worked incredibly 
hard to make Google.cn the success it is today. We are committed to 
working responsibly to resolve the very difficult issues raised. 
 Posted by David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal 
Officer 
 
 
Links: 
------ 
[1] 
http://webmail.internode.on.net/HTTP://GOOGLEBLOG.BLOGSPOT.COM/2010/01/NEW-APPROACH-TO-CHINA.HTML 
[2] 
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/next-steps-in-cyber-security-awareness.html 
[3] 
http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2009/NorthropGrumman_PRC_Cyber_Paper_FINAL_Approved%20Report_16Oct2009.pdf 
[4] http://www.nartv.org/ 
[5] 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13731776/Tracking-GhostNet-Investigating-a-Cyber-Espionage-Network 
[6] 
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/testimony-internet-in-china.html 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100113/2ecbdb53/attachment.htm>


From alalegre  Wed Jan 13 05:05:04 2010
From: alalegre (Al Alegre)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:05:04 +0800 (HKT)
Subject: [IRP] IRP list - please don't copy lots of contacts in
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1263326612.13727.irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org@lists.
	internetrightsandprinciples.org>
References: <mailman.1.1263326612.13727.irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
Message-ID: <3bf2f0d055fd5e6c9209d9f6f7458fab.squirrel@rizal.ph.net>

And a slight related request:

Please do *trim*  messages when replying so the entire thread which
preceded one's reply (not all of which may be relevant or necessary) is
not copied on a long note...
This makes a bit of a difference for those of us on digest mode--aside
from the length, very hard to scroll down to the real messages :-)

Thanks
Al

> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. IRP list - please don't copy lots of contacts in (Lisa Horner)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:57:16 -0000
> From: "Lisa Horner" <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>
> To: "irp" <Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
> Subject: [IRP] IRP list - please don't copy lots of contacts in
> Message-ID:
> 	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5E1A at DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi all
>
>
>
> Please DO NOT "reply to all" when responding to the email thread with
> the long list of recipients.  They keep getting caught in the
> administrative system as the list of recipients is too long.  Most of
> the people copied into that thread are on the mailing list anyway.
> Please just reply to the list
> (irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org).  Only copy people in if you
> know they are not on the list (and encourage them to join!).
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Lisa
>
>



From lisa  Wed Jan 13 13:42:21 2010
From: lisa (Lisa Horner)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:42:21 -0000
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
In-Reply-To: <4B4CD67C.6020505@nupef.org.br>
References: <0376F55255E23F7B1F29B9EC@[192.168.1.64]>	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5C31@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>	<D6424EFCBDF5BAF0C74425C1@CO223>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5CE6@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<4B4CD67C.6020505@nupef.org.br>
Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5E7B@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>

Hi

I agree about being more specific about diversity and inclusion, and
agree we shouldn't refer to a broad and somewhat meaningless category of
"everyday users".  I just think we need to get at the point that IGF
type discussions are often being had between privileged stakeholders,
and are in particular driven by business and government.  How do we
empower people who internet policy discussions actually affect to
participate in policy making and influence policy decisions?

Marianne-  is there any update on your efforts to pull this together?  

Thanks,

Lisa 

 


From ceo  Wed Jan 13 13:46:53 2010
From: ceo (AHM Bazlur Rahman)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:46:53 +0600
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
References: <0376F55255E23F7B1F29B9EC@[192.168.1.64]>	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5C31@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>	<D6424EFCBDF5BAF0C74425C1@CO223><43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5CE6@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local><4B4CD67C.6020505@nupef.org.br>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5E7B@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
Message-ID: <63C3B2F8725A4A059E3AA0BB7E98F1E7@ceo>

Hi
Greetings from Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication(BNNRC)
I do fully endorse Lisa Horner's position regarding IRP Statement to Open 
Consultation for IGF 2010.

With best regards,



Bazlu
_______________________
AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR
Chief Executive Officer
Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication(BNNRC)
&
Member, Strategy Council
UN-Global Alliance for ICT and Development (UN GAID)

House: 13/1, Road:2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207
Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh

Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501
01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105

E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net, bnnrc at bd.drik.net
www.bnnrc.net

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lisa Horner" <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>
To: "irp" <Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010


> Hi
>
> I agree about being more specific about diversity and inclusion, and
> agree we shouldn't refer to a broad and somewhat meaningless category of
> "everyday users".  I just think we need to get at the point that IGF
> type discussions are often being had between privileged stakeholders,
> and are in particular driven by business and government.  How do we
> empower people who internet policy discussions actually affect to
> participate in policy making and influence policy decisions?
>
> Marianne-  is there any update on your efforts to pull this together?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lisa
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org 



From gpaque  Wed Jan 13 16:03:34 2010
From: gpaque (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:33:34 -0430
Subject: [IRP] IGC Written Contribution for IGF, deadline Jan 15
Message-ID: <4B4DD2B6.8090101@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100113/63271423/attachment.htm>


From f.cortiana  Wed Jan 13 16:05:17 2010
From: f.cortiana (Fiorello Cortiana)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:05:17 +0100
Subject: [IRP] R:  Google in China
In-Reply-To: <63C3B2F8725A4A059E3AA0BB7E98F1E7@ceo>
References: <0376F55255E23F7B1F29B9EC@[192.168.1.64]>	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5C31@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>	<D6424EFCBDF5BAF0C74425C1@CO223><43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5CE6@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local><4B4CD67C.6020505@nupef.org.br><43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5E7B@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<63C3B2F8725A4A059E3AA0BB7E98F1E7@ceo>
Message-ID: <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11E2DF1F@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it>

 
A really good example of leadership


Ciao

Fiorello 


From mps  Wed Jan 13 16:47:34 2010
From: mps (Miguel Perez Subias)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:47:34 +0100
Subject: [IRP] Something important is happening in Spain
In-Reply-To: <mailman.14709.1263352075.3281.irp-internetrightsandprincip
	les.org@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
References: <mailman.14709.1263352075.3281.irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20100113153505.059b0eb0@aui.es>

Hello,

Something important is happening in Spain.
http://news.google.es/news/searchaq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=es&hl=es&q=red+SOStenible

The spanish government, in response to the demands of the content industry, 
wants to change the law to close sites quicly (in four day) at the request 
of an administrative entity managed by this industry. As a result of this 
proposal to change several laws, the Spanish Internet world is revealed an 
reacting creating a coalition based on this letter of principles and rights 
to explain haw to manage rigtht and principles in a information society 
based on the internet:
http://fcforum.net/

The central rebellion web site is:
http://red-sostenible.net/

(In just a few days on facebook 200,000 subscribers and a large following 
information.)

Can we find points of convergence with www.internetrightsandprinciples.org ???

Ideas ??

Thanks for your time

MiguelPerezSubias.com
President
Spanish Internet Users Association  - www.AUI.es
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Skype: miguel.perez.subias - Mobil: +34 609 03 22 87  --
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



From maxsenges  Wed Jan 13 17:32:25 2010
From: maxsenges (Max Senges)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:32:25 +0100
Subject: [IRP] Something important is happening in Spain
In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20100113153505.059b0eb0@aui.es>
References: <mailman.14709.1263352075.3281.irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
	<6.1.0.6.2.20100113153505.059b0eb0@aui.es>
Message-ID: <4d976d8e1001130732x20256477w864b8413c0fb40ea@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Miguel

thanks for posting this. Jeremy Malcom has made us aware and suggested to
have the IRP and FCC charter join efforts. Franziska Heine who has been
quite active on FCC and myself have discussed this and if there are no
objections Franziska will contribute the relevant sections of the FCC
charter to our IRP charter (in a different text color) so our expert
consolidation committee can consider it.

best
max





"The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
?William Gibson

...........................................................................

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com

Mobile: 01622122755


On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Miguel Perez Subias <mps at aui.es> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Something important is happening in Spain.
>
> http://news.google.es/news/searchaq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=es&hl=es&q=red+SOStenible
>
> The spanish government, in response to the demands of the content industry,
> wants to change the law to close sites quicly (in four day) at the request
> of an administrative entity managed by this industry. As a result of this
> proposal to change several laws, the Spanish Internet world is revealed an
> reacting creating a coalition based on this letter of principles and rights
> to explain haw to manage rigtht and principles in a information society
> based on the internet:
> http://fcforum.net/
>
> The central rebellion web site is:
> http://red-sostenible.net/
>
> (In just a few days on facebook 200,000 subscribers and a large following
> information.)
>
> Can we find points of convergence with www.internetrightsandprinciples.org???
>
> Ideas ??
>
> Thanks for your time
>
> MiguelPerezSubias.com
> President
> Spanish Internet Users Association  - www.AUI.es
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- Skype: miguel.perez.subias - Mobil: +34 609 03 22 87  --
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100113/c35f0b5c/attachment.htm>


From maxsenges  Wed Jan 13 19:57:04 2010
From: maxsenges (Max Senges)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:57:04 +0100
Subject: [IRP] edits in the privacy section
Message-ID: <4d976d8e1001130957r673722bck659c3c16ea665d4@mail.gmail.com>

hi everybody

i have made a number of edits in the privacy section and would like to ask a
fundamental question

1) I thought it would be good to raise ease of access, comprehensiveness and
usability of privacy settings:
"Privacy policy and settings of all services should be easy to find and the
management of privacy settings should be comprehensive and optimized for
usability."

2) The following sentence seems rather ambiguous to me (esp. what is meant
by "hidden mechanism") and I suggest to remove or amend it:
"Social media networks must disclose when hidden mechanisms are being
employed to harvest email personal data bases."

3) "Service providers have a responsibility to make clear in which legal
jurisdiction(s) the user's personal data is being hosted, so that the user
can make informed decisions."
I have raised this before and even though I see how this is an important
point, I think it needs to be formulated differently/ thought through a bit
more. If I create a file/data-point in the cloud say while I am in Germany,
then I go on a trip and the file "moves with me" to servers in Asia... etc.
etc. how can there be a final decision which jurisdiction is concerned? I
mean wouldn't it make more sense to be determined in a case by case logic?


4) "Unless otherwise explicitly agreed, data should be deleted when it is no
longer necessary for the purposes for which it was collected, or for legal
reasons." I would think that it's important to limit this paragraph to
personal data and ask for anonymization: "Unless otherwise explicitly
agreed,  personal data should be deleted or anonymized when it is no longer
necessary for the purposes for which it was collected, or for legal
reasons"

5) "People must be free to communicate without arbitrary surveillance or
interception, or the threat of surveillance or interception. This includes
the use of technologies such as deep packet inspection and the exercise of
control over individuals such as in instances of domestic violence and
cyberstalking."
     This paragraph seems to be mixing several points. The main points have
been raised in other paragraphs and while I totally agree to the first
sentence i think the second is controversial. E.g. deep packet inspection is
a particular technology and we said we dont want to mention particular
technologies.

6) "Service providers should communicate clearly with users the
circumstances under which personal data will be shared with governments
and/or with other private entities. Simultaneously provide options for
unscribing from such networks. " I don't get the latter sentence.
Unsubscribe from the Internet? i'd suggest we delete.


Looking forward to your input
Max




--


"The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
?William Gibson

...........................................................................

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com

Mobile: 01622122755
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100113/fd3092f5/attachment-0001.htm>


From katitza  Wed Jan 13 22:12:12 2010
From: katitza (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:12:12 -0500
Subject: [IRP] edits in the privacy section
In-Reply-To: <4d976d8e1001130957r673722bck659c3c16ea665d4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4d976d8e1001130957r673722bck659c3c16ea665d4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <34903EE2-0AE2-4912-87C1-0524664E7F24@datos-personales.org>

Dear Max:

I am confuse reading the Privacy section of the charter. I would like  
to suggest that you use the language from the Madrid Privacy  
Declaration. Some of this language does not make sense. On the  
anonymity front, please, include the need for genuine Privacy  
Enhancing Techniques that minimize or eliminate the collection of  
personally identifiable information. We need to be sure whether those  
methods safeguard privacy and anonymity. Pls. read EPIC: Re- 
Identification: Concerning the Re-Identification of Consumer  
Information  http://epic.org/privacy/reidentification/

Also, I do not see any mentioned to the international legal framework.  
The 1995 Data Protection Directive, 1980 OECD Privacy Guidelines, the  
Convention 108 of the Council of Europe. Those instruments places  
obligations on those public and private organizations who collect and  
process personal information and gives rights to those individual  
whose personal information is collected.

Are you re-writing those rights?

My 2 cents,

All the best and Happy New Year,

Katitza


On Jan 13, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Max Senges wrote:

> hi everybody
>
> i have made a number of edits in the privacy section and would like  
> to ask a fundamental question
>
> 1) I thought it would be good to raise ease of access,  
> comprehensiveness and usability of privacy settings:
> "Privacy policy and settings of all services should be easy to find  
> and the management of privacy settings should be comprehensive and  
> optimized for usability."
>
> 2) The following sentence seems rather ambiguous to me (esp. what is  
> meant by "hidden mechanism") and I suggest to remove or amend it:
> "Social media networks must disclose when hidden mechanisms are  
> being employed to harvest email personal data bases."
>
> 3) "Service providers have a responsibility to make clear in which  
> legal jurisdiction(s) the user's personal data is being hosted, so  
> that the user can make informed decisions."
> I have raised this before and even though I see how this is an  
> important point, I think it needs to be formulated differently/  
> thought through a bit more. If I create a file/data-point in the  
> cloud say while I am in Germany, then I go on a trip and the file  
> "moves with me" to servers in Asia... etc. etc. how can there be a  
> final decision which jurisdiction is concerned? I mean wouldn't it  
> make more sense to be determined in a case by case logic?
>
> 4) "Unless otherwise explicitly agreed, data should be deleted when  
> it is no longer necessary for the purposes for which it was  
> collected, or for legal reasons." I would think that it's important  
> to limit this paragraph to personal data and ask for anonymization:  
> "Unless otherwise explicitly agreed,  personal data should be  
> deleted or anonymized when it is no longer necessary for the  
> purposes for which it was collected, or for legal reasons"
>
> 5) "People must be free to communicate without arbitrary  
> surveillance or interception, or the threat of surveillance or  
> interception. This includes the use of technologies such as deep  
> packet inspection and the exercise of control over individuals such  
> as in instances of domestic violence and cyberstalking."
>      This paragraph seems to be mixing several points. The main  
> points have been raised in other paragraphs and while I totally  
> agree to the first sentence i think the second is controversial.  
> E.g. deep packet inspection is a particular technology and we said  
> we dont want to mention particular technologies.
>
> 6) "Service providers should communicate clearly with users the  
> circumstances under which personal data will be shared with  
> governments and/or with other private entities. Simultaneously  
> provide options for unscribing from such networks. " I don't get the  
> latter sentence. Unsubscribe from the Internet? i'd suggest we delete.
>
>
> Looking forward to your input
> Max
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> "The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
> ?William Gibson
>
> ...........................................................................
>
> Max Senges
> Berlin
>
> www.maxsenges.com
>
> Mobile: 01622122755
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100113/f58a790f/attachment.htm>


From katitza  Thu Jan 14 01:04:19 2010
From: katitza (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:04:19 -0500
Subject: [IRP] edits in the privacy section
In-Reply-To: <34903EE2-0AE2-4912-87C1-0524664E7F24@datos-personales.org>
References: <4d976d8e1001130957r673722bck659c3c16ea665d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<34903EE2-0AE2-4912-87C1-0524664E7F24@datos-personales.org>
Message-ID: <38528872-FE31-4739-95A5-D9E86AC5EB4D@datos-personales.org>

Dear Lisa, Dear Meryem:

Happy New Year. I want to submit some comments to the Privacy Section.  
Cedric Laurant and I submit some comments the other day. While editing  
the text, I start asking myself  that the overall Privacy Section  
needs some thoughts.

Please, noted that in comparison to other rights of the charter, in  
this section we have International Legal Frameworks. ie. The 1995 Data  
Protection Directive, 1980 OECD Privacy Guidelines, the Convention 108  
of the Council of Europe. Those instruments places obligations on  
those public and private organizations who collect and process  
personal information and gives RIGHTS to those individual whose  
personal information is collected.

The old text, wrote by APC, is based in the EU Directive. The APC text  
(not the IRP text) use a common language based on that framework. Is  
that the objective? If its yes, we need an editor. It is ok to add  
more concrete actions that we want to see in the text but as minimum,  
we should mirror the language of the Directive/Convention 108?

Meryem: As you will be working in the charter, can you take on board  
my comments? I would appreciate. Maybe Cedric is willing to do so?

all the best,

Katitza
P.D I am happy to reviewed/revised the clean version after those  
editions.

On Jan 13, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:

> Dear Max:
>
> I am confuse reading the Privacy section of the charter. I would  
> like to suggest that you use the language from the Madrid Privacy  
> Declaration. Some of this language does not make sense. On the  
> anonymity front, please, include the need for genuine Privacy  
> Enhancing Techniques that minimize or eliminate the collection of  
> personally identifiable information. We need to be sure whether  
> those methods safeguard privacy and anonymity. Pls. read EPIC: Re- 
> Identification: Concerning the Re-Identification of Consumer  
> Information  http://epic.org/privacy/reidentification/
>
> Also, I do not see any mentioned to the international legal  
> framework. The 1995 Data Protection Directive, 1980 OECD Privacy  
> Guidelines, the Convention 108 of the Council of Europe. Those  
> instruments places obligations on those public and private  
> organizations who collect and process personal information and gives  
> rights to those individual whose personal information is collected.
>
> Are you re-writing those rights?
>
> My 2 cents,
>
> All the best and Happy New Year,
>
> Katitza
>
>
> On Jan 13, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Max Senges wrote:
>
>> hi everybody
>>
>> i have made a number of edits in the privacy section and would like  
>> to ask a fundamental question
>>
>> 1) I thought it would be good to raise ease of access,  
>> comprehensiveness and usability of privacy settings:
>> "Privacy policy and settings of all services should be easy to find  
>> and the management of privacy settings should be comprehensive and  
>> optimized for usability."
>>
>> 2) The following sentence seems rather ambiguous to me (esp. what  
>> is meant by "hidden mechanism") and I suggest to remove or amend it:
>> "Social media networks must disclose when hidden mechanisms are  
>> being employed to harvest email personal data bases."
>>
>> 3) "Service providers have a responsibility to make clear in which  
>> legal jurisdiction(s) the user's personal data is being hosted, so  
>> that the user can make informed decisions."
>> I have raised this before and even though I see how this is an  
>> important point, I think it needs to be formulated differently/  
>> thought through a bit more. If I create a file/data-point in the  
>> cloud say while I am in Germany, then I go on a trip and the file  
>> "moves with me" to servers in Asia... etc. etc. how can there be a  
>> final decision which jurisdiction is concerned? I mean wouldn't it  
>> make more sense to be determined in a case by case logic?
>>
>> 4) "Unless otherwise explicitly agreed, data should be deleted when  
>> it is no longer necessary for the purposes for which it was  
>> collected, or for legal reasons." I would think that it's important  
>> to limit this paragraph to personal data and ask for anonymization:  
>> "Unless otherwise explicitly agreed,  personal data should be  
>> deleted or anonymized when it is no longer necessary for the  
>> purposes for which it was collected, or for legal reasons"
>>
>> 5) "People must be free to communicate without arbitrary  
>> surveillance or interception, or the threat of surveillance or  
>> interception. This includes the use of technologies such as deep  
>> packet inspection and the exercise of control over individuals such  
>> as in instances of domestic violence and cyberstalking."
>>      This paragraph seems to be mixing several points. The main  
>> points have been raised in other paragraphs and while I totally  
>> agree to the first sentence i think the second is controversial.  
>> E.g. deep packet inspection is a particular technology and we said  
>> we dont want to mention particular technologies.
>>
>> 6) "Service providers should communicate clearly with users the  
>> circumstances under which personal data will be shared with  
>> governments and/or with other private entities. Simultaneously  
>> provide options for unscribing from such networks. " I don't get  
>> the latter sentence. Unsubscribe from the Internet? i'd suggest we  
>> delete.
>>
>>
>> Looking forward to your input
>> Max
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> "The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
>> ?William Gibson
>>
>> ...........................................................................
>>
>> Max Senges
>> Berlin
>>
>> www.maxsenges.com
>>
>> Mobile: 01622122755
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100113/8cfb0f5f/attachment-0001.htm>


From cos02mf  Wed Jan 13 20:09:48 2010
From: cos02mf (M I Franklin)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:09:48 +0000
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5E7B@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
References: <0376F55255E23F7B1F29B9EC@[192.168.1.64]>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5C31@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<D6424EFCBDF5BAF0C74425C1@CO223>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5CE6@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<4B4CD67C.6020505@nupef.org.br>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5E7B@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
Message-ID: <E75C9E88C68696B870CA86AD@CO223>

Dear All

See attached. I've pasted in this first version below for those who prefer 
it (but its a long email!).

Please keep comments brief. Any additional ideas and suggestions welcome. 
Time is short so the plan is to have the penultimate version out tomorrow 
afternoon..........

yours
MF

*******************************************

Open Consultation IGF 2010

INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement

The IRP Dynamic Coalition would like to contribute to the Open Consultation 
for IGF 2010 in two areas: observations for taking stock of IGF 2009 and 
suggestions for the format and agenda of the Vilnius meeting. The comments 
below are organised under [..] themes, under which we take stock of IGF 
2009 and then offer practical suggestions for the format and planning of 
IGF 2010.

1)	General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found the 
meeting to be well organised, with signs of continued progress in all 
aspects. Coalition members who were participating in or who organised 
workshops would like to commend the organisers for their good work in this 
regard, particularly given the relatively limited budget and resources 
available to the IGF. Some specific concerns include:
a.	Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become diverted 
into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. We think 
it is time to move on and to keep these issues from overwhelming the topics 
in hand.
b.	Continuity and more explicit links between the main sessions and the 
workshops could have been stronger. Clear links in the program by 
cross-referencing of session/workshop themes and titles is one way to 
create these links before the meeting. During and after the meeting, we 
would like to see formal feedback opportunities put in place and integrated 
into the stocktaking; from organizers and/or moderators of both main 
sessions and workshops.
c.	Main sessions based around the "traditional" themes of openness, 
diversity, and such like started to feel a bit repetitive particularly in 
relation to the freshness of new themes introduced onto the program. The 
need for continuity and depth needs to be balanced by new themes as well
d.	Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists. This 
always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. Moderators of larger 
sessions need to find ways to ensure that discussion actually takes place 
and when it does it dynamic and inclusive. To this end we would suggest 
that there is an upper limit set on the number of panellists and/or length 
of formal presentations. Moreover that enough time is set aside for 
discussion. It is important that contributions from the floor, and remote 
participants get enough time to have their say and be adequately responded 
to by panellists and other participants.
e.	Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, we think 
this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy 
dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to opening up the 
discussion about specific solutions before the actual session.

2)	Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote 
participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific issues 
that we think need to be attended to this year to ensure fuller and more 
diverse participation in the IGF.
a.	 Workshop organisers were not given enough support in good time or 
enough information on how to use the technology provided properly. When 
technical hitches did occur, there were not enough technicians on hand so 
many moderators found themselves doing DIY instead. This is unprofessional 
and causes delays and loss of focus for everyone.  More information in 
advance from IGF HQ would be useful. But also during the event, and given 
the importance of enabling remote participation but also having it run 
smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in this respect is 
indispensable.
b.	We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote 
Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a moderator 
on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning. Some-one needs to 
monitor remote participation, in partnership with the workshop moderator, 
in order to streamline, filter and facilitate remote participation in the 
proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based comments, setting up a queue for 
spoken interventions, or having remote participants be given the floor en 
bloc if this is more practicable. We would also urge all moderators to 
understand the many remote participants are doing this at difficult times 
of their 24 hour day and that time-lags require careful attention be paid 
to timing responses and requests by moderators on the ground.
c.	The above points underscore our support for proposals to organise 
adequate guidelines as well as a brief training session/module/virtual tour 
for all moderators before the IGF meeting. During the meeting is not the 
time to experiment.

3)	Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary 
sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the 
internet age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in general 
rather than specific terms.
a.	The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding human 
rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different stakeholders can 
or should play in this regard, and how these play out more specifically in 
different Internet governance issue-areas.
b.	With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but also main 
sessions that look more closely at what a "human rights agenda" or 
"development agenda: for Internet Governance might actually look like. 
Discussions around broad themes such as openness and diversity have already 
taken place. It is time to get down to specifics and we do not see why 
these specifics always have to be covered in workshop sessions.

4)	Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural, regional, and 
linguistic representation remains a core issue for a number of dynamic 
coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about continuing to improve remote 
participation technically and organizationally relate to these concerns. 
Practically there is a need to
a.	Setting up coherent - vertical and lateral - links between discussions 
and themes from national, regional and international IGFs better, during 
the meetings as well as in the record of these various meetings. At present 
the public record is piecemeal and not easily accessible. We recognise that 
this is process that needs dedicated time and resources to do so and urge 
the IGF to put aside some resources for this.
b.	Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By this we 
mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and specialised 
workshops need to be more accessible not only to 'everyday internet users' 
but also for any communities or groups from areas where the Internet is 
either less extensive or who have other communication priorities.

********************************************************************88









Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
Media & Communications
Goldsmiths, University of London
New Cross
London SE14 6NW
United Kingdom
Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IRP Statement Open Consultations [1].doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 33792 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100113/68cdd4a6/attachment-0001.doc>


From graciela  Thu Jan 14 12:26:01 2010
From: graciela (Graciela Selaimen)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:26:01 -0200
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
In-Reply-To: <E75C9E88C68696B870CA86AD@CO223>
References: <0376F55255E23F7B1F29B9EC@[192.168.1.64]>	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5C31@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>	<D6424EFCBDF5BAF0C74425C1@CO223>	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5CE6@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>	<4B4CD67C.6020505@nupef.org.br>	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5E7B@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<E75C9E88C68696B870CA86AD@CO223>
Message-ID: <4B4EF139.9000607@nupef.org.br>

Dear all,

Thanks a lot, Marianne.
I totally support the statement.

best
Graciela

M I Franklin escreveu:
> Dear All
>
> See attached. I've pasted in this first version below for those who 
> prefer it (but its a long email!).
>
> Please keep comments brief. Any additional ideas and suggestions 
> welcome. Time is short so the plan is to have the penultimate version 
> out tomorrow afternoon..........
>
> yours
> MF
>
> *******************************************
>
> Open Consultation IGF 2010
>
> INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement
>
> The IRP Dynamic Coalition would like to contribute to the Open 
> Consultation for IGF 2010 in two areas: observations for taking stock 
> of IGF 2009 and suggestions for the format and agenda of the Vilnius 
> meeting. The comments below are organised under [..] themes, under 
> which we take stock of IGF 2009 and then offer practical suggestions 
> for the format and planning of IGF 2010.
>
> 1)    General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found 
> the meeting to be well organised, with signs of continued progress in 
> all aspects. Coalition members who were participating in or who 
> organised workshops would like to commend the organisers for their 
> good work in this regard, particularly given the relatively limited 
> budget and resources available to the IGF. Some specific concerns 
> include:
> a.    Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become 
> diverted into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, 
> how. We think it is time to move on and to keep these issues from 
> overwhelming the topics in hand.
> b.    Continuity and more explicit links between the main sessions and 
> the workshops could have been stronger. Clear links in the program by 
> cross-referencing of session/workshop themes and titles is one way to 
> create these links before the meeting. During and after the meeting, 
> we would like to see formal feedback opportunities put in place and 
> integrated into the stocktaking; from organizers and/or moderators of 
> both main sessions and workshops.
> c.    Main sessions based around the "traditional" themes of openness, 
> diversity, and such like started to feel a bit repetitive particularly 
> in relation to the freshness of new themes introduced onto the 
> program. The need for continuity and depth needs to be balanced by new 
> themes as well
> d.    Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists. 
> This always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. Moderators 
> of larger sessions need to find ways to ensure that discussion 
> actually takes place and when it does it dynamic and inclusive. To 
> this end we would suggest that there is an upper limit set on the 
> number of panellists and/or length of formal presentations. Moreover 
> that enough time is set aside for discussion. It is important that 
> contributions from the floor, and remote participants get enough time 
> to have their say and be adequately responded to by panellists and 
> other participants.
> e.    Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, we 
> think this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or 
> policy dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to 
> opening up the discussion about specific solutions before the actual 
> session.
>
> 2)    Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote 
> participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific 
> issues that we think need to be attended to this year to ensure fuller 
> and more diverse participation in the IGF.
> a.     Workshop organisers were not given enough support in good time 
> or enough information on how to use the technology provided properly. 
> When technical hitches did occur, there were not enough technicians on 
> hand so many moderators found themselves doing DIY instead. This is 
> unprofessional and causes delays and loss of focus for everyone.  More 
> information in advance from IGF HQ would be useful. But also during 
> the event, and given the importance of enabling remote participation 
> but also having it run smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in 
> this respect is indispensable.
> b.    We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote 
> Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a 
> moderator on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning. 
> Some-one needs to monitor remote participation, in partnership with 
> the workshop moderator, in order to streamline, filter and facilitate 
> remote participation in the proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based 
> comments, setting up a queue for spoken interventions, or having 
> remote participants be given the floor en bloc if this is more 
> practicable. We would also urge all moderators to understand the many 
> remote participants are doing this at difficult times of their 24 hour 
> day and that time-lags require careful attention be paid to timing 
> responses and requests by moderators on the ground.
> c.    The above points underscore our support for proposals to 
> organise adequate guidelines as well as a brief training 
> session/module/virtual tour for all moderators before the IGF meeting. 
> During the meeting is not the time to experiment.
>
> 3)    Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary 
> sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the 
> internet age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in 
> general rather than specific terms.
> a.    The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding 
> human rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different 
> stakeholders can or should play in this regard, and how these play out 
> more specifically in different Internet governance issue-areas.
> b.    With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but 
> also main sessions that look more closely at what a "human rights 
> agenda" or "development agenda: for Internet Governance might actually 
> look like. Discussions around broad themes such as openness and 
> diversity have already taken place. It is time to get down to 
> specifics and we do not see why these specifics always have to be 
> covered in workshop sessions.
>
> 4)    Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural, 
> regional, and linguistic representation remains a core issue for a 
> number of dynamic coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about 
> continuing to improve remote participation technically and 
> organizationally relate to these concerns. Practically there is a need to
> a.    Setting up coherent - vertical and lateral - links between 
> discussions and themes from national, regional and international IGFs 
> better, during the meetings as well as in the record of these various 
> meetings. At present the public record is piecemeal and not easily 
> accessible. We recognise that this is process that needs dedicated 
> time and resources to do so and urge the IGF to put aside some 
> resources for this.
> b.    Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By 
> this we mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and 
> specialised workshops need to be more accessible not only to 'everyday 
> internet users' but also for any communities or groups from areas 
> where the Internet is either less extensive or who have other 
> communication priorities.
>
> ********************************************************************88
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr Marianne Franklin
> Reader
> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
> Media & Communications
> Goldsmiths, University of London
> New Cross
> London SE14 6NW
> United Kingdom
> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php 
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>   

-- 


From cos02mf  Thu Jan 14 12:53:38 2010
From: cos02mf (M I Franklin)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:53:38 +0100
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
In-Reply-To: <4B4EF139.9000607@nupef.org.br>
References: <0376F55255E23F7B1F29B9EC@[192.168.1.64]>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5C31@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<D6424EFCBDF5BAF0C74425C1@CO223>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5CE6@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<4B4CD67C.6020505@nupef.org.br>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5E7B@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<E75C9E88C68696B870CA86AD@CO223> <4B4EF139.9000607@nupef.org.br>
Message-ID: <FCE0BE74DFEDFBEAA0482927@[192.168.1.64]>

Thanks Graciela

Just want to note to everyone that this took longer to get to you all due 
to an overnight hold-up on the listserv because the original email was too 
big. So, the next version I send out will be in the body of the email only 
to keep within size-limits..

Additional comments/suggestions still welcome. Will be tightening up and 
tidying up text later today - so delays aside, there's still time!

ciao
MF

--On Thursday, January 14, 2010 8:26 -0200 Graciela Selaimen 
<graciela at nupef.org.br> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Thanks a lot, Marianne.
> I totally support the statement.
>
> best
> Graciela
>
> M I Franklin escreveu:
>> Dear All
>>
>> See attached. I've pasted in this first version below for those who
>> prefer it (but its a long email!).
>>
>> Please keep comments brief. Any additional ideas and suggestions
>> welcome. Time is short so the plan is to have the penultimate version
>> out tomorrow afternoon..........
>>
>> yours
>> MF
>>
>> *******************************************
>>
>> Open Consultation IGF 2010
>>
>> INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement
>>
>> The IRP Dynamic Coalition would like to contribute to the Open
>> Consultation for IGF 2010 in two areas: observations for taking stock
>> of IGF 2009 and suggestions for the format and agenda of the Vilnius
>> meeting. The comments below are organised under [..] themes, under
>> which we take stock of IGF 2009 and then offer practical suggestions
>> for the format and planning of IGF 2010.
>>
>> 1)    General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found
>> the meeting to be well organised, with signs of continued progress in
>> all aspects. Coalition members who were participating in or who
>> organised workshops would like to commend the organisers for their
>> good work in this regard, particularly given the relatively limited
>> budget and resources available to the IGF. Some specific concerns
>> include:
>> a.    Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become
>> diverted into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so,
>> how. We think it is time to move on and to keep these issues from
>> overwhelming the topics in hand.
>> b.    Continuity and more explicit links between the main sessions and
>> the workshops could have been stronger. Clear links in the program by
>> cross-referencing of session/workshop themes and titles is one way to
>> create these links before the meeting. During and after the meeting,
>> we would like to see formal feedback opportunities put in place and
>> integrated into the stocktaking; from organizers and/or moderators of
>> both main sessions and workshops.
>> c.    Main sessions based around the "traditional" themes of openness,
>> diversity, and such like started to feel a bit repetitive particularly
>> in relation to the freshness of new themes introduced onto the
>> program. The need for continuity and depth needs to be balanced by new
>> themes as well
>> d.    Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists.
>> This always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. Moderators
>> of larger sessions need to find ways to ensure that discussion
>> actually takes place and when it does it dynamic and inclusive. To
>> this end we would suggest that there is an upper limit set on the
>> number of panellists and/or length of formal presentations. Moreover
>> that enough time is set aside for discussion. It is important that
>> contributions from the floor, and remote participants get enough time
>> to have their say and be adequately responded to by panellists and
>> other participants.
>> e.    Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, we
>> think this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or
>> policy dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to
>> opening up the discussion about specific solutions before the actual
>> session.
>>
>> 2)    Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote
>> participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific
>> issues that we think need to be attended to this year to ensure fuller
>> and more diverse participation in the IGF.
>> a.     Workshop organisers were not given enough support in good time
>> or enough information on how to use the technology provided properly.
>> When technical hitches did occur, there were not enough technicians on
>> hand so many moderators found themselves doing DIY instead. This is
>> unprofessional and causes delays and loss of focus for everyone.  More
>> information in advance from IGF HQ would be useful. But also during
>> the event, and given the importance of enabling remote participation
>> but also having it run smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in
>> this respect is indispensable.
>> b.    We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote
>> Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a
>> moderator on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning.
>> Some-one needs to monitor remote participation, in partnership with
>> the workshop moderator, in order to streamline, filter and facilitate
>> remote participation in the proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based
>> comments, setting up a queue for spoken interventions, or having
>> remote participants be given the floor en bloc if this is more
>> practicable. We would also urge all moderators to understand the many
>> remote participants are doing this at difficult times of their 24 hour
>> day and that time-lags require careful attention be paid to timing
>> responses and requests by moderators on the ground.
>> c.    The above points underscore our support for proposals to
>> organise adequate guidelines as well as a brief training
>> session/module/virtual tour for all moderators before the IGF meeting.
>> During the meeting is not the time to experiment.
>>
>> 3)    Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary
>> sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the
>> internet age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in
>> general rather than specific terms.
>> a.    The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding
>> human rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different
>> stakeholders can or should play in this regard, and how these play out
>> more specifically in different Internet governance issue-areas.
>> b.    With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but
>> also main sessions that look more closely at what a "human rights
>> agenda" or "development agenda: for Internet Governance might actually
>> look like. Discussions around broad themes such as openness and
>> diversity have already taken place. It is time to get down to
>> specifics and we do not see why these specifics always have to be
>> covered in workshop sessions.
>>
>> 4)    Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural,
>> regional, and linguistic representation remains a core issue for a
>> number of dynamic coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about
>> continuing to improve remote participation technically and
>> organizationally relate to these concerns. Practically there is a need to
>> a.    Setting up coherent - vertical and lateral - links between
>> discussions and themes from national, regional and international IGFs
>> better, during the meetings as well as in the record of these various
>> meetings. At present the public record is piecemeal and not easily
>> accessible. We recognise that this is process that needs dedicated
>> time and resources to do so and urge the IGF to put aside some
>> resources for this.
>> b.    Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By
>> this we mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and
>> specialised workshops need to be more accessible not only to 'everyday
>> internet users' but also for any communities or groups from areas
>> where the Internet is either less extensive or who have other
>> communication priorities.
>>
>> ********************************************************************88
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr Marianne Franklin
>> Reader
>> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
>> Media & Communications
>> Goldsmiths, University of London
>> New Cross
>> London SE14 6NW
>> United Kingdom
>> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
>> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
>> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
>> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
>> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-me
>> dia.php
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri
>> ghtsandprinciples.org
>>
>
> --



Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
Media & Communications
Goldsmiths, University of London
New Cross
London SE14 6NW
United Kingdom
Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php



From gpaque  Thu Jan 14 13:33:13 2010
From: gpaque (Ginger Paque)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:03:13 -0430
Subject: [IRP] Text of IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010: Call
 for IGC consensus about support--please opine!
Message-ID: <4B4F00F9.30500@gmail.com>

Hello all: this is the current draft of the IRP contribution, which is 
up for Consensus for IGC support. There will be a "tightened" draft 
later, probably this afternoon, but this appears to be the essence of 
the statement.

Please read it carefully, and advise whether the IGC should sign on in 
support of this statement. This is independent of any IGC statement.

We need to do this quickly if we want to ask the IRP to add our 
signature to their written contribution. Please post.


Open Consultation IGF 2010

INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement

The IRP Dynamic Coalition would like to contribute to the Open Consultation 
for IGF 2010 in two areas: observations for taking stock of IGF 2009 and 
suggestions for the format and agenda of the Vilnius meeting. The comments 
below are organised under [..] themes, under which we take stock of IGF 
2009 and then offer practical suggestions for the format and planning of 
IGF 2010.

1)	General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found the 
meeting to be well organised, with signs of continued progress in all 
aspects. Coalition members who were participating in or who organised 
workshops would like to commend the organisers for their good work in this 
regard, particularly given the relatively limited budget and resources 
available to the IGF. Some specific concerns include:
a.	Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become diverted 
into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. We think 
it is time to move on and to keep these issues from overwhelming the topics 
in hand.
b.	Continuity and more explicit links between the main sessions and the 
workshops could have been stronger. Clear links in the program by 
cross-referencing of session/workshop themes and titles is one way to 
create these links before the meeting. During and after the meeting, we 
would like to see formal feedback opportunities put in place and integrated 
into the stocktaking; from organizers and/or moderators of both main 
sessions and workshops.
c.	Main sessions based around the "traditional" themes of openness, 
diversity, and such like started to feel a bit repetitive particularly in 
relation to the freshness of new themes introduced onto the program. The 
need for continuity and depth needs to be balanced by new themes as well
d.	Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists. This 
always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. Moderators of larger 
sessions need to find ways to ensure that discussion actually takes place 
and when it does it dynamic and inclusive. To this end we would suggest 
that there is an upper limit set on the number of panellists and/or length 
of formal presentations. Moreover that enough time is set aside for 
discussion. It is important that contributions from the floor, and remote 
participants get enough time to have their say and be adequately responded 
to by panellists and other participants.
e.	Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, we think 
this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy 
dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to opening up the 
discussion about specific solutions before the actual session.

2)	Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote 
participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific issues 
that we think need to be attended to this year to ensure fuller and more 
diverse participation in the IGF.
a.	 Workshop organisers were not given enough support in good time or 
enough information on how to use the technology provided properly. When 
technical hitches did occur, there were not enough technicians on hand so 
many moderators found themselves doing DIY instead. This is unprofessional 
and causes delays and loss of focus for everyone.  More information in 
advance from IGF HQ would be useful. But also during the event, and given 
the importance of enabling remote participation but also having it run 
smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in this respect is 
indispensable.
b.	We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote 
Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a moderator 
on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning. Some-one needs to 
monitor remote participation, in partnership with the workshop moderator, 
in order to streamline, filter and facilitate remote participation in the 
proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based comments, setting up a queue for 
spoken interventions, or having remote participants be given the floor en 
bloc if this is more practicable. We would also urge all moderators to 
understand the many remote participants are doing this at difficult times 
of their 24 hour day and that time-lags require careful attention be paid 
to timing responses and requests by moderators on the ground.
c.	The above points underscore our support for proposals to organise 
adequate guidelines as well as a brief training session/module/virtual tour 
for all moderators before the IGF meeting. During the meeting is not the 
time to experiment.

3)	Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary 
sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the 
internet age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in general 
rather than specific terms.
a.	The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding human 
rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different stakeholders can 
or should play in this regard, and how these play out more specifically in 
different Internet governance issue-areas.
b.	With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but also main 
sessions that look more closely at what a "human rights agenda" or 
"development agenda: for Internet Governance might actually look like. 
Discussions around broad themes such as openness and diversity have already 
taken place. It is time to get down to specifics and we do not see why 
these specifics always have to be covered in workshop sessions.

4)	Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural, regional, and 
linguistic representation remains a core issue for a number of dynamic 
coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about continuing to improve remote 
participation technically and organizationally relate to these concerns. 
Practically there is a need to
a.	Setting up coherent - vertical and lateral - links between discussions 
and themes from national, regional and international IGFs better, during 
the meetings as well as in the record of these various meetings. At present 
the public record is piecemeal and not easily accessible. We recognise that 
this is process that needs dedicated time and resources to do so and urge 
the IGF to put aside some resources for this.
b.	Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By this we 
mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and specialised 
workshops need to be more accessible not only to 'everyday internet users' 
but also for any communities or groups from areas where the Internet is 
either less extensive or who have other communication priorities.

********************************************************************88









Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
Media & Communications
Goldsmiths, University of London
New Cross
London SE14 6NW
United Kingdom
Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php




From lisa  Thu Jan 14 13:33:01 2010
From: lisa (Lisa Horner)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:33:01 -0000
Subject: [IRP] edits in the privacy section
In-Reply-To: <38528872-FE31-4739-95A5-D9E86AC5EB4D@datos-personales.org>
References: <4d976d8e1001130957r673722bck659c3c16ea665d4@mail.gmail.com><34903EE2-0AE2-4912-87C1-0524664E7F24@datos-personales.org>
	<38528872-FE31-4739-95A5-D9E86AC5EB4D@datos-personales.org>
Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5F62@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>

Hi

 

Thanks for your comments Katitza.  As making sure that the Charter
aligns with international standards is one of the tasks of the expert
group, they'll take all of this on board.  If people have thoughts about
which standards/directives we should be working to, please do send them
through to the list or make notes on the wiki.  I'm not a privacy expert
and so can't comment in this instance.  

 

Please note that the Charter is here:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ajcs86p9dx2s_488rpfcbcc

 

There's been some confusion over the different versions, so please make
sure you're editing the right one.  I've changed the link on the
homepage at www.internetrigtsandprinciples.com so that it links right
through to the correct version.

 

Thanks,

 

Lisa

 

From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
[mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of
Katitza Rodriguez
Sent: 13 January 2010 23:04
To: irp
Cc: Cedric Laurant
Subject: Re: [IRP] edits in the privacy section

 

Dear Lisa, Dear Meryem:

 

Happy New Year. I want to submit some comments to the Privacy Section.
Cedric Laurant and I submit some comments the other day. While editing
the text, I start asking myself  that the overall Privacy Section needs
some thoughts. 

 

Please, noted that in comparison to other rights of the charter, in this
section we have International Legal Frameworks. ie. The 1995 Data
Protection Directive, 1980 OECD Privacy Guidelines, the Convention 108
of the Council of Europe. Those instruments places obligations on those
public and private organizations who collect and process personal
information and gives RIGHTS to those individual whose personal
information is collected.

 

The old text, wrote by APC, is based in the EU Directive. The APC text
(not the IRP text) use a common language based on that framework. Is
that the objective? If its yes, we need an editor. It is ok to add more
concrete actions that we want to see in the text but as minimum, we
should mirror the language of the Directive/Convention 108?

 

Meryem: As you will be working in the charter, can you take on board my
comments? I would appreciate. Maybe Cedric is willing to do so?

 

all the best,

 

Katitza

P.D I am happy to reviewed/revised the clean version after those
editions.

 

On Jan 13, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:





Dear Max:

 

I am confuse reading the Privacy section of the charter. I would like to
suggest that you use the language from the Madrid Privacy Declaration.
Some of this language does not make sense. On the anonymity front,
please, include the need for genuine Privacy Enhancing Techniques that
minimize or eliminate the collection of personally identifiable
information. We need to be sure whether those methods safeguard privacy
and anonymity. Pls. read EPIC: Re-Identification: Concerning the
Re-Identification of Consumer Information
http://epic.org/privacy/reidentification/

 

Also, I do not see any mentioned to the international legal framework.
The 1995 Data Protection Directive, 1980 OECD Privacy Guidelines, the
Convention 108 of the Council of Europe. Those instruments places
obligations on those public and private organizations who collect and
process personal information and gives rights to those individual whose
personal information is collected.

 

Are you re-writing those rights?

 

My 2 cents,

 

All the best and Happy New Year,

 

Katitza

 

 

On Jan 13, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Max Senges wrote:





hi everybody

 

i have made a number of edits in the privacy section and would like to
ask a fundamental question

 

1) I thought it would be good to raise ease of access, comprehensiveness
and usability of privacy settings:

"Privacy policy and settings of all services should be easy to find and
the management of privacy settings should be comprehensive and optimized
for usability."

 

2) The following sentence seems rather ambiguous to me (esp. what is
meant by "hidden mechanism") and I suggest to remove or amend it:

"Social media networks must disclose when hidden mechanisms are being
employed to harvest email personal data bases."

 

3) "Service providers have a responsibility to make clear in which legal
jurisdiction(s) the user's personal data is being hosted, so that the
user can make informed decisions."

I have raised this before and even though I see how this is an important
point, I think it needs to be formulated differently/ thought through a
bit more. If I create a file/data-point in the cloud say while I am in
Germany, then I go on a trip and the file "moves with me" to servers in
Asia... etc. etc. how can there be a final decision which jurisdiction
is concerned? I mean wouldn't it make more sense to be determined in a
case by case logic?   

 

4) "Unless otherwise explicitly agreed, data should be deleted when it
is no longer necessary for the purposes for which it was collected, or
for legal reasons." I would think that it's important to limit this
paragraph to personal data and ask for anonymization: "Unless otherwise
explicitly agreed,  personal data should be deleted or anonymized when
it is no longer necessary for the purposes for which it was collected,
or for legal reasons" 

 

5) "People must be free to communicate without arbitrary surveillance or
interception, or the threat of surveillance or interception. This
includes the use of technologies such as deep packet inspection and the
exercise of control over individuals such as in instances of domestic
violence and cyberstalking."

     This paragraph seems to be mixing several points. The main points
have been raised in other paragraphs and while I totally agree to the
first sentence i think the second is controversial. E.g. deep packet
inspection is a particular technology and we said we dont want to
mention particular technologies. 

 

6) "Service providers should communicate clearly with users the
circumstances under which personal data will be shared with governments
and/or with other private entities. Simultaneously provide options for
unscribing from such networks. " I don't get the latter sentence.
Unsubscribe from the Internet? i'd suggest we delete.





 

Looking forward to your input

Max

 

 

 

 

--

 


"The future is here. Its just not widely distributed yet."
William Gibson

........................................................................
...

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com

Mobile: 01622122755

_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri
ghtsandprinciples.org

 

_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri
ghtsandprinciples.org

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100114/8cf87a1d/attachment.htm>


From lisa  Thu Jan 14 14:11:45 2010
From: lisa (Lisa Horner)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:11:45 -0000
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
In-Reply-To: <E75C9E88C68696B870CA86AD@CO223>
References: <0376F55255E23F7B1F29B9EC@[192.168.1.64]>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5C31@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<D6424EFCBDF5BAF0C74425C1@CO223>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5CE6@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<4B4CD67C.6020505@nupef.org.br>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5E7B@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<E75C9E88C68696B870CA86AD@CO223>
Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5F6A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>

Hi Marianne and all

Thanks for this -I think it's great - really concise and clear.

My main suggestion is to bring point 3 up to the top, and make our call
for more focus on human rights and development a bit more explicit....as
the Irp, that should be our main focus I think.

In our call for more focus and specificity, could/should we perhaps
suggest what kinds of issues we think could (realistically) be focused
on?  E.g. Promoting access to knowledge for the public good; The
liability and responsibilities of internet service and application
providers; expanding media and communications literacy for all;
grassroots connectivity solutions; Privacy and expression on social
networks........

Could we also say that the coalition would like to contribute
productively to discussions about how better to incorporate
consideration of human rights into the agenda of the IGF, and would like
to feed into the planning process for relevant main sessions.

Thanks and all the best,
Lisa


-----Original Message-----
From: M I Franklin [mailto:cos02mf at gold.ac.uk] 
Sent: 13 January 2010 18:10
To: Lisa Horner; irp
Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010

Dear All

See attached. I've pasted in this first version below for those who
prefer it (but its a long email!).

Please keep comments brief. Any additional ideas and suggestions
welcome. 
Time is short so the plan is to have the penultimate version out
tomorrow afternoon..........

yours
MF

*******************************************

Open Consultation IGF 2010

INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement

The IRP Dynamic Coalition would like to contribute to the Open
Consultation for IGF 2010 in two areas: observations for taking stock of
IGF 2009 and suggestions for the format and agenda of the Vilnius
meeting. The comments below are organised under [..] themes, under which
we take stock of IGF
2009 and then offer practical suggestions for the format and planning of
IGF 2010.

1)	General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found
the 
meeting to be well organised, with signs of continued progress in all
aspects. Coalition members who were participating in or who organised
workshops would like to commend the organisers for their good work in
this regard, particularly given the relatively limited budget and
resources available to the IGF. Some specific concerns include:
a.	Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become
diverted 
into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. We
think it is time to move on and to keep these issues from overwhelming
the topics in hand.
b.	Continuity and more explicit links between the main sessions and
the 
workshops could have been stronger. Clear links in the program by
cross-referencing of session/workshop themes and titles is one way to
create these links before the meeting. During and after the meeting, we
would like to see formal feedback opportunities put in place and
integrated into the stocktaking; from organizers and/or moderators of
both main sessions and workshops.
c.	Main sessions based around the "traditional" themes of openness,

diversity, and such like started to feel a bit repetitive particularly
in relation to the freshness of new themes introduced onto the program.
The need for continuity and depth needs to be balanced by new themes as
well
d.	Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists.
This 
always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. Moderators of
larger sessions need to find ways to ensure that discussion actually
takes place and when it does it dynamic and inclusive. To this end we
would suggest that there is an upper limit set on the number of
panellists and/or length of formal presentations. Moreover that enough
time is set aside for discussion. It is important that contributions
from the floor, and remote participants get enough time to have their
say and be adequately responded to by panellists and other participants.
e.	Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, we
think 
this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy
dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to opening up the
discussion about specific solutions before the actual session.

2)	Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote 
participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific
issues that we think need to be attended to this year to ensure fuller
and more diverse participation in the IGF.
a.	 Workshop organisers were not given enough support in good time
or 
enough information on how to use the technology provided properly. When
technical hitches did occur, there were not enough technicians on hand
so many moderators found themselves doing DIY instead. This is
unprofessional and causes delays and loss of focus for everyone.  More
information in advance from IGF HQ would be useful. But also during the
event, and given the importance of enabling remote participation but
also having it run smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in this
respect is indispensable.
b.	We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote 
Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a
moderator on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning.
Some-one needs to monitor remote participation, in partnership with the
workshop moderator, in order to streamline, filter and facilitate remote
participation in the proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based comments,
setting up a queue for spoken interventions, or having remote
participants be given the floor en bloc if this is more practicable. We
would also urge all moderators to understand the many remote
participants are doing this at difficult times of their 24 hour day and
that time-lags require careful attention be paid to timing responses and
requests by moderators on the ground.
c.	The above points underscore our support for proposals to
organise 
adequate guidelines as well as a brief training session/module/virtual
tour for all moderators before the IGF meeting. During the meeting is
not the time to experiment.

3)	Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary

sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the
internet age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in general
rather than specific terms.
a.	The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding
human 
rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different stakeholders
can or should play in this regard, and how these play out more
specifically in different Internet governance issue-areas.
b.	With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but
also main 
sessions that look more closely at what a "human rights agenda" or
"development agenda: for Internet Governance might actually look like. 
Discussions around broad themes such as openness and diversity have
already taken place. It is time to get down to specifics and we do not
see why these specifics always have to be covered in workshop sessions.

4)	Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural,
regional, and 
linguistic representation remains a core issue for a number of dynamic
coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about continuing to improve
remote participation technically and organizationally relate to these
concerns. 
Practically there is a need to
a.	Setting up coherent - vertical and lateral - links between
discussions 
and themes from national, regional and international IGFs better, during
the meetings as well as in the record of these various meetings. At
present the public record is piecemeal and not easily accessible. We
recognise that this is process that needs dedicated time and resources
to do so and urge the IGF to put aside some resources for this.
b.	Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By
this we 
mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and specialised
workshops need to be more accessible not only to 'everyday internet
users' 
but also for any communities or groups from areas where the Internet is
either less extensive or who have other communication priorities.

********************************************************************88









Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
Media & Communications Goldsmiths, University of London New Cross London
SE14 6NW United Kingdom Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-me
dia.php


From gpaque  Thu Jan 14 15:16:16 2010
From: gpaque (Ginger Paque)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:46:16 -0430
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5F6A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
References: <0376F55255E23F7B1F29B9EC@[192.168.1.64]>	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5C31@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>	<D6424EFCBDF5BAF0C74425C1@CO223>	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5CE6@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>	<4B4CD67C.6020505@nupef.org.br>	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5E7B@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>	<E75C9E88C68696B870CA86AD@CO223>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5F6A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
Message-ID: <4B4F1920.2090505@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100114/85d4e56b/attachment.htm>


From katitza  Thu Jan 14 16:52:09 2010
From: katitza (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:52:09 -0500
Subject: [IRP] edits in the privacy section
In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5F62@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
References: <4d976d8e1001130957r673722bck659c3c16ea665d4@mail.gmail.com><34903EE2-0AE2-4912-87C1-0524664E7F24@datos-personales.org>
	<38528872-FE31-4739-95A5-D9E86AC5EB4D@datos-personales.org>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5F62@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
Message-ID: <74319231-BC90-4730-8241-EB7AF5AC9D80@datos-personales.org>

Dear Lisa,

Thank you very much for your explanation. The process is now clear.  
The language I added is on the link you provide here. Thanks. I tried  
not to use Google products (when I am "able" to do so), so I am not  
familiar with Googles docs (nor I will open an account and sign on).

Due to the fact that the Council of Europe is a member of the Steering  
Committee, I proposed to focus on Convention 108 (and its protocol  
2001). We can then discuss further documents/recommendations, etc.

All the best,

Katitza




On Jan 14, 2010, at 6:33 AM, Lisa Horner wrote:

> Hi
>
> Thanks for your comments Katitza.  As making sure that the Charter  
> aligns with international standards is one of the tasks of the  
> expert group, they?ll take all of this on board.  If people have  
> thoughts about which standards/directives we should be working to,  
> please do send them through to the list or make notes on the wiki.   
> I?m not a privacy expert and so can?t comment in this instance.
>
> Please note that the Charter is here:
> http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ajcs86p9dx2s_488rpfcbcc
>
> There?s been some confusion over the different versions, so please  
> make sure you?re editing the right one.  I?ve changed the link on  
> the homepage at www.internetrigtsandprinciples.com so that it links  
> right through to the correct version.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lisa
>
> From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org 
> ] On Behalf Of Katitza Rodriguez
> Sent: 13 January 2010 23:04
> To: irp
> Cc: Cedric Laurant
> Subject: Re: [IRP] edits in the privacy section
>
> Dear Lisa, Dear Meryem:
>
> Happy New Year. I want to submit some comments to the Privacy  
> Section. Cedric Laurant and I submit some comments the other day.  
> While editing the text, I start asking myself  that the overall  
> Privacy Section needs some thoughts.
>
> Please, noted that in comparison to other rights of the charter, in  
> this section we have International Legal Frameworks. ie. The 1995  
> Data Protection Directive, 1980 OECD Privacy Guidelines, the  
> Convention 108 of the Council of Europe. Those instruments places  
> obligations on those public and private organizations who collect  
> and process personal information and gives RIGHTS to those  
> individual whose personal information is collected.
>
> The old text, wrote by APC, is based in the EU Directive. The APC  
> text (not the IRP text) use a common language based on that  
> framework. Is that the objective? If its yes, we need an editor. It  
> is ok to add more concrete actions that we want to see in the text  
> but as minimum, we should mirror the language of the Directive/ 
> Convention 108?
>
> Meryem: As you will be working in the charter, can you take on board  
> my comments? I would appreciate. Maybe Cedric is willing to do so?
>
> all the best,
>
> Katitza
> P.D I am happy to reviewed/revised the clean version after those  
> editions.
>
> On Jan 13, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>
>
> Dear Max:
>
> I am confuse reading the Privacy section of the charter. I would  
> like to suggest that you use the language from the Madrid Privacy  
> Declaration. Some of this language does not make sense. On the  
> anonymity front, please, include the need for genuine Privacy  
> Enhancing Techniques that minimize or eliminate the collection of  
> personally identifiable information. We need to be sure whether  
> those methods safeguard privacy and anonymity. Pls. read EPIC: Re- 
> Identification: Concerning the Re-Identification of Consumer  
> Information  http://epic.org/privacy/reidentification/
>
> Also, I do not see any mentioned to the international legal  
> framework. The 1995 Data Protection Directive, 1980 OECD Privacy  
> Guidelines, the Convention 108 of the Council of Europe. Those  
> instruments places obligations on those public and private  
> organizations who collect and process personal information and gives  
> rights to those individual whose personal information is collected.
>
> Are you re-writing those rights?
>
> My 2 cents,
>
> All the best and Happy New Year,
>
> Katitza
>
>
> On Jan 13, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Max Senges wrote:
>
>
> hi everybody
>
> i have made a number of edits in the privacy section and would like  
> to ask a fundamental question
>
> 1) I thought it would be good to raise ease of access,  
> comprehensiveness and usability of privacy settings:
> "Privacy policy and settings of all services should be easy to find  
> and the management of privacy settings should be comprehensive and  
> optimized for usability."
>
> 2) The following sentence seems rather ambiguous to me (esp. what is  
> meant by "hidden mechanism") and I suggest to remove or amend it:
> "Social media networks must disclose when hidden mechanisms are  
> being employed to harvest email personal data bases."
>
> 3) "Service providers have a responsibility to make clear in which  
> legal jurisdiction(s) the user's personal data is being hosted, so  
> that the user can make informed decisions."
> I have raised this before and even though I see how this is an  
> important point, I think it needs to be formulated differently/  
> thought through a bit more. If I create a file/data-point in the  
> cloud say while I am in Germany, then I go on a trip and the file  
> "moves with me" to servers in Asia... etc. etc. how can there be a  
> final decision which jurisdiction is concerned? I mean wouldn't it  
> make more sense to be determined in a case by case logic?
>
> 4) "Unless otherwise explicitly agreed, data should be deleted when  
> it is no longer necessary for the purposes for which it was  
> collected, or for legal reasons." I would think that it's important  
> to limit this paragraph to personal data and ask for anonymization:  
> "Unless otherwise explicitly agreed,  personal data should be  
> deleted or anonymized when it is no longer necessary for the  
> purposes for which it was collected, or for legal reasons"
>
> 5) "People must be free to communicate without arbitrary  
> surveillance or interception, or the threat of surveillance or  
> interception. This includes the use of technologies such as deep  
> packet inspection and the exercise of control over individuals such  
> as in instances of domestic violence and cyberstalking."
>      This paragraph seems to be mixing several points. The main  
> points have been raised in other paragraphs and while I totally  
> agree to the first sentence i think the second is controversial.  
> E.g. deep packet inspection is a particular technology and we said  
> we dont want to mention particular technologies.
>
> 6) "Service providers should communicate clearly with users the  
> circumstances under which personal data will be shared with  
> governments and/or with other private entities. Simultaneously  
> provide options for unscribing from such networks. " I don't get the  
> latter sentence. Unsubscribe from the Internet? i'd suggest we delete.
>
>
>
> Looking forward to your input
> Max
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> "The future is here. Its just not widely distributed yet."
> William Gibson
>
> ...........................................................................
>
> Max Senges
> Berlin
>
> www.maxsenges.com
>
> Mobile: 01622122755
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100114/bf1db58b/attachment-0001.htm>


From rafik.dammak  Thu Jan 14 17:10:14 2010
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:10:14 +0900
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
In-Reply-To: <E75C9E88C68696B870CA86AD@CO223>
References: <0376F55255E23F7B1F29B9EC@192.168.1.64>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5C31@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> 
	<D6424EFCBDF5BAF0C74425C1@CO223>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5CE6@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> 
	<4B4CD67C.6020505@nupef.org.br>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5E7B@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> 
	<E75C9E88C68696B870CA86AD@CO223>
Message-ID: <bbd2a2cd1001140710g41089c1drbf115fd2bb78c7d3@mail.gmail.com>

Hello All,

just few comments about
point 1.d I think that is more matter of time limitation for each panelist,
we tried this approach at youth workshop and we left long time for
participants to interact with panelists. my fear that limiting the number
of panelists will impact people from developing countries and not the "vip"
(it should be limitation for panelists to participate in many workshops)
point 2.a I am not sure that DIY term (do it yourself) is know as term by
everybody :)
do you want to drop topics like "openness and diversity"?? I don't agree so
much with this approach.

Regards

rafik


2010/1/14 M I Franklin <cos02mf at gold.ac.uk>

> Dear All
>
> See attached. I've pasted in this first version below for those who prefer
> it (but its a long email!).
>
> Please keep comments brief. Any additional ideas and suggestions welcome.
> Time is short so the plan is to have the penultimate version out tomorrow
> afternoon..........
>
> yours
> MF
>
> *******************************************
>
> Open Consultation IGF 2010
>
> INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement
>
> The IRP Dynamic Coalition would like to contribute to the Open Consultation
> for IGF 2010 in two areas: observations for taking stock of IGF 2009 and
> suggestions for the format and agenda of the Vilnius meeting. The comments
> below are organised under [..] themes, under which we take stock of IGF 2009
> and then offer practical suggestions for the format and planning of IGF
> 2010.
>
> 1)      General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found
> the meeting to be well organised, with signs of continued progress in all
> aspects. Coalition members who were participating in or who organised
> workshops would like to commend the organisers for their good work in this
> regard, particularly given the relatively limited budget and resources
> available to the IGF. Some specific concerns include:
> a.      Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become
> diverted into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how.
> We think it is time to move on and to keep these issues from overwhelming
> the topics in hand.
> b.      Continuity and more explicit links between the main sessions and
> the workshops could have been stronger. Clear links in the program by
> cross-referencing of session/workshop themes and titles is one way to create
> these links before the meeting. During and after the meeting, we would like
> to see formal feedback opportunities put in place and integrated into the
> stocktaking; from organizers and/or moderators of both main sessions and
> workshops.
> c.      Main sessions based around the "traditional" themes of openness,
> diversity, and such like started to feel a bit repetitive particularly in
> relation to the freshness of new themes introduced onto the program. The
> need for continuity and depth needs to be balanced by new themes as well
> d.      Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists. This
> always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. Moderators of larger
> sessions need to find ways to ensure that discussion actually takes place
> and when it does it dynamic and inclusive. To this end we would suggest that
> there is an upper limit set on the number of panellists and/or length of
> formal presentations. Moreover that enough time is set aside for discussion.
> It is important that contributions from the floor, and remote participants
> get enough time to have their say and be adequately responded to by
> panellists and other participants.
> e.      Rather than having main sessions based around broad themes, we
> think this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy
> dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to opening up the
> discussion about specific solutions before the actual session.
>
> 2)      Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote
> participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific issues
> that we think need to be attended to this year to ensure fuller and more
> diverse participation in the IGF.
> a.       Workshop organisers were not given enough support in good time or
> enough information on how to use the technology provided properly. When
> technical hitches did occur, there were not enough technicians on hand so
> many moderators found themselves doing DIY instead. This is unprofessional
> and causes delays and loss of focus for everyone.  More information in
> advance from IGF HQ would be useful. But also during the event, and given
> the importance of enabling remote participation but also having it run
> smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in this respect is
> indispensable.
> b.      We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote
> Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a moderator
> on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning. Some-one needs to
> monitor remote participation, in partnership with the workshop moderator, in
> order to streamline, filter and facilitate remote participation in the
> proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based comments, setting up a queue for
> spoken interventions, or having remote participants be given the floor en
> bloc if this is more practicable. We would also urge all moderators to
> understand the many remote participants are doing this at difficult times of
> their 24 hour day and that time-lags require careful attention be paid to
> timing responses and requests by moderators on the ground.
> c.      The above points underscore our support for proposals to organise
> adequate guidelines as well as a brief training session/module/virtual tour
> for all moderators before the IGF meeting. During the meeting is not the
> time to experiment.
>
> 3)      Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary
> sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the internet
> age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in general rather than
> specific terms.
> a.      The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding
> human rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different stakeholders
> can or should play in this regard, and how these play out more specifically
> in different Internet governance issue-areas.
> b.      With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but also
> main sessions that look more closely at what a "human rights agenda" or
> "development agenda: for Internet Governance might actually look like.
> Discussions around broad themes such as openness and diversity have already
> taken place. It is time to get down to specifics and we do not see why these
> specifics always have to be covered in workshop sessions.
>
> 4)      Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural, regional,
> and linguistic representation remains a core issue for a number of dynamic
> coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about continuing to improve remote
> participation technically and organizationally relate to these concerns.
> Practically there is a need to
> a.      Setting up coherent - vertical and lateral - links between
> discussions and themes from national, regional and international IGFs
> better, during the meetings as well as in the record of these various
> meetings. At present the public record is piecemeal and not easily
> accessible. We recognise that this is process that needs dedicated time and
> resources to do so and urge the IGF to put aside some resources for this.
> b.      Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By this
> we mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and specialised
> workshops need to be more accessible not only to 'everyday internet users'
> but also for any communities or groups from areas where the Internet is
> either less extensive or who have other communication priorities.
>
> ********************************************************************88
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr Marianne Franklin
> Reader
> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
> Media & Communications
> Goldsmiths, University of London
> New Cross
> London SE14 6NW
> United Kingdom
> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
>
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100115/35105b80/attachment.htm>


From katitza  Thu Jan 14 17:52:35 2010
From: katitza (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:52:35 -0500
Subject: [IRP] edits in the privacy section
In-Reply-To: <74319231-BC90-4730-8241-EB7AF5AC9D80@datos-personales.org>
References: <4d976d8e1001130957r673722bck659c3c16ea665d4@mail.gmail.com><34903EE2-0AE2-4912-87C1-0524664E7F24@datos-personales.org>
	<38528872-FE31-4739-95A5-D9E86AC5EB4D@datos-personales.org>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5F62@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<74319231-BC90-4730-8241-EB7AF5AC9D80@datos-personales.org>
Message-ID: <3B0AE61B-CA5D-4535-A9A5-2487B3B3C87A@epic.org>

Clarification:

  I "try" not to use Google products (when I am "able" to do so). I am  
familiar with Google docs. However, I was lost with the several links.  
I look back to the text and the changes are, in fact, there.  So  
thanks for the clarification of the links!

I look forward to hearing back from everyone regarding the proposal I  
made." "Due to the fact that the Council of Europe is a member of the  
Steering Committee, I proposed to focus on Convention 108 (and its  
protocol 2001)".

All the best,

Katitza



On Jan 14, 2010, at 9:52 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:

> Dear Lisa,
>
> Thank you very much for your explanation. The process is now clear.  
> The language I added is on the link you provide here. Thanks. I  
> tried not to use Google products (when I am "able" to do so), so I  
> am not familiar with Googles docs (nor I will open an account and  
> sign on).
>
> Due to the fact that the Council of Europe is a member of the  
> Steering Committee, I proposed to focus on Convention 108 (and its  
> protocol 2001). We can then discuss further documents/ 
> recommendations, etc.
>
> All the best,
>
> Katitza
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 14, 2010, at 6:33 AM, Lisa Horner wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Thanks for your comments Katitza.  As making sure that the Charter  
>> aligns with international standards is one of the tasks of the  
>> expert group, they?ll take all of this on board.  If people have  
>> thoughts about which standards/directives we should be working to,  
>> please do send them through to the list or make notes on the wiki.   
>> I?m not a privacy expert and so can?t comment in this instance.
>>
>> Please note that the Charter is here:
>> http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ajcs86p9dx2s_488rpfcbcc
>>
>> There?s been some confusion over the different versions, so please  
>> make sure you?re editing the right one.  I?ve changed the link on  
>> the homepage at www.internetrigtsandprinciples.com so that it links  
>> right through to the correct version.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Lisa
>>
>> From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org 
>> ] On Behalf Of Katitza Rodriguez
>> Sent: 13 January 2010 23:04
>> To: irp
>> Cc: Cedric Laurant
>> Subject: Re: [IRP] edits in the privacy section
>>
>> Dear Lisa, Dear Meryem:
>>
>> Happy New Year. I want to submit some comments to the Privacy  
>> Section. Cedric Laurant and I submit some comments the other day.  
>> While editing the text, I start asking myself  that the overall  
>> Privacy Section needs some thoughts.
>>
>> Please, noted that in comparison to other rights of the charter, in  
>> this section we have International Legal Frameworks. ie. The 1995  
>> Data Protection Directive, 1980 OECD Privacy Guidelines, the  
>> Convention 108 of the Council of Europe. Those instruments places  
>> obligations on those public and private organizations who collect  
>> and process personal information and gives RIGHTS to those  
>> individual whose personal information is collected.
>>
>> The old text, wrote by APC, is based in the EU Directive. The APC  
>> text (not the IRP text) use a common language based on that  
>> framework. Is that the objective? If its yes, we need an editor. It  
>> is ok to add more concrete actions that we want to see in the text  
>> but as minimum, we should mirror the language of the Directive/ 
>> Convention 108?
>>
>> Meryem: As you will be working in the charter, can you take on  
>> board my comments? I would appreciate. Maybe Cedric is willing to  
>> do so?
>>
>> all the best,
>>
>> Katitza
>> P.D I am happy to reviewed/revised the clean version after those  
>> editions.
>>
>> On Jan 13, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear Max:
>>
>> I am confuse reading the Privacy section of the charter. I would  
>> like to suggest that you use the language from the Madrid Privacy  
>> Declaration. Some of this language does not make sense. On the  
>> anonymity front, please, include the need for genuine Privacy  
>> Enhancing Techniques that minimize or eliminate the collection of  
>> personally identifiable information. We need to be sure whether  
>> those methods safeguard privacy and anonymity. Pls. read EPIC: Re- 
>> Identification: Concerning the Re-Identification of Consumer  
>> Information  http://epic.org/privacy/reidentification/
>>
>> Also, I do not see any mentioned to the international legal  
>> framework. The 1995 Data Protection Directive, 1980 OECD Privacy  
>> Guidelines, the Convention 108 of the Council of Europe. Those  
>> instruments places obligations on those public and private  
>> organizations who collect and process personal information and  
>> gives rights to those individual whose personal information is  
>> collected.
>>
>> Are you re-writing those rights?
>>
>> My 2 cents,
>>
>> All the best and Happy New Year,
>>
>> Katitza
>>
>>
>> On Jan 13, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Max Senges wrote:
>>
>>
>> hi everybody
>>
>> i have made a number of edits in the privacy section and would like  
>> to ask a fundamental question
>>
>> 1) I thought it would be good to raise ease of access,  
>> comprehensiveness and usability of privacy settings:
>> "Privacy policy and settings of all services should be easy to find  
>> and the management of privacy settings should be comprehensive and  
>> optimized for usability."
>>
>> 2) The following sentence seems rather ambiguous to me (esp. what  
>> is meant by "hidden mechanism") and I suggest to remove or amend it:
>> "Social media networks must disclose when hidden mechanisms are  
>> being employed to harvest email personal data bases."
>>
>> 3) "Service providers have a responsibility to make clear in which  
>> legal jurisdiction(s) the user's personal data is being hosted, so  
>> that the user can make informed decisions."
>> I have raised this before and even though I see how this is an  
>> important point, I think it needs to be formulated differently/  
>> thought through a bit more. If I create a file/data-point in the  
>> cloud say while I am in Germany, then I go on a trip and the file  
>> "moves with me" to servers in Asia... etc. etc. how can there be a  
>> final decision which jurisdiction is concerned? I mean wouldn't it  
>> make more sense to be determined in a case by case logic?
>>
>> 4) "Unless otherwise explicitly agreed, data should be deleted when  
>> it is no longer necessary for the purposes for which it was  
>> collected, or for legal reasons." I would think that it's important  
>> to limit this paragraph to personal data and ask for anonymization:  
>> "Unless otherwise explicitly agreed,  personal data should be  
>> deleted or anonymized when it is no longer necessary for the  
>> purposes for which it was collected, or for legal reasons"
>>
>> 5) "People must be free to communicate without arbitrary  
>> surveillance or interception, or the threat of surveillance or  
>> interception. This includes the use of technologies such as deep  
>> packet inspection and the exercise of control over individuals such  
>> as in instances of domestic violence and cyberstalking."
>>      This paragraph seems to be mixing several points. The main  
>> points have been raised in other paragraphs and while I totally  
>> agree to the first sentence i think the second is controversial.  
>> E.g. deep packet inspection is a particular technology and we said  
>> we dont want to mention particular technologies.
>>
>> 6) "Service providers should communicate clearly with users the  
>> circumstances under which personal data will be shared with  
>> governments and/or with other private entities. Simultaneously  
>> provide options for unscribing from such networks. " I don't get  
>> the latter sentence. Unsubscribe from the Internet? i'd suggest we  
>> delete.
>>
>>
>>
>> Looking forward to your input
>> Max
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> "The future is here. Its just not widely distributed yet."
>> William Gibson
>>
>> ...........................................................................
>>
>> Max Senges
>> Berlin
>>
>> www.maxsenges.com
>>
>> Mobile: 01622122755
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100114/d80d0b3a/attachment-0001.htm>


From lisa  Thu Jan 14 19:07:16 2010
From: lisa (Lisa Horner)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:07:16 -0000
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
In-Reply-To: <bbd2a2cd1001140710g41089c1drbf115fd2bb78c7d3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0376F55255E23F7B1F29B9EC@192.168.1.64>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5C31@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<D6424EFCBDF5BAF0C74425C1@CO223>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5CE6@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<4B4CD67C.6020505@nupef.org.br>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5E7B@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<E75C9E88C68696B870CA86AD@CO223>
	<bbd2a2cd1001140710g41089c1drbf115fd2bb78c7d3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5FA6@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>

Hi 

 

I agree that we need to take care not to imply that we don?t think that issues of openness and diversity are important, but rather that we need to drill down more deeply to address specific issues within them, preferably using human rights framing.  We could maybe do this by bringing 1d and 1e together, and changing the beginning of the sentence for 1e to something like, ?Whilst openness and diversity are important issues, we think this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy dilemmas within these broad themes?.

 

Marianne, in response to your earlier question, I think we have until the end of tomorrow to send it, but I don?t think it matters which time zone we take that to mean!  Let?s go for the US to give us more time!  We send it to igf at unog.ch.

 

Thanks,

 

Lisa 

 

From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] 
Sent: 14 January 2010 15:10
To: M I Franklin
Cc: Lisa Horner; irp
Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010

 

Hello All,

 

just few comments about

point 1.d I think that is more matter of time limitation for each panelist, we tried this approach at youth workshop and we left long time for participants to interact with panelists. my fear that limiting the number of panelists will impact people from developing countries and not the "vip" (it should be limitation for panelists to participate in many workshops)

point 2.a I am not sure that DIY term (do it yourself) is know as term by everybody :)  

do you want to drop topics like "openness and diversity"?? I don't agree so much with this approach.  

Regards

 

rafik

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100114/ad5a743d/attachment.htm>


From maxsenges  Thu Jan 14 19:34:54 2010
From: maxsenges (Max Senges)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:34:54 +0100
Subject: [IRP] hand over & mandate for the expert committee
Message-ID: <4d976d8e1001140934j748c7964xd0990f48c3c4ff3f@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Rikke, Wolfgang, Meryem, hi everyone

i was wondering where we stand in terms of recruiting additional experts to
reach better regional representation?

also i was looking for the last version of the text that outlines the
mandate for our HR expert consolidation of the Charter but couldn't find it.
I would suggest we copy it somewhere on our website-wiki (if its
functioning) or into a publicly editable g-doc

Best
Max


--
"The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
?William Gibson

...........................................................................

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com

Mobile: 01622122755
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100114/4962c299/attachment.htm>


From cos02mf  Thu Jan 14 19:48:34 2010
From: cos02mf (M I Franklin)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:48:34 +0100
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5FA6@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
References: <0376F55255E23F7B1F29B9EC@192.168.1.64>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5C31@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<D6424EFCBDF5BAF0C74425C1@CO223>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5CE6@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<4B4CD67C.6020505@nupef.org.br>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5E7B@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<E75C9E88C68696B870CA86AD@CO223>
	<bbd2a2cd1001140710g41089c1drbf115fd2bb78c7d3@mail.gmail.com>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5FA6@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
Message-ID: <2626D10D36EAACFAFD17C1BA@[192.168.1.64]>

Dear All

Thanks for the input. Nuance and reordering along these lines and tweaking 
along points made earlier can be arranged. This statement is to make a 
practical as well as a principled (HR0 contribution to the consultations. 
It is self-explanatory that this coalition wants to focus on HR. Practical 
suggestions and a willingness to contribute to the next IGF go along with 
that, at least as I see it.

Anyway, in order to allow time for the IGC and other IRP'ers to endorse the 
new version of this statement, comments and suggestions until midnight GMT. 
That allows time for those of you in your working day. So, stand by 
tomorrow for the revised version

If people could endorse (those who haven't as yet) asap after that, then 
will send it through as late as possible tomorrow night GMT.

One suggestion following on from this: as this statement is a contribution 
to the open consultations in practical terms as well as a change to put the 
IRP's main goal on record rather than a fully developed manifesto as such, 
perhaps we could take this statement as a springboard for more discussions 
within the list about concrete ways for IRP to contribute to the Vilnius 
meeting; workshops, main sessions, etc etc.

ciao
MF

--On Thursday, January 14, 2010 17:07 +0000 Lisa Horner 
<lisa at global-partners.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> I agree that we need to take care not to imply that we don't think that
> issues of openness and diversity are important, but rather that we need
> to drill down more deeply to address specific issues within them,
> preferably using human rights framing.? We could maybe do this by
> bringing 1d and 1e together, and changing the beginning of the sentence
> for 1e to something like, "Whilst openness and diversity are important
> issues, we think this year is the moment to broach more specific
> questions or policy dilemmas within these broad themes".
>
>
>
> Marianne, in response to your earlier question, I think we have until the
> end of tomorrow to send it, but I don't think it matters which time
> zone we take that to mean!? Let's go for the US to give us more
> time!? We send it to igf at unog.ch.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Lisa
>
>
>
> From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com]
> Sent: 14 January 2010 15:10
> To: M I Franklin
> Cc: Lisa Horner; irp
> Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
>
>
> just few comments about
>
> point 1.d I think that is more matter of time limitation for each
> panelist, we tried this approach at youth workshop and we left long time
> for participants to interact with panelists. my fear that limiting the
> number of panelists will impact people from developing countries and not
> the "vip" (it should be limitation for panelists to participate in many
> workshops)
>
> point 2.a I am not sure that DIY term (do it yourself) is know as term by
> everybody :)
>
> do you want to drop topics like "openness and diversity"?? I don't agree
> so much with this approach.
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> rafik
>
>
>
>



Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
Media & Communications
Goldsmiths, University of London
New Cross
London SE14 6NW
United Kingdom
Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php


From cos02mf  Thu Jan 14 23:29:51 2010
From: cos02mf (M I Franklin)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:29:51 +0100
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010 [v2]
Message-ID: <299A223F1562C2684FC130F0@[192.168.1.64]>

Dear all

In order to allow time for any last input, see below; new order of 
appearance, some rephrasing, and a couple of additional comments (See 1c; . 
2 e)

Last round for comments (inclusions)!

yours
MF

******************
Open Consultation IGF 2010

INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement

The comments below from the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic 
Coalition are our contribution to the Open Consultations for IGF 2010. Each 
of the four themes below take stock of IGF 2009 by offering practical 
suggestions for the format and planning of IGF 2010.

1)	Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary 
sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the 
internet age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in general 
rather than specific terms.
a.	The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding human 
rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different stakeholders can 
or should play in this regard, and how these play out more specifically in 
different Internet governance issue-areas.
b.	With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but also main 
sessions that look more closely at what a 'human rights agenda', or 
'development agenda for Internet Governance' might actually look like. 
Whilst openness and diversity continue to be important issues, we think 
this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy 
dilemmas within these broader themes
c.	The coalition is ready and willing to contribute to organizing and 
facilitating main sessions along these Human Rights related themes.

2)	General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found the 
meeting to be well organised, with signs of continued progress in all 
aspects. Coalition members who were participating in or who organised 
workshops would like to commend the organisers for their good work in this 
regard, particularly given the relatively limited budget and resources 
available to the IGF. Aspects that could be paid more attention this year 
include:
a.	Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become diverted 
into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. This is 
a key issue however we think it is important to avoid having these issues 
sidetrack the topics on hand in main sessions and workshops this year.
b.	Continuity and more linking between the main sessions and the workshops 
could be strengthened. Clear links in the program by cross-referencing of 
session/workshop themes and titles is one way to create these links before 
the meeting. During and after the meeting, we would like to see formal 
feedback opportunities put in place and integrated into the stocktaking; 
from organizers and/or moderators of both main sessions and workshops.
c.	Main sessions based around 'classic' themes of openness, diversity, and 
such like need to be supplemented and reinvigorated by including new themes 
onto the program. The need for continuity and in-depth discussions of 
ongoing themes need to be balanced by new themes as well for this is a 
fast-moving area.
d.	Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists. This 
always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. We realise that 
larger panels allow for a greater diversity in some cases. However we would 
urge moderators of larger sessions to ensure that there is enough time for 
discussion and that when discussion takes place it is dynamic and inclusive 
of panellists and other participants. It is important that contributors 
from the floor as well as from remote participants get enough time to have 
their say and be adequately responded to by panellists and other 
participants.
e.	In light of the above we would also like to see more innovative panel 
formats encouraged; modelled on town-hall meetings, brainstorming, and 
other sorts of small-group, or interactive forms of discussion for 
instance. Formal panels have their place but good work is also done in 
small groups/break-out sessions as well.
f.	Rather than having main sessions largely based around broad themes, we 
think this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy 
dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to opening up the 
discussion about specific solutions before the actual session.

3)	Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote 
participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific issues 
that we think need to be attended to this year to ensure fuller and more 
diverse participation in the IGF.
a.	 Workshop organisers were not given enough support in good time or 
enough information on how to use the technology provided properly. When 
technical hitches did occur, there were not enough technicians on hand so 
many moderators found themselves in the role of do-it-yourself technical 
supporters. This causes delays, frustration and a loss of focus for 
everyone.  More information in advance from the IGF in liaison with the 
Vilnius venue organisers would be useful. But also during the event, and 
given the importance of enabling remote participation but also having it 
run smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in this respect is 
indispensable.
b.	We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote 
Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a moderator 
on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning. Some-one needs to 
monitor remote participation, in partnership with the workshop moderator, 
in order to streamline, filter and facilitate remote participation in the 
proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based comments, setting up a queue for 
spoken interventions, or having remote participants be given the floor en 
bloc if this is more practicable. We would also urge all moderators to 
understand the many remote participants are doing this at difficult times 
of their 24 hour day and that time-lags require careful attention be paid 
to timing responses and requests by moderators on the ground.
c.	The above points underscore our support for proposals to organise 
adequate guidelines as well as a brief training session/module/virtual tour 
for all moderators before the IGF meeting. During the meeting is not the 
time to experiment.

4)	Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural, regional, and 
linguistic representation remains a core issue for a number of dynamic 
coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about continuing to improve remote 
participation technically and organizationally relate to these concerns. 
Practically there is a need to
a.	Setting up coherent - vertical and lateral - links between discussions 
and themes from national, regional and international IGFs better, during 
the meetings as well as in the record of these various meetings. At present 
the public record is piecemeal and not easily accessible. We recognise that 
this is process that needs dedicated time and resources to do so and urge 
the IGF to put aside some resources for this.
b.	Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By this we 
mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and specialised 
workshops need to be more accessible to 'everyday internet users', any 
interested communities or groups from areas where the Internet is either 
less extensive or who have other communication priorities.

*********

Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
Media & Communications
Goldsmiths, University of London
New Cross
London SE14 6NW
United Kingdom
Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php



From rafik.dammak  Fri Jan 15 03:38:44 2010
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:38:44 +0900
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010 [v2]
In-Reply-To: <299A223F1562C2684FC130F0@192.168.1.64>
References: <299A223F1562C2684FC130F0@192.168.1.64>
Message-ID: <bbd2a2cd1001141738y3021b96ay2b0d05493753ca91@mail.gmail.com>

Hello all,

it is ok, I endorse it,

Thanks Marianne!

Rafik

2010/1/15 M I Franklin <cos02mf at gold.ac.uk>

> Dear all
>
> In order to allow time for any last input, see below; new order of
> appearance, some rephrasing, and a couple of additional comments (See 1c; .
> 2 e)
>
> Last round for comments (inclusions)!
>
> yours
> MF
>
> ******************
> Open Consultation IGF 2010
>
> INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement
>
> The comments below from the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic
> Coalition are our contribution to the Open Consultations for IGF 2010. Each
> of the four themes below take stock of IGF 2009 by offering practical
> suggestions for the format and planning of IGF 2010.
>
> 1)      Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary
> sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the internet
> age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in general rather than
> specific terms.
> a.      The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding
> human rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different stakeholders
> can or should play in this regard, and how these play out more specifically
> in different Internet governance issue-areas.
> b.      With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but also
> main sessions that look more closely at what a 'human rights agenda', or
> 'development agenda for Internet Governance' might actually look like.
> Whilst openness and diversity continue to be important issues, we think this
> year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy dilemmas
> within these broader themes
> c.      The coalition is ready and willing to contribute to organizing and
> facilitating main sessions along these Human Rights related themes.
>
> 2)      General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found
> the meeting to be well organised, with signs of continued progress in all
> aspects. Coalition members who were participating in or who organised
> workshops would like to commend the organisers for their good work in this
> regard, particularly given the relatively limited budget and resources
> available to the IGF. Aspects that could be paid more attention this year
> include:
> a.      Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become
> diverted into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how.
> This is a key issue however we think it is important to avoid having these
> issues sidetrack the topics on hand in main sessions and workshops this
> year.
> b.      Continuity and more linking between the main sessions and the
> workshops could be strengthened. Clear links in the program by
> cross-referencing of session/workshop themes and titles is one way to create
> these links before the meeting. During and after the meeting, we would like
> to see formal feedback opportunities put in place and integrated into the
> stocktaking; from organizers and/or moderators of both main sessions and
> workshops.
> c.      Main sessions based around 'classic' themes of openness, diversity,
> and such like need to be supplemented and reinvigorated by including new
> themes onto the program. The need for continuity and in-depth discussions of
> ongoing themes need to be balanced by new themes as well for this is a
> fast-moving area.
> d.      Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists. This
> always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. We realise that
> larger panels allow for a greater diversity in some cases. However we would
> urge moderators of larger sessions to ensure that there is enough time for
> discussion and that when discussion takes place it is dynamic and inclusive
> of panellists and other participants. It is important that contributors from
> the floor as well as from remote participants get enough time to have their
> say and be adequately responded to by panellists and other participants.
> e.      In light of the above we would also like to see more innovative
> panel formats encouraged; modelled on town-hall meetings, brainstorming, and
> other sorts of small-group, or interactive forms of discussion for instance.
> Formal panels have their place but good work is also done in small
> groups/break-out sessions as well.
> f.      Rather than having main sessions largely based around broad themes,
> we think this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy
> dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to opening up the
> discussion about specific solutions before the actual session.
>
> 3)      Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote
> participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific issues
> that we think need to be attended to this year to ensure fuller and more
> diverse participation in the IGF.
> a.       Workshop organisers were not given enough support in good time or
> enough information on how to use the technology provided properly. When
> technical hitches did occur, there were not enough technicians on hand so
> many moderators found themselves in the role of do-it-yourself technical
> supporters. This causes delays, frustration and a loss of focus for
> everyone.  More information in advance from the IGF in liaison with the
> Vilnius venue organisers would be useful. But also during the event, and
> given the importance of enabling remote participation but also having it run
> smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in this respect is
> indispensable.
> b.      We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote
> Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a moderator
> on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning. Some-one needs to
> monitor remote participation, in partnership with the workshop moderator, in
> order to streamline, filter and facilitate remote participation in the
> proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based comments, setting up a queue for
> spoken interventions, or having remote participants be given the floor en
> bloc if this is more practicable. We would also urge all moderators to
> understand the many remote participants are doing this at difficult times of
> their 24 hour day and that time-lags require careful attention be paid to
> timing responses and requests by moderators on the ground.
> c.      The above points underscore our support for proposals to organise
> adequate guidelines as well as a brief training session/module/virtual tour
> for all moderators before the IGF meeting. During the meeting is not the
> time to experiment.
>
> 4)      Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural, regional,
> and linguistic representation remains a core issue for a number of dynamic
> coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about continuing to improve remote
> participation technically and organizationally relate to these concerns.
> Practically there is a need to
> a.      Setting up coherent - vertical and lateral - links between
> discussions and themes from national, regional and international IGFs
> better, during the meetings as well as in the record of these various
> meetings. At present the public record is piecemeal and not easily
> accessible. We recognise that this is process that needs dedicated time and
> resources to do so and urge the IGF to put aside some resources for this.
> b.      Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By this
> we mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and specialised
> workshops need to be more accessible to 'everyday internet users', any
> interested communities or groups from areas where the Internet is either
> less extensive or who have other communication priorities.
>
> *********
>
> Dr Marianne Franklin
> Reader
> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
> Media & Communications
> Goldsmiths, University of London
> New Cross
> London SE14 6NW
> United Kingdom
> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
>
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100115/6d0ee0e0/attachment-0001.htm>


From mps  Fri Jan 15 13:58:10 2010
From: mps (Miguel Perez Subias)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:58:10 +0100
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
In-Reply-To: <bbd2a2cd1001140710g41089c1drbf115fd2bb78c7d3@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <0376F55255E23F7B1F29B9EC@192.168.1.64>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5C31@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<D6424EFCBDF5BAF0C74425C1@CO223>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5CE6@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<4B4CD67C.6020505@nupef.org.br>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5E7B@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<E75C9E88C68696B870CA86AD@CO223>
	<bbd2a2cd1001140710g41089c1drbf115fd2bb78c7d3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20100115125622.06723ce0@aui.es>

Remote participation.

I suggest making the process of remote participation to avoid having to 
know or learn new tools and for this I propose a very simple scheme 
consisting of video broadcast in different languages from IGF to the 
Internet and collect people's questions through a Twitter and/or 
Facebook  channel through a moderator that aggregates and organizes the 
questions that arrive.

This will avoid the learning process necessary for the use of tools that 
incorporate audio or video (dim-dim, WebEx, ..) which requires training and 
/ or installation prior to use.

T&R
MiguelPerezSubias.com
Spanish Internet Users Association - www.aui.es 



From loretoc  Fri Jan 15 14:05:20 2010
From: loretoc (LORETO CORREDOIRA ALFONSO)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:05:20 +0100
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20100115125622.06723ce0@aui.es>
References: <0376F55255E23F7B1F29B9EC@192.168.1.64>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5C31@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<D6424EFCBDF5BAF0C74425C1@CO223>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5CE6@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<4B4CD67C.6020505@nupef.org.br>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F5E7B@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<E75C9E88C68696B870CA86AD@CO223>
	<bbd2a2cd1001140710g41089c1drbf115fd2bb78c7d3@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.1.0.6.2.20100115125622.06723ce0@aui.es>
Message-ID: <f6ace9db3bf4.4b506810@ucm.es>

Much better 

----- Mensaje original -----
De: Miguel Perez Subias <mps at aui.es>
Fecha: Viernes, Enero 15, 2010 12:58
Asunto: Re: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
A: irp <Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>

> Remote participation.
> 
> I suggest making the process of remote participation to avoid 
> having to 
> know or learn new tools and for this I propose a very simple 
> scheme 
> consisting of video broadcast in different languages from IGF to 
> the 
> Internet and collect people's questions through a Twitter and/or 
> Facebook? channel through a moderator that aggregates and 
> organizes the 
> questions that arrive.
> 
> This will avoid the learning process necessary for the use of 
> tools that 
> incorporate audio or video (dim-dim, WebEx, ..) which requires 
> training and 
> / or installation prior to use.
> 
> T&R
> MiguelPerezSubias.com
> Spanish Internet Users Association - www.aui.es 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-
> internetrightsandprinciples.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100115/02320ee1/attachment.htm>


From lisa  Fri Jan 15 14:21:26 2010
From: lisa (Lisa Horner)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:21:26 -0000
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010 [v2]
In-Reply-To: <299A223F1562C2684FC130F0@[192.168.1.64]>
References: <299A223F1562C2684FC130F0@[192.168.1.64]>
Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F6006@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>

Thanks for this Marianne.  I think it's really good and I endorse it.  

RE the recent comments about remote participation, I think it's a bit
late to include recommendations on the specific platforms and mechanisms
that should be used in this statement. I agree that they're quite
complex at the moment, and that this has hampered remote participation
in the workshops.  I think this comes across in the statement.  I'd
suggest leaving it is at the moment, and then continuing the discussion
about specific platforms and tools with the remote participation DC and
directly ourselves in the open consultations.

All the best,
Lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: M I Franklin [mailto:cos02mf at gold.ac.uk] 
Sent: 14 January 2010 21:30
To: Lisa Horner; irp
Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010 [v2]

Dear all

In order to allow time for any last input, see below; new order of 
appearance, some rephrasing, and a couple of additional comments (See
1c; . 
2 e)

Last round for comments (inclusions)!

yours
MF



From gpaque  Fri Jan 15 15:13:16 2010
From: gpaque (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:43:16 -0430
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010 [v2]
In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F6006@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
References: <299A223F1562C2684FC130F0@[192.168.1.64]>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F6006@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
Message-ID: <4B5069EC.3050405@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100115/09b4cb4a/attachment.htm>


From maxsenges  Fri Jan 15 15:41:13 2010
From: maxsenges (Max Senges)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:41:13 +0100
Subject: [IRP] Procedure of Experts
In-Reply-To: <C775F118.B41C%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
References: <C775F118.B41C%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
Message-ID: <4d976d8e1001150541q7a1e2ec9xfa24a1e55230fe7f@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everybody

Wolfgang (and I assume Rikke and Meryem) are ready to start their work.

I think it is very important that we expand the expert group with colleagues
from the south.

@Wolfgang and all: how do you plan to identify and select them?

Also I copied the mandate for the expert group in a publicly viewable and
editable g-doc (no registration required :-)

And I made a couple of updates (regarding the start on 15th of January) and
a short comment:

"It also seems important to stress that the Charter is meant to represent a
multistakeholder group and hence language should aim to be acceptable to
governments, intergovernmental institutions, private companies and civil
society groups."

I thought it would be helpful to remind everybody that the charter is not a
civil society advocacy document.

Lastly I want to reiterate the fact that this collaborative effort is
entitled "Charter on Human Rights and Principles on the Internet" and that
the authoring body is the Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles. While
I accept the preference of the experts to experiment with a matrix
structure, I would like to stress the immanent importance of ensuring
that "implementation
principles" have an important role in the coalitions approach and should be
easily discernible.

best
max

--

"The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
?William Gibson

...........................................................................

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com

Mobile: 01622122755


On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Wolfgang Benedek <
wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:

>  Dear Lisa and Max,
>
> I understand that from tomorrow we should start our part.
>
> In this context we wanted to send You what we consider the actual
> understanding of the procedure of our work. If You have any comments please
> share them with us before the end of the weekend.
>
> We intend to send this also to the experts from the South, and it should
> certainly also be shared with our community.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolfgang
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100115/2addb262/attachment.htm>


From maxsenges  Fri Jan 15 15:42:09 2010
From: maxsenges (Max Senges)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:42:09 +0100
Subject: [IRP] Procedure of Experts
In-Reply-To: <4d976d8e1001150541q7a1e2ec9xfa24a1e55230fe7f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C775F118.B41C%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<4d976d8e1001150541q7a1e2ec9xfa24a1e55230fe7f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4d976d8e1001150542u46520d18t17cbff79c1a22e8f@mail.gmail.com>

UUppss

i guess it helps if I share the link with you :-)

https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ajcs86p9dx2s_51hhhrskht&btr

best
max


"The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
?William Gibson

...........................................................................

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com

Mobile: 01622122755


2010/1/15 Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com>

> Hi everybody
>
> Wolfgang (and I assume Rikke and Meryem) are ready to start their work.
>
> I think it is very important that we expand the expert group with
> colleagues from the south.
>
> @Wolfgang and all: how do you plan to identify and select them?
>
> Also I copied the mandate for the expert group in a publicly viewable and
> editable g-doc (no registration required :-)
>
> And I made a couple of updates (regarding the start on 15th of January) and
> a short comment:
>
> "It also seems important to stress that the Charter is meant to represent a
> multistakeholder group and hence language should aim to be acceptable to
> governments, intergovernmental institutions, private companies and civil
> society groups."
>
> I thought it would be helpful to remind everybody that the charter is not a
> civil society advocacy document.
>
> Lastly I want to reiterate the fact that this collaborative effort is
> entitled "Charter on Human Rights and Principles on the Internet" and that
> the authoring body is the Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles. While
> I accept the preference of the experts to experiment with a matrix
> structure, I would like to stress the immanent importance of ensuring that "implementation
> principles" have an important role in the coalitions approach and should
> be easily discernible.
>
> best
> max
>
> --
>
> "The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
> ?William Gibson
>
> ...........................................................................
>
> Max Senges
> Berlin
>
> www.maxsenges.com
>
> Mobile: 01622122755
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Wolfgang Benedek <
> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:
>
>>  Dear Lisa and Max,
>>
>> I understand that from tomorrow we should start our part.
>>
>> In this context we wanted to send You what we consider the actual
>> understanding of the procedure of our work. If You have any comments please
>> share them with us before the end of the weekend.
>>
>> We intend to send this also to the experts from the South, and it should
>> certainly also be shared with our community.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100115/8336e26f/attachment-0001.htm>


From ocl  Fri Jan 15 16:22:29 2010
From: ocl (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:22:29 +0100
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010 [v2]
In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F6006@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
References: <299A223F1562C2684FC130F0@[192.168.1.64]>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F6006@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
Message-ID: <4B507A25.8020900@gih.com>

I agree with Lisa. It is:
(1) a bit late to mention what good tools should be used and
(2) like opening a can of worms - selection of participation software 
involves a multitude of platforms, and many many debates have happened 
about that in the past, with some people favouring Open Source, other 
favouring a brand, etc. etc.

I am happy with the statement that Marianne wrote. Thank you Marianne - 
great work!

Warmest regards,

Olivier
-- 
Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html


Le 15/01/2010 13:21, Lisa Horner a ?crit :
> Thanks for this Marianne.  I think it's really good and I endorse it.
>
> RE the recent comments about remote participation, I think it's a bit
> late to include recommendations on the specific platforms and mechanisms
> that should be used in this statement. I agree that they're quite
> complex at the moment, and that this has hampered remote participation
> in the workshops.  I think this comes across in the statement.  I'd
> suggest leaving it is at the moment, and then continuing the discussion
> about specific platforms and tools with the remote participation DC and
> directly ourselves in the open consultations.
>
> All the best,
> Lisa
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: M I Franklin [mailto:cos02mf at gold.ac.uk]
> Sent: 14 January 2010 21:30
> To: Lisa Horner; irp
> Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010 [v2]
>
> Dear all
>
> In order to allow time for any last input, see below; new order of
> appearance, some rephrasing, and a couple of additional comments (See
> 1c; .
> 2 e)
>
> Last round for comments (inclusions)!
>
> yours
> MF
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
>    


From katitza  Fri Jan 15 16:53:18 2010
From: katitza (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:53:18 -0500
Subject: [IRP] Procedure of Experts
In-Reply-To: <4d976d8e1001150541q7a1e2ec9xfa24a1e55230fe7f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C775F118.B41C%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<4d976d8e1001150541q7a1e2ec9xfa24a1e55230fe7f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7E38FEAA-A239-4FB0-87D3-36C8098365E0@datos-personales.org>

Greetings:

On Jan 15, 2010, at 8:41 AM, Max Senges wrote:

> "It also seems important to stress that the Charter is meant to  
> represent a multistakeholder group and hence language should aim to  
> be acceptable to governments, intergovernmental institutions,  
> private companies and civil society groups."
>
> I thought it would be helpful to remind everybody that the charter  
> is not a civil society advocacy document.

I agreed. It should not also be a document that advance the business  
model of some companies (and hence, enhance one right) over the  
detriment of other rights.

All the best, and happy new year. :)

Katitza
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100115/44db6221/attachment.htm>


From cos02mf  Fri Jan 15 17:22:27 2010
From: cos02mf (M I Franklin)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:22:27 +0000
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010 [v2]
In-Reply-To: <4B5069EC.3050405@gmail.com>
References: <299A223F1562C2684FC130F0@[192.168.1.64]>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F6006@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
	<4B5069EC.3050405@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F11C55F4A9BC15FAB59B79BE@CO223>

Dear All

I agree with the need to keep the statement brief but also to take on board 
these sorts of specific suggestions for subsequent discussions. Also, why 
not ttry out some of these other formats for remote participation perhaps 
in individual workshops?

With this in mind, the version you all now have is ready to be sent; 
proof-read and tweaked for greater 'elegance' here and there.

FYI, I will be sending the final version on to the IGF and cc us all in so 
everyone has the same document. I will do this in about two hours time i.e. 
17.00 GMT if that is Ok.

So it would be good to be have more endorsements from the floor, for the 
record.

Thanks everyone so far
MF

--On 15 January 2010 08:43 -0430 Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with Lisa. These are good comments about Remote Participation,
> which should be taken into consideration. I will pass them on to the
> Remote Participation Working Group. However, I think that they are too
> specific for the statement.
> Best, Ginger
>
> Lisa Horner wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for this Marianne.  I think it's really good and I endorse it.
>
> RE the recent comments about remote participation, I think it's a bit
> late to include recommendations on the specific platforms and mechanisms
> that should be used in this statement. I agree that they're quite
> complex at the moment, and that this has hampered remote participation
> in the workshops.  I think this comes across in the statement.  I'd
> suggest leaving it is at the moment, and then continuing the discussion
> about specific platforms and tools with the remote participation DC and
> directly ourselves in the open consultations.
>
> All the best,
> Lisa
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: M I Franklin [mailto:cos02mf at gold.ac.uk]
> Sent: 14 January 2010 21:30
> To: Lisa Horner; irp
> Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010 [v2]
>
> Dear all
>
> In order to allow time for any last input, see below; new order of
> appearance, some rephrasing, and a couple of additional comments (See
> 1c; .
> 2 e)
>
> Last round for comments (inclusions)!
>
> yours
> MF
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrig
> htsandprinciples.org
>
>
>



Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
Media & Communications
Goldsmiths, University of London
New Cross
London SE14 6NW
United Kingdom
Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php



From Robert_Bodle  Fri Jan 15 18:01:14 2010
From: Robert_Bodle (Bodle, Robert)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:01:14 -0500
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010 [v2]
In-Reply-To: <299A223F1562C2684FC130F0@[192.168.1.64]>
References: <299A223F1562C2684FC130F0@[192.168.1.64]>
Message-ID: <454C400F0F7C9B479EF31631E311C325678B323675@MSJEMAIL01.msj.edu>

Dear M.F. (M.I.), 

This is a comprehensive statement and I endorse it (one tweak - 4) a. "Setting" should be "Set"). 

Thank you for coordinating this and accommodating last minute endorsements.  

Robert Bodle
--
Robert Bodle, PhD
Assistant Professor of Communication Studies
Chair, Instructional Delivery Committee
Facilitator, Faculty Learning Community - Mobile Learning
Division of Arts and Humanities
Interactive Media Design & Computing
College of Mount St. Joseph

http://twitter.com/MSJCOM
http://twitter.com/robertbodle
________________________________________
From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of M I Franklin [cos02mf at gold.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 4:29 PM
To: Lisa Horner; irp
Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010 [v2]

Dear all

In order to allow time for any last input, see below; new order of
appearance, some rephrasing, and a couple of additional comments (See 1c; .
2 e)

Last round for comments (inclusions)!

yours
MF

******************
Open Consultation IGF 2010

INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement

The comments below from the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic
Coalition are our contribution to the Open Consultations for IGF 2010. Each
of the four themes below take stock of IGF 2009 by offering practical
suggestions for the format and planning of IGF 2010.

1)      Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary
sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the
internet age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in general
rather than specific terms.
a.      The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding human
rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different stakeholders can
or should play in this regard, and how these play out more specifically in
different Internet governance issue-areas.
b.      With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but also main
sessions that look more closely at what a 'human rights agenda', or
'development agenda for Internet Governance' might actually look like.
Whilst openness and diversity continue to be important issues, we think
this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy
dilemmas within these broader themes
c.      The coalition is ready and willing to contribute to organizing and
facilitating main sessions along these Human Rights related themes.

2)      General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found the
meeting to be well organised, with signs of continued progress in all
aspects. Coalition members who were participating in or who organised
workshops would like to commend the organisers for their good work in this
regard, particularly given the relatively limited budget and resources
available to the IGF. Aspects that could be paid more attention this year
include:
a.      Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become diverted
into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. This is
a key issue however we think it is important to avoid having these issues
sidetrack the topics on hand in main sessions and workshops this year.
b.      Continuity and more linking between the main sessions and the workshops
could be strengthened. Clear links in the program by cross-referencing of
session/workshop themes and titles is one way to create these links before
the meeting. During and after the meeting, we would like to see formal
feedback opportunities put in place and integrated into the stocktaking;
from organizers and/or moderators of both main sessions and workshops.
c.      Main sessions based around 'classic' themes of openness, diversity, and
such like need to be supplemented and reinvigorated by including new themes
onto the program. The need for continuity and in-depth discussions of
ongoing themes need to be balanced by new themes as well for this is a
fast-moving area.
d.      Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists. This
always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. We realise that
larger panels allow for a greater diversity in some cases. However we would
urge moderators of larger sessions to ensure that there is enough time for
discussion and that when discussion takes place it is dynamic and inclusive
of panellists and other participants. It is important that contributors
from the floor as well as from remote participants get enough time to have
their say and be adequately responded to by panellists and other
participants.
e.      In light of the above we would also like to see more innovative panel
formats encouraged; modelled on town-hall meetings, brainstorming, and
other sorts of small-group, or interactive forms of discussion for
instance. Formal panels have their place but good work is also done in
small groups/break-out sessions as well.
f.      Rather than having main sessions largely based around broad themes, we
think this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy
dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to opening up the
discussion about specific solutions before the actual session.

3)      Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote
participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific issues
that we think need to be attended to this year to ensure fuller and more
diverse participation in the IGF.
a.       Workshop organisers were not given enough support in good time or
enough information on how to use the technology provided properly. When
technical hitches did occur, there were not enough technicians on hand so
many moderators found themselves in the role of do-it-yourself technical
supporters. This causes delays, frustration and a loss of focus for
everyone.  More information in advance from the IGF in liaison with the
Vilnius venue organisers would be useful. But also during the event, and
given the importance of enabling remote participation but also having it
run smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in this respect is
indispensable.
b.      We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote
Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a moderator
on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning. Some-one needs to
monitor remote participation, in partnership with the workshop moderator,
in order to streamline, filter and facilitate remote participation in the
proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based comments, setting up a queue for
spoken interventions, or having remote participants be given the floor en
bloc if this is more practicable. We would also urge all moderators to
understand the many remote participants are doing this at difficult times
of their 24 hour day and that time-lags require careful attention be paid
to timing responses and requests by moderators on the ground.
c.      The above points underscore our support for proposals to organise
adequate guidelines as well as a brief training session/module/virtual tour
for all moderators before the IGF meeting. During the meeting is not the
time to experiment.

4)      Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural, regional, and
linguistic representation remains a core issue for a number of dynamic
coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about continuing to improve remote
participation technically and organizationally relate to these concerns.
Practically there is a need to
a.      Setting up coherent - vertical and lateral - links between discussions
and themes from national, regional and international IGFs better, during
the meetings as well as in the record of these various meetings. At present
the public record is piecemeal and not easily accessible. We recognise that
this is process that needs dedicated time and resources to do so and urge
the IGF to put aside some resources for this.
b.      Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By this we
mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and specialised
workshops need to be more accessible to 'everyday internet users', any
interested communities or groups from areas where the Internet is either
less extensive or who have other communication priorities.

*********

Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
Media & Communications
Goldsmiths, University of London
New Cross
London SE14 6NW
United Kingdom
Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php

_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org


From max  Fri Jan 15 18:13:25 2010
From: max (Max Senges)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:13:25 +0100
Subject: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010 [v2]
In-Reply-To: <454C400F0F7C9B479EF31631E311C325678B323675@MSJEMAIL01.msj.edu>
References: <299A223F1562C2684FC130F0@192.168.1.64>
	<454C400F0F7C9B479EF31631E311C325678B323675@MSJEMAIL01.msj.edu>
Message-ID: <4d976d8e1001150813q63e20e12k36f1da1bbc23f9c8@mail.gmail.com>

Greetings

Thanks Marianne! Great work!

Best
Max

--
"The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
?William Gibson

...........................................................................

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com

Mobile: 01622122755


On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Bodle, Robert <Robert_Bodle at mail.msj.edu>wrote:

> Dear M.F. (M.I.),
>
> This is a comprehensive statement and I endorse it (one tweak - 4) a.
> "Setting" should be "Set").
>
> Thank you for coordinating this and accommodating last minute endorsements.
>
> Robert Bodle
> --
> Robert Bodle, PhD
> Assistant Professor of Communication Studies
> Chair, Instructional Delivery Committee
> Facilitator, Faculty Learning Community - Mobile Learning
> Division of Arts and Humanities
> Interactive Media Design & Computing
> College of Mount St. Joseph
>
> http://twitter.com/MSJCOM
> http://twitter.com/robertbodle
> ________________________________________
> From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [
> irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of M I
> Franklin [cos02mf at gold.ac.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 4:29 PM
> To: Lisa Horner; irp
> Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010 [v2]
>
> Dear all
>
> In order to allow time for any last input, see below; new order of
> appearance, some rephrasing, and a couple of additional comments (See 1c; .
> 2 e)
>
> Last round for comments (inclusions)!
>
> yours
> MF
>
> ******************
> Open Consultation IGF 2010
>
> INTERNET RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement
>
> The comments below from the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic
> Coalition are our contribution to the Open Consultations for IGF 2010. Each
> of the four themes below take stock of IGF 2009 by offering practical
> suggestions for the format and planning of IGF 2010.
>
> 1)      Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary
> sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the
> internet age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in general
> rather than specific terms.
> a.      The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding
> human
> rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different stakeholders can
> or should play in this regard, and how these play out more specifically in
> different Internet governance issue-areas.
> b.      With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but also
> main
> sessions that look more closely at what a 'human rights agenda', or
> 'development agenda for Internet Governance' might actually look like.
> Whilst openness and diversity continue to be important issues, we think
> this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy
> dilemmas within these broader themes
> c.      The coalition is ready and willing to contribute to organizing and
> facilitating main sessions along these Human Rights related themes.
>
> 2)      General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found
> the
> meeting to be well organised, with signs of continued progress in all
> aspects. Coalition members who were participating in or who organised
> workshops would like to commend the organisers for their good work in this
> regard, particularly given the relatively limited budget and resources
> available to the IGF. Aspects that could be paid more attention this year
> include:
> a.      Discussions, especially in plenary sessions tended to become
> diverted
> into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. This is
> a key issue however we think it is important to avoid having these issues
> sidetrack the topics on hand in main sessions and workshops this year.
> b.      Continuity and more linking between the main sessions and the
> workshops
> could be strengthened. Clear links in the program by cross-referencing of
> session/workshop themes and titles is one way to create these links before
> the meeting. During and after the meeting, we would like to see formal
> feedback opportunities put in place and integrated into the stocktaking;
> from organizers and/or moderators of both main sessions and workshops.
> c.      Main sessions based around 'classic' themes of openness, diversity,
> and
> such like need to be supplemented and reinvigorated by including new themes
> onto the program. The need for continuity and in-depth discussions of
> ongoing themes need to be balanced by new themes as well for this is a
> fast-moving area.
> d.      Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panellists. This
> always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. We realise that
> larger panels allow for a greater diversity in some cases. However we would
> urge moderators of larger sessions to ensure that there is enough time for
> discussion and that when discussion takes place it is dynamic and inclusive
> of panellists and other participants. It is important that contributors
> from the floor as well as from remote participants get enough time to have
> their say and be adequately responded to by panellists and other
> participants.
> e.      In light of the above we would also like to see more innovative
> panel
> formats encouraged; modelled on town-hall meetings, brainstorming, and
> other sorts of small-group, or interactive forms of discussion for
> instance. Formal panels have their place but good work is also done in
> small groups/break-out sessions as well.
> f.      Rather than having main sessions largely based around broad themes,
> we
> think this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy
> dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to opening up the
> discussion about specific solutions before the actual session.
>
> 3)      Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote
> participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific issues
> that we think need to be attended to this year to ensure fuller and more
> diverse participation in the IGF.
> a.       Workshop organisers were not given enough support in good time or
> enough information on how to use the technology provided properly. When
> technical hitches did occur, there were not enough technicians on hand so
> many moderators found themselves in the role of do-it-yourself technical
> supporters. This causes delays, frustration and a loss of focus for
> everyone.  More information in advance from the IGF in liaison with the
> Vilnius venue organisers would be useful. But also during the event, and
> given the importance of enabling remote participation but also having it
> run smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in this respect is
> indispensable.
> b.      We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote
> Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a moderator
> on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning. Some-one needs to
> monitor remote participation, in partnership with the workshop moderator,
> in order to streamline, filter and facilitate remote participation in the
> proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based comments, setting up a queue for
> spoken interventions, or having remote participants be given the floor en
> bloc if this is more practicable. We would also urge all moderators to
> understand the many remote participants are doing this at difficult times
> of their 24 hour day and that time-lags require careful attention be paid
> to timing responses and requests by moderators on the ground.
> c.      The above points underscore our support for proposals to organise
> adequate guidelines as well as a brief training session/module/virtual tour
> for all moderators before the IGF meeting. During the meeting is not the
> time to experiment.
>
> 4)      Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural, regional,
> and
> linguistic representation remains a core issue for a number of dynamic
> coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about continuing to improve remote
> participation technically and organizationally relate to these concerns.
> Practically there is a need to
> a.      Setting up coherent - vertical and lateral - links between
> discussions
> and themes from national, regional and international IGFs better, during
> the meetings as well as in the record of these various meetings. At present
> the public record is piecemeal and not easily accessible. We recognise that
> this is process that needs dedicated time and resources to do so and urge
> the IGF to put aside some resources for this.
> b.      Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By this
> we
> mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and specialised
> workshops need to be more accessible to 'everyday internet users', any
> interested communities or groups from areas where the Internet is either
> less extensive or who have other communication priorities.
>
> *********
>
> Dr Marianne Franklin
> Reader
> Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
> Media & Communications
> Goldsmiths, University of London
> New Cross
> London SE14 6NW
> United Kingdom
> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
>
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100115/1f263d76/attachment-0001.htm>


From cos02mf  Fri Jan 15 19:12:17 2010
From: cos02mf (M I Franklin)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:12:17 +0000
Subject: [IRP] IRP Coalition Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
Message-ID: <F52FBAA1FADD856B83EF0B17@CO223>

IRP'ers

The original email got bounced back pending moderators' approval. See below 
for the final version.

Have a good weekend


------------ Forwarded Message ------------
Date: 15 January 2010 17:00 +0000
From: M I Franklin <cos02mf at gold.ac.uk>
To: igf at unog.ch
Cc: irp <Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
Subject: IRP Coalition Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010

Dear IGF

Please find attached the IRP Dynamic Coalition's contribution to the IGF 
Open Consultation. The text is pasted below into this email as well.

Kind regards
Marianne Franklin, on behalf of the IRP DC

**********************************************
Open Consultation IGF 2010

INTERNET RIGHTS & PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement

The comments below from the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic 
Coalition are our contribution to the Open Consultations for IGF 2010. 
Under each of the four themes below we take stock of IGF 2009 by offering 
practical suggestions for the format and planning of IGF 2010.

1)      Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary 
sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the 
internet age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in general 
rather than specific terms.
	a.      The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding 
human rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different stakeholders 
can or should play in this regard, and how these play out more specifically 
in different Internet governance issue-areas.
	b.      With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but also 
main sessions that look more closely at what a 'human rights agenda', or 
'development agenda for Internet Governance' might actually look like. 
Whilst openness and diversity continue to be important issues, we think 
this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy 
dilemmas within these broader themes
	c.      The coalition is ready and willing to contribute to organizing and 
facilitating main sessions along these human rights related themes.

2)      General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found 
the meeting to be well organized, with signs of continued progress in all 
aspects. Coalition members who were participating in, or who organized 
workshops would like to commend the organizers for their good work in this 
regard, particularly given the relatively limited budget and resources 
available to the IGF. Our members note the following aspects that need 
particular attention this year:
	a.      Discussions, especially in plenary sessions, tended to become 
diverted into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. 
This is a key issue, however we think it is important to avoid it 
dominating discussion in both main sessions and workshops this year.
	b.      Continuity between the main session themes and those covered in 
the workshops could be strengthened. Creating clearer links in the program, 
e.g. by cross-referencing session/workshop themes and titles, is one way to 
create more coherence in the program before the meeting. During and after 
the meeting, we would like to see formal feedback put in place and 
integrated into the stocktaking; from organizers and/or moderators of both 
main sessions and workshops.
	c.      Main sessions based around 'classic' themes of openness, diversity 
and such like need to be supplemented and reinvigorated by including new 
themes onto the program. The need for continuity and depth in ongoing 
themes need to be balanced by new ideas and themes, for this is a 
fast-moving area.
	d.      Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panelists. This 
always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. We realize that 
larger panels allow for a greater diversity in some cases. However we would 
urge moderators of larger sessions to ensure that there is enough time for 
discussion and that when discussion takes place it is dynamic and inclusive 
of panelists and other participants. It is important that contributors from 
the floor as well as remote participants get enough time to have their say 
and be adequately responded to by others.
	e.      In light of the above we would also like to see more innovative 
panel formats encouraged even more; e.g. town-hall meeting formats, 
brainstorming, other sorts of small-group and interactive forms of 
discussion. Formal panels have their place but good work is also done in 
small groups/break-out sessions as well.
	f.      Rather than having main sessions largely based around broad 
themes, we think this year is the moment to broach more specific questions 
or policy dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to opening 
up the discussion about specific solutions before the actual session.

3)      Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote 
participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific issues 
that we think need particular attention this year to ensure more diverse 
and robust debate.
	a.       Workshop organizers were not given enough support in good time 
nor enough information on how to use the technology provided. When 
technical hitches occurred there was not enough technical support on hand 
so many moderators found themselves in the role of do-it-yourself 
technicians. This causes delays, frustration and a loss of focus. More 
information in advance from the IGF in liaison with the Vilnius venue 
organization would be useful, but also during the event. Given the 
importance of enabling remote participation but also having it run 
smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in this respect is 
indispensable.
	b.      We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote 
Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a moderator 
on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning. Someone needs to 
monitor remote participation, in partnership with the workshop moderator, 
in order to streamline, filter and facilitate remote participation in the 
proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based comments, setting up a queue for 
spoken interventions, or having remote participants be given the floor en 
bloc if this is more practicable. We would also urge all moderators be made 
more aware of how remote participants are often doing this at difficult 
times of the day - or night; e.g. time-lags require careful attention be 
paid to not interrupting through better timing of responses or requests.
	c.      The above points underscore our support for proposals to organize 
adequate guidelines as well as a brief training session/module/virtual tour 
for all moderators before the IGF meeting. During the meeting is not the 
time to experiment.

4)      General Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural, 
regional, and linguistic representation remains a core issue for a number 
of dynamic coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about continuing to 
improve remote participation technically and organizationally relate to 
these concerns. There is still a need to
	a.      set up more coherent - vertical and lateral - links between 
discussions and themes from national, regional and international IGFs, 
during the meetings as well as in their respective output. At present the 
public record is piecemeal, not easily accessible, and inadequately 
hyperlinked. We recognize that this is something requiring dedicated time 
and human resources so we urge the IGF to put aside the necessary resources 
for this task.
	b.      Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By 
this we mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and specialized 
workshops need to be more accessible to 'everyday internet users', any 
interested communities or groups from areas where the Internet is either 
less extensive or with other communication priorities.

**********************************

Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
Media & Communications
Goldsmiths, University of London
New Cross
London SE14 6NW
United Kingdom
Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php



From cos02mf  Fri Jan 15 19:00:56 2010
From: cos02mf (M I Franklin)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:00:56 +0000
Subject: [IRP] IRP Coalition Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
Message-ID: <8D95ECEE426142D9B3E36451@CO223>

Dear IGF

Please find attached the IRP Dynamic Coalition's contribution to the IGF 
Open Consultation. The text is pasted below into this email as well.

Kind regards
Marianne Franklin, on behalf of the IRP DC

**********************************************
Open Consultation IGF 2010

INTERNET RIGHTS & PRINCIPLES DYNAMIC COALITION Statement

The comments below from the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic 
Coalition are our contribution to the Open Consultations for IGF 2010. 
Under each of the four themes below we take stock of IGF 2009 by offering 
practical suggestions for the format and planning of IGF 2010.

1)      Emerging Key themes: A wide range of stakeholders in the plenary 
sessions reaffirmed the importance of upholding human rights in the 
internet age. However these sentiments tended to be expressed in general 
rather than specific terms.
	a.      The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding 
human rights can be achieved in practice; what roles different stakeholders 
can or should play in this regard, and how these play out more specifically 
in different Internet governance issue-areas.
	b.      With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but also 
main sessions that look more closely at what a 'human rights agenda', or 
'development agenda for Internet Governance' might actually look like. 
Whilst openness and diversity continue to be important issues, we think 
this year is the moment to broach more specific questions or policy 
dilemmas within these broader themes
	c.      The coalition is ready and willing to contribute to organizing and 
facilitating main sessions along these human rights related themes.

2)      General Organization: Generally speaking coalition members found 
the meeting to be well organized, with signs of continued progress in all 
aspects. Coalition members who were participating in, or who organized 
workshops would like to commend the organizers for their good work in this 
regard, particularly given the relatively limited budget and resources 
available to the IGF. Our members note the following aspects that need 
particular attention this year:
	a.      Discussions, especially in plenary sessions, tended to become 
diverted into the issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. 
This is a key issue, however we think it is important to avoid it 
dominating discussion in both main sessions and workshops this year.
	b.      Continuity between the main session themes and those covered in 
the workshops could be strengthened. Creating clearer links in the program, 
e.g. by cross-referencing session/workshop themes and titles, is one way to 
create more coherence in the program before the meeting. During and after 
the meeting, we would like to see formal feedback put in place and 
integrated into the stocktaking; from organizers and/or moderators of both 
main sessions and workshops.
	c.      Main sessions based around 'classic' themes of openness, diversity 
and such like need to be supplemented and reinvigorated by including new 
themes onto the program. The need for continuity and depth in ongoing 
themes need to be balanced by new ideas and themes, for this is a 
fast-moving area.
	d.      Some panels in main sessions were overloaded with panelists. This 
always means less time for a wider plenary discussion. We realize that 
larger panels allow for a greater diversity in some cases. However we would 
urge moderators of larger sessions to ensure that there is enough time for 
discussion and that when discussion takes place it is dynamic and inclusive 
of panelists and other participants. It is important that contributors from 
the floor as well as remote participants get enough time to have their say 
and be adequately responded to by others.
	e.      In light of the above we would also like to see more innovative 
panel formats encouraged even more; e.g. town-hall meeting formats, 
brainstorming, other sorts of small-group and interactive forms of 
discussion. Formal panels have their place but good work is also done in 
small groups/break-out sessions as well.
	f.      Rather than having main sessions largely based around broad 
themes, we think this year is the moment to broach more specific questions 
or policy dilemmas. These can be proposed in advance with an eye to opening 
up the discussion about specific solutions before the actual session.

3)      Remote Participation: On the whole the facilities for remote 
participation seemed to work well. However, there are some specific issues 
that we think need particular attention this year to ensure more diverse 
and robust debate.
	a.       Workshop organizers were not given enough support in good time 
nor enough information on how to use the technology provided. When 
technical hitches occurred there was not enough technical support on hand 
so many moderators found themselves in the role of do-it-yourself 
technicians. This causes delays, frustration and a loss of focus. More 
information in advance from the IGF in liaison with the Vilnius venue 
organization would be useful, but also during the event. Given the 
importance of enabling remote participation but also having it run 
smoothly, the need for more dedicated staff in this respect is 
indispensable.
	b.      We would also suggest, in line with suggestions from the Remote 
Participation Working Group (RPWG), that Workshops include both a moderator 
on-the-ground and an online moderator in their planning. Someone needs to 
monitor remote participation, in partnership with the workshop moderator, 
in order to streamline, filter and facilitate remote participation in the 
proceedings; e.g. by gathering text-based comments, setting up a queue for 
spoken interventions, or having remote participants be given the floor en 
bloc if this is more practicable. We would also urge all moderators be made 
more aware of how remote participants are often doing this at difficult 
times of the day - or night; e.g. time-lags require careful attention be 
paid to not interrupting through better timing of responses or requests.
	c.      The above points underscore our support for proposals to organize 
adequate guidelines as well as a brief training session/module/virtual tour 
for all moderators before the IGF meeting. During the meeting is not the 
time to experiment.

4)      General Participation: Increasing diversity in terms of cultural, 
regional, and linguistic representation remains a core issue for a number 
of dynamic coalitions. Our comments and suggestions about continuing to 
improve remote participation technically and organizationally relate to 
these concerns. There is still a need to
	a.      set up more coherent - vertical and lateral - links between 
discussions and themes from national, regional and international IGFs, 
during the meetings as well as in their respective output. At present the 
public record is piecemeal, not easily accessible, and inadequately 
hyperlinked. We recognize that this is something requiring dedicated time 
and human resources so we urge the IGF to put aside the necessary resources 
for this task.
	b.      Find more ways to open up the meetings to lay-participants. By 
this we mean that preparatory consultations, main sessions, and specialized 
workshops need to be more accessible to 'everyday internet users', any 
interested communities or groups from areas where the Internet is either 
less extensive or with other communication priorities.

**********************************
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IRP Statement Open Consultations-Final.rtf
Type: application/msword
Size: 28982 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100115/c8b90eaf/attachment-0001.wiz>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IRP Statement Open Consultations-Final.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 34304 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100115/c8b90eaf/attachment-0001.doc>


From gpaque  Fri Jan 15 19:28:53 2010
From: gpaque (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:58:53 -0430
Subject: [IRP] IRP Coalition Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010
In-Reply-To: <8D95ECEE426142D9B3E36451@CO223>
References: <8D95ECEE426142D9B3E36451@CO223>
Message-ID: <4B50A5D5.7050906@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100115/dcf109bc/attachment.htm>


From wolfgang.benedek  Fri Jan 15 21:10:31 2010
From: wolfgang.benedek (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:10:31 +0100
Subject: [IRP] Procedure of Experts
In-Reply-To: <4d976d8e1001150541q7a1e2ec9xfa24a1e55230fe7f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C775F118.B41C%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<4d976d8e1001150541q7a1e2ec9xfa24a1e55230fe7f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F2D773BD668B0B4E8465849B4F21E7510ADF7460@leto.pers.ad.uni-graz.at>

Thanks Max, dear Lisa,

 

 

thanks for putting the text in a better format. Just realize that he first paragraph should have been rephrased. Anyway, I take it that the IRP DC wants us to try and everybody will have a possiblity to comment anyway.

 

As can be read at the end of what I would call our mandate there are two experts from the South identified so far. It would be important to have at least one more person from Asia and suggestions are welcome.

 

There is no question that we should aim at a language which is generally acceptable, but it is also clear that we cannot limit ourselves to what is acceptable to governments or inter-governmental organizations, because in that case we could make a reference to existing adopted texts and leave it with that.

 

Best regards

 

Wolfgang

 

 

 

 

 

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek

Institut f?r V?lkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen

Institute for International Law and International Relations

Karl-Franzens-Universit?t Graz

Universit?tsstra?e 15, A4

A-8010 Graz

Tel.: +43 316 380 3411

Fax.: +43 316 380 9455 

 

Von: Max Senges [mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com] 
Gesendet: Freitag, 15. J?nner 2010 14:41
An: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at); irp
Cc: Lisa Horner; Rikke Frank Joergensen; Meryem Marzouki
Betreff: Re: Procedure of Experts

 

Hi everybody

Wolfgang (and I assume Rikke and Meryem) are ready to start their work.

I think it is very important that we expand the expert group with colleagues from the south. 

@Wolfgang and all: how do you plan to identify and select them?

Also I copied the mandate for the expert group in a publicly viewable and editable g-doc (no registration required :-) 

And I made a couple of updates (regarding the start on 15th of January) and a short comment:

"It also seems important to stress that the Charter is meant to represent a multistakeholder group and hence language should aim to be acceptable to governments, intergovernmental institutions, private companies and civil society groups."

I thought it would be helpful to remind everybody that the charter is not a civil society advocacy document.

Lastly I want to reiterate the fact that this collaborative effort is entitled "Charter on Human Rights and Principles on the Internet" and that the authoring body is the Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles. While I accept the preference of the experts to experiment with a matrix structure, I would like to stress the immanent importance of ensuring that "implementation principles" have an important role in the coalitions approach and should be easily discernible.

best
max

--

"The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet."
-William Gibson

...........................................................................

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com

Mobile: 01622122755



On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Wolfgang Benedek <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:

Dear Lisa and Max,

I understand that from tomorrow we should start our part.

In this context we wanted to send You what we consider the actual understanding of the procedure of our work. If You have any comments please share them with us before the end of the weekend.

We intend to send this also to the experts from the South, and it should certainly also be shared with our community.

Best regards

Wolfgang 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100115/f8a74cfc/attachment-0001.htm>


From fouadbajwa  Sun Jan 17 03:55:31 2010
From: fouadbajwa (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 06:55:31 +0500
Subject: [IRP] IRP Digest, Vol 12, Issue 39
In-Reply-To: <mailman.16009.1263582825.3282.irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
References: <mailman.16009.1263582825.3282.irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
Message-ID: <701af9f71001161755o30d2731ica430be93376689c@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Everyone,

I have an interesting question for everyone and then some suggestions
for the statement that might play a practical impact.

The statement is pretty long to be read out and tackles issues in
detail and if we look at how the floor is managed during the open
consultation, this statement might not be read in one go.

There might be two ways to manage this, first, the statement be sent
to the IGF Secretariat for record and secondly, the statement be split
up to be read by our representatives as the issues come up and they
eventually will be because in the past open consultations, these
issues have come up and Civil Society has intervened in a very
organized manner being able to deliberate in a detailed manner with
arguments and counter arguments.

What do you think? I am really interested in our members making all
these statement components adequately delivered on the floor of the OC
so that all stakeholders present also get a chance to hear them,
intervene and deliberate on them and get these discussions recorded in
the transcript of the session.

If we look at the statements, I believe that the OC program will
provide such an schedule that these issues will be all covered. It
might also be appropriate to structure the components of the statement
in this manner as well. For example, this is just an assumption at the
moment but the first session might start on the subject of General
Organization and General Participation followed by Remote
Participation and then Emerging Key themes.

Secondly a few suggestions though they may be late:

> 1)      Emerging Key themes:
- Can we mention stakeholders from both developing and developed
regions/countries so that wide range can be strengthened and a
possible thought of who and from where can be countered?

>a.      The challenge for this coming year is to focus on how upholding human rights can be achieved in practice;
- Is it possible to add the word encouraged in the above phrase as "on
how upholding human rights can be encouraged and achieved in practice"

> b.      With this in mind we would like to see not only workshops but also main sessions that look more closely at what a 'human rights agenda',
- Is it possible that we mention "a main session" instead of "main
sessions" because I feel that this will be really achievable and once
a main session on HR is achieved, we can even decide to have it in
multiple phases throughout the day so efforts for one main session on
HR will possibly play in our right. Also, there is a need to request a
Super Workshop (a model originally suggested by Markus but for the
development agenda ) that provides the opportunity to have all
workshops on HR feed into this and then this feeding into a main
session on Human Rights (if we can achieve this as a main session
theme! We need everyone's support on this when the issue comes to the
floor). Is it possible to request this Super Workshop in this
statement.

Also, where it says " we think this year is the moment to broach more
specific questions or policy dilemmas within these broader themes", I
think you have an edge here because there have been legislations in EU
(reforms to the Telecom Act), UK (more strict legislation) and
Australia (the issue of illegal downloads and prosecutions) last year
that effect the freedoms of Internet users in those countries both
negatively and in some instances positively. This gives an edge to
bring into discussion to the floor since those
 stakeholders will also be there. What if we also add the issue of
legislations also in place somehow because that strengthens this
phrase that policy making is happening?

> And finally c.      The coalition is ready and willing to contribute to organizing and facilitating main sessions along these human rights related themes.
- We should possibly add "The coalition is ready and willing to
contribute to organizing and facilitating main sessions along these
human rights related themes |with other stakeholders|." Why add other
stakeholders because main sessions take together all three stakeholder
members of the multistakeholderism and this will be an encouragement
to stakeholders like Council of Europe and European Union to actively
participate. Now that Google has had its share of issues in China,
this is also an opportunity for companies like those to come in on
these issue because their rights were also breached?

>2)      General Organization:
- I have a clear reason to believe from my participation with all of
you in all meetings during the previous year leading to the IGF 2009
that all innovations suggested by CS including the HR issues and the
Development Agenda were ignored in the main session programming. These
interventions were given by the CS MAG representatives but still
ignored. Within this statement we should recognize the IGF as an open
space and that it ignored to accept the suggested innovations (that
have also been suggested in earlier years) and that these should now
be adopted as open spaces for dialogue evolve according to need of
stakeholders and that is what IGF's actual mandate lays out.

- This is also an opportunity to propose super workshops where
workshops on similar themes can report back and then feed into the
main sessions. This is possible because it was suggested by the
secretariat last year for the Development Agenda super workshop but we
couldn't get enough support for it within us. The same can be done for
the HR as mentioned earlier.

- Finally, this particular statement can be improved and reduced
because it feels repetitive in its parts and


>4)      General Participation:
- I'll leave the remote participation part because our members that
enable remote participation are very clear on what their needs and
requests are.

- In terms of general participation, we should immediately ask the IGF
Secretariat to furnish the statistics on participants with clear
stakeholder group distribution so that we are well aware of the total
number of participation in terms of developed/developing as well as
distribution of stakeholders from those regions so that we can
specifically assert the need for these improvements.

- The issue of youth and gender participation including regional
diversity is missing, please don't miss this issue. There were more
youth present from Arab world countries but lesser participation of
youth from other African States, South Asian, Asia Pacific, Central
Europe etc. and Women could be easily be given a head count which is
still very devastating in terms of participation because that has to
increased in upcoming meetings and activities.

> a.      set up more coherent - vertical and lateral - links between  discussions.....
- We have to suggest how to do it otherwise statements without
solutions are usually not picked up by the participation in general as
well as the Secretariat. This is a fundamental improvement that we CS
groups will have to bring forth because we are not behind others and
other stakeholders and we can, really, we can make possible solution
suggestions and that should be clearly reflected in our statements.

- There are some things that can be added but time constraints would
limit further editing? Would it?


-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
Advisor & Researcher
ICT4D & Internet Governance
Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF)
Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
My Blog: Internet's Governance
http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets:
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
MAG Interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA


From maxsenges  Sun Jan 17 19:27:29 2010
From: maxsenges (Max Senges)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:27:29 +0100
Subject: [IRP] are we ready to go beyond email
Message-ID: <4d976d8e1001170927r1801c768sce6616508825ab01@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everybody

Since I joined the internet governance caucus list years ago i feel that
mailing lists are pretty bad collaboration tools, but lists are like
democracy "the worst system except for all the other", right?

Before I move to the invitation to innovate I need to slip in that of course
wikis have proven pretty useful, but the complexity of organizing our
steering committee election reminded me of how little developed our own
governance practices & tools are.

I'll speak on a panel about "liquid
democracy<http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Liquid_Democracy>"
in a couple of weeks and while I had heard about the concept before I
figured it's a good idea to refresh and delve a bit into the theory and
experiments. And quite frankly, I was marveled with what i found. There
seems to be a whole spectrum of quite mature tools and (mostly successful)
real-world initiatives going in.

http://www.co-ment.net/ makes collaborative commenting on a text easy, put's
it in a clean leayout ==> might be interesting for comments to the
consolidated charter

Etherpad seems to be a supercool tool to take notes during our monthly
meetings. Have a look at http://etherpad.com/MFNsBZrP6Z

but the real juicy governance and collabowriting stuff is happening at
platforms like

adhocracy "makes democratic decisions as easy as editing a wiki, as fast as
twitter and as flexible as the net itself" - If that is the case I guess it
is worth a try, so i created an account for us to experiment
http://rights.adhocracy.cc/instance/rights

but there are several tools competing for our attention and adoption... e.g.
Votorola <http://zelea.com/project/votorola/home.xht> is a "software for
building consensus and reaching decisions in public."


Looking forward to see IRP grow up a little more in 2010

Max

--

"The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
?William Gibson

...........................................................................

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com

Mobile: 01622122755
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100117/211df6f6/attachment.htm>


From maxsenges  Sun Jan 17 20:23:30 2010
From: maxsenges (Max Senges)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:23:30 +0100
Subject: [IRP] procedure of the Steering Committee to choose the new
	IRPchair
In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B300E@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
References: <4d976d8e1001081233l596ae59cqb5f208cf0f55c1d3@mail.gmail.com>
	<4d976d8e1001081233n28f4e0e4x92fb40760b873826@mail.gmail.com>
	<4d976d8e1001081403t35313af3ma8839684ad8c956f@mail.gmail.com>
	<43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B300E@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
Message-ID: <4d976d8e1001171023h1a715472j13073dae4f8cfb62@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all

Two days ago the nomination period for candidates to run for the IRP
coalition chair has finished. So we have Lisa who accepted the nomination as
the only candidate. I believe ten member of the 14 in the steering committee
already endorsed her candidacy so I believe we can find consensus around her
taking up the role?

I suggest: (a) that we define the chair voting procedure better in the our
coalition's charter (please excuse the improvised process we had) and (b)
please if you have concerns or other comments regarding Lisa taking up the
chair send them to the list until this friday, by which date i suggest we
proceed to bestowing the position upon her.

Best
Max
--

"The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
?William Gibson

...........................................................................

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com

Mobile: 01622122755


On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>wrote:

>  Thanks Max, that sounds good to me.  I agree that it'd be good to have
> more nominations if people are interested, and think self-nomination should
> also be encouraged.
>
> All the best,
> Lisa
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org on behalf of Max
> Senges
> Sent: Fri 08/01/2010 22:03
> To: irp
> Subject: Re: [IRP] procedure of the Steering Committee to choose the new
> IRPchair
>
> Hello everyone
>
> >
> >> I would like to suggest a procedure as to how the steering committee
> >> elects the new Chair:
> >>
> >> Let's keep the list open for nominations for the chair position until
> next
> >> Friday 15th of Jan.
> >>
> >> So far we have only one candidate, which would mean that the new chair
> can
> >> start the new role next friday. Should we have more than one candidate
> we
> >> can either discuss and seek to find consensus (e.g. a double
> chairmanship)
> >> or organize an election among steering committee members.
> >>
> >> I hope that's a good suggestion?!
> >>
> >> Best
> >> Max
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet."
> >> -William Gibson
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ...........................................................................
> >>
> >> Max Senges
> >> Berlin
> >>
> >> www.maxsenges.com
> >>
> >> Mobile: 01622122755
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Graciela Selaimen <
> graciela at nupef.org.br>wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks, Max.
> >>> Now its clear. I think it would be useful to establish deadlines - both
> >>> for proposing candidatures and for the voting period itself, so that
> people
> >>> don't think they're voting when they express support for a candidature.
> >>>
> >>> best,
> >>> Graciela
> >>>
> >>> Max Senges escreveu:
> >>>
> >>>> hi graciela
> >>>>
> >>>> sorry about the confusion. of course you can nominate several steering
> >>>> committee members as chair. so far we had only lisa nominated and as
> many
> >>>> steering committee members endorsed her candidature (i.e. said they
> are
> >>>> happy to have her lead the coalition) and because there were/are no
> >>>> alternative nominations. We agreed on the monthly call that I would
> reach
> >>>> out to those steering committee members who had not yet spoken up on
> the
> >>>> list to see whether we can elect Lisa by consensus or whether there
> are more
> >>>> candidates which of course would/will lead to an election.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hope this clarifies matters.
> >>>>
> >>>> Kind regards,
> >>>> Max
> >>>>
> >>>> "The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet."
> >>>> -William Gibson
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> ...........................................................................
> >>>>
> >>>> Max Senges
> >>>> Berlin
> >>>>
> >>>> www.maxsenges.com <http://www.maxsenges.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> Mobile: 01622122755
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Graciela Selaimen <
> >>>> graciela at nupef.org.br <mailto:graciela at nupef.org.br<graciela at nupef.org.br>>>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>    Dear all,
> >>>>
> >>>>    I'm a bit lost here, trying to understand the nomination process
> >>>>    and the choice proposed by Max. Can't we endorse more than one
> >>>>    candidature? I would endorse both candidatures - and even more, if
> >>>>    there are more good candidates. In my view this would make the
> >>>>    election of the chair more plural and democratic.
> >>>>
> >>>>    Or is the endorsement of a candidature understood as a vote?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    best,
> >>>>    Graciela
> >>>>
> >>>>    Rafik Dammak escreveu:
> >>>>
> >>>>        Dear Max,
> >>>>
> >>>>        10 of the 14 have endorsed Lisa's candidature , does it mean
> >>>>        that I have to follow too? I am not sure that consensus mean
> >>>>        accepting choice made in conf call not planned weeks ago. as
> >>>>        coalition we should have more democratic ? and transparent
> >>>>        process.
> >>>>        the "we" who decided to not consider the nomination should
> >>>>        state it publicly.?
> >>>>
> >>>>        Regards
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>        2010/1/8 Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com
> >>>>        <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com <maxsenges at gmail.com>> <mailto:
> maxsenges at gmail.com
> >>>>
> >>>>        <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com <maxsenges at gmail.com>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>        Dear Rafik
> >>>>
> >>>>        there are two choices for you in the moment: you can either
> >>>>        nominate a member of the steering committee (e.g. Robert) or
> you
> >>>>        can endorse Lisa's nomination for chair. So far 10 of the 14
> >>>>        steering committee members have endorsed Lisa's candidature.
> >>>>
> >>>>        As for your nomination for Robert as chair please do make that
> >>>>        nomination publicly on the list or check back with him before
> to
> >>>>        see whether he would be interested. We did not consider your
> >>>> prior
> >>>>        nomination, because when you posted to the list it was time to
> >>>>        nominate for steering committee (which then in turn elects the
> >>>>        chair). We subsequently asked for chair nominations some weeks
> >>>>        ago.
> >>>>
> >>>>        Best
> >>>>
> >>>>        Max
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>        "The future is here. It??Ts just not widely distributed yet."
>
> >>>>        ??"William Gibson
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> ...........................................................................
> >>>>
> >>>>        Max Senges
> >>>>        Berlin
> >>>>
> >>>>        www.maxsenges.com <http://www.maxsenges.com>
> >>>>        <http://www.maxsenges.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>        Mobile: 01622122755
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>        On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Rafik Dammak
> >>>>        <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com<rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> >
> >>>>        <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> >>>>        <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>        Hi Max,
> >>>>
> >>>>        before election, I have already nominated Robert Guerra, do I
> >>>>        need to confirm?
> >>>>        I am not sure if you are suggesting only two choice, either
> >>>>        nominate or endorse. there is no third one??
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>        Regards
> >>>>
> >>>>        Rafik
> >>>>
> >>>>        2010/1/8 Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com
> >>>>        <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com <maxsenges at gmail.com>>
> >>>>        <
> mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> <maxsenges at gmail.com+%3Cmailto:maxsenges at gmail.com>
>
> >>>>        Hi there
> >>>>
> >>>>        as discussed on the conf-call we urge all steering
> >>>>        committee members who have not done so already to either
> >>>>        nominate someone for the position as IRP chair or endorse
> >>>>        Lisa Horner as new IRP chair
> >>>>
> >>>>        best regards,
> >>>>        Max
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>        --
> >>>>
> <maxsenges at gmail.com+%3Cmailto:maxsenges at gmail.com>
> >>>>        "The future is here. It??Ts just not widely distributed yet."<maxsenges at gmail.com+%3Cmailto:maxsenges at gmail.com>
>
> >>>>        ??"William Gibson
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> ...........................................................................
> >>>>
> >>>>        Max Senges
> >>>>        Berlin
> >>>>
> >>>>        www.maxsenges.com <<maxsenges at gmail.com+%3Cmailto:maxsenges at gmail.com>
> http://www.maxsenges.com>
> >>>>        <http://www.maxsenges.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>        Mobile: 01622122755
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    --
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100117/49407724/attachment-0001.htm>


From isolatedn  Sun Jan 17 21:06:01 2010
From: isolatedn (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:36:01 +0530
Subject: [IRP] are we ready to go beyond email
In-Reply-To: <4d976d8e1001170927r1801c768sce6616508825ab01@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4d976d8e1001170927r1801c768sce6616508825ab01@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fecfce261001171106s56c2d179s6e00a2b52342cca8@mail.gmail.com>

Hello

Max has discovered very interesting collaborative tools that can not only be
used by IRP but also by IGC. The interface here looks interesting. We can
explore this further.


Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
http://www.isocmadras.com




On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi everybody
>
> Since I joined the internet governance caucus list years ago i feel that
> mailing lists are pretty bad collaboration tools, but lists are like
> democracy "the worst system except for all the other", right?
>
> Before I move to the invitation to innovate I need to slip in that of
> course wikis have proven pretty useful, but the complexity of organizing our
> steering committee election reminded me of how little developed our own
> governance practices & tools are.
>
> I'll speak on a panel about "liquid democracy<http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Liquid_Democracy>"
> in a couple of weeks and while I had heard about the concept before I
> figured it's a good idea to refresh and delve a bit into the theory and
> experiments. And quite frankly, I was marveled with what i found. There
> seems to be a whole spectrum of quite mature tools and (mostly successful)
> real-world initiatives going in.
>
> http://www.co-ment.net/ makes collaborative commenting on a text easy,
> put's it in a clean leayout ==> might be interesting for comments to the
> consolidated charter
>
> Etherpad seems to be a supercool tool to take notes during our monthly
> meetings. Have a look at http://etherpad.com/MFNsBZrP6Z
>
> but the real juicy governance and collabowriting stuff is happening at
> platforms like
>
> adhocracy "makes democratic decisions as easy as editing a wiki, as fast as
> twitter and as flexible as the net itself" - If that is the case I guess it
> is worth a try, so i created an account for us to experiment
> http://rights.adhocracy.cc/instance/rights
>
> but there are several tools competing for our attention and adoption...
> e.g. Votorola <http://zelea.com/project/votorola/home.xht> is a "software
> for building consensus and reaching decisions in public."
>
>
> Looking forward to see IRP grow up a little more in 2010
>
> Max
>
> --
>
> "The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
> ?William Gibson
>
> ...........................................................................
>
> Max Senges
> Berlin
>
> www.maxsenges.com
>
> Mobile: 01622122755
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100118/86c34dd1/attachment.htm>


From rafik.dammak  Sun Jan 17 22:01:46 2010
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 05:01:46 +0900
Subject: [IRP] IRP Digest, Vol 12, Issue 39
In-Reply-To: <701af9f71001161755o30d2731ica430be93376689c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.16009.1263582825.3282.irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
	<701af9f71001161755o30d2731ica430be93376689c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bbd2a2cd1001171201n79f610d0o6e412c2b259f764b@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,



> - The issue of youth and gender participation including regional
> diversity is missing, please don't miss this issue. There were more
> youth present from Arab world countries but lesser participation of
> youth from other African States, South Asian, Asia Pacific, Central
> Europe etc. and Women could be easily be given a head count which is
> still very devastating in terms of participation because that has to
> increased in upcoming meetings and activities.
>
>
more youth present from Arab world? are you sure? I didn't see so much. if
you are talking about egyptians who mostly of them are volunteers, you
forgot that Egypt organized the last IGF. arab league has 22 country members
and many countries didn't send any youth and even more of them came through
through other organizations or structures and not on behalf of their
respective countries.
in fact there is no so much youth participation because existing programs
cannot provide more fellowships for young people to participate. there are
some initiatives like netmission supported by the registry of dotasia which
brought a good delegation of young participants from China and Hongkong .

Regards

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100118/9558dfea/attachment.htm>


From fouadbajwa  Sun Jan 17 22:32:51 2010
From: fouadbajwa (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:32:51 +0500
Subject: [IRP] IRP Digest, Vol 12, Issue 39
In-Reply-To: <bbd2a2cd1001171201n79f610d0o6e412c2b259f764b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.16009.1263582825.3282.irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
	<701af9f71001161755o30d2731ica430be93376689c@mail.gmail.com>
	<bbd2a2cd1001171201n79f610d0o6e412c2b259f764b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <701af9f71001171232g1d5fc08bq5a4f10ce3a312a84@mail.gmail.com>

Rafik, I shared only a concern for the statement, its not an
argument/debate but something to add in the statement.

Its true that I saw more young arabs and than youth from other
countries. There are various programs in place that did bring some
youth including the Commonwealth IGF Bursaries for 14 young people,
the ISOC IGF Ambassadors, the Egyptian host had sponsored 100 youth as
the host country organizer Nermine had briefed in the Open
Consultations in last September in Geneva and some youth participated
from the Diplo Foundation. Apart from that there were very few people
from the regions that I have mentioned below. Though this is only a
personal observation.

I appreciate your concern. Take care and see you soon in Nairobi.



-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa


On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:01 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>>
>> - The issue of youth and gender participation including regional
>> diversity is missing, please don't miss this issue. There were more
>> youth present from Arab world countries but lesser participation of
>> youth from other African States, South Asian, Asia Pacific, Central
>> Europe etc. and Women could be easily be given a head count which is
>> still very devastating in terms of participation because that has to
>> increased in upcoming meetings and activities.
>>
>
> more youth present from Arab world? are you sure? I didn't see so much. if
> you are talking about egyptians who mostly of them are volunteers, you
> forgot that Egypt organized the last IGF. arab league has 22 country members
> and many countries didn't send any youth and even more of them came through
> through other organizations or structures and not on behalf of their
> respective countries.
> in fact there is no so much youth participation because existing programs
> cannot provide more fellowships for young people to participate. there are
> some initiatives like netmission supported by the registry of dotasia which
> brought a good delegation of young participants from China and Hongkong .
> Regards
> Rafik


From rfj  Fri Jan 15 23:03:05 2010
From: rfj (Rikke Frank Joergensen)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:03:05 +0100
Subject: [IRP] Procedure of Experts
References: <C775F118.B41C%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>
	<4d976d8e1001150541q7a1e2ec9xfa24a1e55230fe7f@mail.gmail.com>
	<F2D773BD668B0B4E8465849B4F21E7510ADF7460@leto.pers.ad.uni-graz.at>
Message-ID: <432D5217762BB14D866359BFCB972BA408FE55E6@SRVEXC00.dupa.dk>

Hi all

i think its important to stress that we (wolfgang particularly) have done some outreach to identify and contact additional experts, but the main task of identifying more people from the South rest with the broader coalition, and not the expert group as such. 

Also, in my opinion the main focus is not to find language which is acceptable for all, but to consolidate a draft which substantively move the IRC forward. Thus to focus on the substance first and foremost. 

As regards guidelines, I believe that after we finish our work there will be plenty of opportunity for the coalition to work in more detail on implementation guidelines.

all best 
rikke



-----Original Message-----
From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at]
Sent: Fri 15-01-2010 20:10
To: Max Senges; irp
Cc: Lisa Horner; Rikke Frank Joergensen; Meryem Marzouki
Subject: AW: Procedure of Experts
 
Thanks Max, dear Lisa,

 

 

thanks for putting the text in a better format. Just realize that he first paragraph should have been rephrased. Anyway, I take it that the IRP DC wants us to try and everybody will have a possiblity to comment anyway.

 

As can be read at the end of what I would call our mandate there are two experts from the South identified so far. It would be important to have at least one more person from Asia and suggestions are welcome.

 

There is no question that we should aim at a language which is generally acceptable, but it is also clear that we cannot limit ourselves to what is acceptable to governments or inter-governmental organizations, because in that case we could make a reference to existing adopted texts and leave it with that.

 

Best regards

 

Wolfgang

 

 

 

 

 

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek

Institut f?r V?lkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen

Institute for International Law and International Relations

Karl-Franzens-Universit?t Graz

Universit?tsstra?e 15, A4

A-8010 Graz

Tel.: +43 316 380 3411

Fax.: +43 316 380 9455 

 

Von: Max Senges [mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com] 
Gesendet: Freitag, 15. J?nner 2010 14:41
An: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at); irp
Cc: Lisa Horner; Rikke Frank Joergensen; Meryem Marzouki
Betreff: Re: Procedure of Experts

 

Hi everybody

Wolfgang (and I assume Rikke and Meryem) are ready to start their work.

I think it is very important that we expand the expert group with colleagues from the south. 

@Wolfgang and all: how do you plan to identify and select them?

Also I copied the mandate for the expert group in a publicly viewable and editable g-doc (no registration required :-) 

And I made a couple of updates (regarding the start on 15th of January) and a short comment:

"It also seems important to stress that the Charter is meant to represent a multistakeholder group and hence language should aim to be acceptable to governments, intergovernmental institutions, private companies and civil society groups."

I thought it would be helpful to remind everybody that the charter is not a civil society advocacy document.

Lastly I want to reiterate the fact that this collaborative effort is entitled "Charter on Human Rights and Principles on the Internet" and that the authoring body is the Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles. While I accept the preference of the experts to experiment with a matrix structure, I would like to stress the immanent importance of ensuring that "implementation principles" have an important role in the coalitions approach and should be easily discernible.

best
max

--

"The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet."
-William Gibson

...........................................................................

Max Senges
Berlin

www.maxsenges.com

Mobile: 01622122755



On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Wolfgang Benedek <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote:

Dear Lisa and Max,

I understand that from tomorrow we should start our part.

In this context we wanted to send You what we consider the actual understanding of the procedure of our work. If You have any comments please share them with us before the end of the weekend.

We intend to send this also to the experts from the South, and it should certainly also be shared with our community.

Best regards

Wolfgang 

 




From gpaque  Fri Jan 15 23:21:43 2010
From: gpaque (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:51:43 -0430
Subject: [IRP] Diplo opens Call for Applications for Capacity Development
 online programmes in Internet Governance and ICT Policy
Message-ID: <4B50DC67.30906@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100115/9f167a19/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGCBP10 Call for Applications.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 53612 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100115/9f167a19/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ACP4IG Call for Applications.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 99930 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100115/9f167a19/attachment-0003.pdf>


From lisa  Mon Jan 18 19:56:07 2010
From: lisa (Lisa Horner)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:56:07 -0000
Subject: [IRP] Eurodig & other regional IGFs
Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F610D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>

Hi all

 

Just a quick note to say that I submitted a couple of proposals for a
workshop on human rights to the Eurodig via Lee.  It was a bit last
minute due to the deadlines, but if we get granted a slot it would be
good to discuss with you how we can take it forward together.  It would
be good if we could try to hold workshops/events on human rights at all
of the regional IGFs, and if people from the regions could volunteer to
coordinate them.  Carlos expressed an interest in coordinating for Latin
America.  Does anyone else have any updates on other regional IGFs?

 

Thanks,

Lisa

 

___________________________________________________________

Lisa Horner

Head of Research & Policy  Global Partners and Associates

338 City Road, London, EC1V 2PY, UK

Office: + 44 207 239 8251     Mobile: +44 7867 795859

lisa at global-partners.co.uk <mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk>
www.global-partners.co.uk <http://www.global-partners.co.uk/>  

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100118/3663e086/attachment.htm>


From mariliamaciel  Mon Jan 18 20:09:25 2010
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:09:25 -0200
Subject: [IRP] Eurodig & other regional IGFs
In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F610D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
References: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F610D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
Message-ID: <f7e605ab1001181009w736c271evcd623ac89dbbb4a0@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Lisa,

The Remote Participation Working Group has offered to help Eurodig
organizers to make remote participation available during the meeting in
April. We don?t have their response yet, but if these regional workshops
will take place  in parallel with Eurodig, we could try to connect them with
the main IRP workshop, so they would be able to provide synchronous inputs.

If the regional workshops happen on other dates, they could also to put in
place RP options, to give the opportunity of receiving inputs and
interacting with other regions.

We offer help to move this forward, but Max (who was a member from the
working group as well ;) might also have great suggestions to make on this
regard.

Best wishes,

Mar?lia

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>wrote:

>  Hi all
>
>
>
> Just a quick note to say that I submitted a couple of proposals for a
> workshop on human rights to the Eurodig via Lee.  It was a bit last minute
> due to the deadlines, but if we get granted a slot it would be good to
> discuss with you how we can take it forward together.  It would be good if
> we could try to hold workshops/events on human rights at all of the regional
> IGFs, and if people from the regions could volunteer to coordinate them.
> Carlos expressed an interest in coordinating for Latin America.  Does anyone
> else have any updates on other regional IGFs?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lisa
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
>
> *Lisa Horner*
>
> *Head of Research & Policy  **Global Partners and Associates***
>
> 338 City Road, London, EC1V 2PY, UK
>
> Office: + 44 207 239 8251     Mobile: +44 7867 795859
>
> *lisa at global-partners.co.uk**  **www.global-partners.co.uk** *
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center of Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100118/6777a9b7/attachment.htm>


From fouadbajwa  Tue Jan 19 00:55:00 2010
From: fouadbajwa (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 03:55:00 +0500
Subject: [IRP] Eurodig & other regional IGFs
In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F610D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
References: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F610D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>
Message-ID: <701af9f71001181455q6cca3759x11d688b0edb99f45@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Lisa,

Great work and I hope that these proposals go through. It would indeed
be a great opportunity to discuss the new charter and take input from
other participants as well. I don't know if the EuroDIG is being
planned to be held before the IGF 2010 in Vilnius, if it is, there may
be a possibility that many of us will be there. If its in June, there
is a possibility that there will be another IGF related meeting in
Geneva and if that happens, maybe we can join you again!

Last year's meeting in Geneva was very productive and looking forward
to the combined effort being undertaken by the IRP!

Take care!

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Lisa Horner
<lisa at global-partners.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi all
>
>
>
> Just a quick note to say that I submitted a couple of proposals for a
> workshop on human rights to the Eurodig via Lee.? It was a bit last minute
> due to the deadlines, but if we get granted a slot it would be good to
> discuss with you how we can take it forward together.? It would be good if
> we could try to hold workshops/events on human rights at all of the regional
> IGFs, and if people from the regions could volunteer to coordinate them.
> Carlos expressed an interest in coordinating for Latin America.? Does anyone
> else have any updates on other regional IGFs?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lisa
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
>
> Lisa Horner
>
> Head of Research & Policy? Global Partners and Associates
>
> 338 City Road, London, EC1V 2PY, UK
>
> Office: + 44 207 239 8251???? Mobile: +44 7867 795859
>
> lisa at global-partners.co.uk? www.global-partners.co.uk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
>



-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa


From shailam  Mon Jan 18 22:05:01 2010
From: shailam (shaila mistry)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:05:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [IRP] IRP Chair
In-Reply-To: <02B7B0535E8ACB4FACB46EDC26C94C5C027830E2D1@fhex2>
References: <0492A81964C44A408EDD71FBDE2E601E0278B52C36@fhex2>
	<D350038F-CB6B-4568-AD16-5B167F9576CB@freedomhouse.org>,
	<58762b1a1001120634g7b9a9a83k6990fc25bb1cb216@mail.gmail.com>
	<02B7B0535E8ACB4FACB46EDC26C94C5C027830E2D1@fhex2>
Message-ID: <849148.36805.qm@web55208.mail.re4.yahoo.com>

Hi Max - Out going Chair and
Hi Lisa ? In-coming Chair
?
I agree Max, I think we have provided ample opportunity for the transparent nomination and consensus for the selection of Chair of IRP. I for one am happy that Lisa has been nominated by so many people and has accepted. 
I congratulate you Lisa and thank you for stepping forward to leading us. I know you will do a fine job of leading us and keeping in order our band of "enthusiastic" human rights advocates.
?
Thank you Max and Lisa!
?
Shaila Rao Mistry
President
?
?
Input Technology With?A Human Touch
?
MWOSB???????? ITAR
www.jaycopanels.com
?Tel: 951 738 2000
?
Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this message. 
?
?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com>
To: Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>
Cc: irp <Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
Sent: Sun, January 17, 2010 10:23:30 AM
Subject: Re: [IRP] procedure of the Steering Committee to choose the new IRPchair
?
Dear all
?
Two days ago the nomination period for candidates to run for the IRP coalition chair has finished. So we have Lisa who accepted the nomination as the only candidate. I believe ten member of the 14 in the steering committee already endorsed her candidacy so I believe we can find consensus around her taking up the role? 
?
I suggest: (a) that we define the chair voting procedure better in the our coalition's charter (please excuse the improvised process we had) and (b) please if you have concerns or other comments regarding Lisa taking up the chair send them to the list until this friday, by which date i suggest we proceed to bestowing the position upon her.
?
Best
Max
--
?
"The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
?William Gibson
?
...........................................................................
?
Max Senges
Berlin
?
www.maxsenges.com
?
Mobile : 01622122755
?
?
?
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk> wrote:
?
Thanks Max, that sounds good to me.? I agree that it'd be good to have more nominations if people are interested, and think self-nomination should also be encouraged. 
?
All the best,
Lisa
?
?
?
?
-----Original Message-----
From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org on behalf of Max Senges
Sent: Fri 08/01/2010 22:03
To: irp
Subject: Re: [IRP] procedure of the Steering Committee to choose the new IRPchair
?
Hello everyone
?
> ?
>> I would like to suggest a procedure as to how the steering committee
>> elects the new Chair:
>> ?
>> Let's keep the list open for nominations for the chair position until next
>> Friday 15th of Jan.
>> ?
>> So far we have only one candidate, which would mean that the new chair can
>> start the new role next friday. Should we have more than one candidate we
>> can either discuss and seek to find consensus (e.g. a double chairmanship)
>> or organize an election among steering committee members.
>> ?
>> I hope that's a good suggestion?!
>> ?
>> Best
>> Max
>> ?
>> ?
>> ?
>> ?
>> ?
>> "The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet."
>> -William Gibson
>> ?
>> ?
>> ...........................................................................
>> ?
>> Max Senges
>> Berlin
>> ?
>> www.maxsenges.com
>> ?
>> Mobile : 01622122755
>> ?
>> ?
>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Graciela Selaimen <graciela at nupef.org.br>wrote:
>> ?
>>> Thanks, Max.
>>> Now its clear. I think it would be useful to establish deadlines - both
>>> for proposing candidatures and for the voting period itself, so that people
>>> don't think they're voting when they express support for a candidature.
>>> ?
>>> best,
>>> Graciela
>>> ?
>>> Max Senges escreveu:
>>> ?
>>>> hi graciela
>>>> ?
>>>> sorry about the confusion. of course you can nominate several steering
>>>> committee members as chair. so far we had only lisa nominated and as many
>>>> steering committee members endorsed her candidature (i.e. said they are
>>>> happy to have her lead the coalition) and because there were/are no
>>>> alternative nominations. We agreed on the monthly call that I would reach
>>>> out to those steering committee members who had not yet spoken up on the
>>>> list to see whether we can elect Lisa by consensus or whether there are more
>>>> candidates which of course would/will lead to an election.
>>>> ?
>>>> Hope this clarifies matters.
>>>> ?
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Max
>>>> ?
>>>> "The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet."
>>>> -William Gibson
>>>> ?
>>>> ?
>>>> ...........................................................................
>>>> ?
>>>> Max Senges
>>>> Berlin
>>>> ?
>>>> www.maxsenges.com <http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>>> ?
>>>> Mobile : 01622122755
>>>> ?
>>>> ?
>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Graciela Selaimen <
>>>> graciela at nupef.org.br <mailto:graciela at nupef.org.br>> wrote:
>>>> ?
>>>>??? Dear all,
>>>> ?
>>>>??? I'm a bit lost here, trying to understand the nomination process
>>>>??? and the choice proposed by Max. Can't we endorse more than one
>>>>??? candidature? I would endorse both candidatures - and even more, if
>>>>??? there are more good candidates. In my view this would make the
>>>>??? election of the chair more plural and democratic.
>>>> ?
>>>>??? Or is the endorsement of a candidature understood as a vote?
>>>> ?
>>>> ?
>>>>??? best,
>>>>??? Graciela
>>>> ?
>>>>??? Rafik Dammak escreveu:
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? Dear Max,
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? 10 of the 14 have endorsed Lisa's candidature , does it mean
>>>>??????? that I have to follow too? I am not sure that consensus mean
>>>>??????? accepting choice made in conf call not planned weeks ago. as
>>>>??????? coalition we should have more democratic ? and transparent
>>>>??????? process.
>>>>??????? the "we" who decided to not consider the nomination should
>>>>??????? state it publicly.?
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? Regards
>>>> ?
>>>> ?
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? 2010/1/8 Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com
>>>>??????? <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com> <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com>>>
>>>> ?
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? Dear Rafik
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? there are two choices for you in the moment: you can either
>>>>??????? nominate a member of the steering committee (e.g. Robert) or you
>>>>??????? can endorse Lisa's nomination for chair. So far 10 of the 14
>>>>??????? steering committee members have endorsed Lisa's candidature.
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? As for your nomination for Robert as chair please do make that
>>>>??????? nomination publicly on the list or check back with him before to
>>>>??????? see whether he would be interested. We did not consider your
>>>> prior
>>>>??????? nomination, because when you posted to the list it was time to
>>>>??????? nominate for steering committee (which then in turn elects the
>>>>??????? chair). We subsequently asked for chair nominations some weeks
>>>>??????? ago.
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? Best
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? Max
>>>> ?
>>>> ?
>>>> ?
?
>>>>??????? "The future is here. It??Ts just not widely distributed yet."
?
>>>>??????? ??"William Gibson
>>>> ?
>>>> ?
>>>>? ...........................................................................
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? Max Senges
>>>>??????? Berlin
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? www.maxsenges.com <http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>>>??????? <http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>>> ?
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? Mobile : 01622122755
>>>> ?
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Rafik Dammak
>>>>??????? <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>??????? <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>??????? <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? Hi Max,
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? before election, I have already nominated Robert Guerra, do I
>>>>??????? need to confirm?
>>>>??????? I am not sure if you are suggesting only two choice, either
>>>>??????? nominate or endorse. there is no third one??
>>>> ?
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? Regards
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? Rafik
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? 2010/1/8 Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com
>>>>??????? <mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com>
>>>>??????? <
mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com >>>
>>>> ?
>>>> ?
>>>> ?
?
>>>>??????? Hi there
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? as discussed on the conf-call we urge all steering
>>>>??????? committee members who have not done so already to either
>>>>??????? nominate someone for the position as IRP chair or endorse
>>>>??????? Lisa Horner as new IRP chair
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? best regards,
>>>>??????? Max
>>>> ?
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? --
>>>> ?
?
>>>>??????? "The future is here. It??Ts just not widely distributed yet."
?
>>>>??????? ??"William Gibson
>>>> ?
>>>> ?
>>>>? ...........................................................................
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? Max Senges
>>>>??????? Berlin
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? www.maxsenges.com <http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>>>??????? <http://www.maxsenges.com>
>>>> ?
>>>>??????? Mobile : 01622122755
>>>> ?
>>>> ?
>>>> ?
>>>> ?
>>>> ?
?
>>>>??? --
>>>> ?
>>>> ?
>>> --
>>> ?
>> ?
>> ?
> ?
?
?
?
?
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Guerra [mailto:guerra at freedomhouse.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 6:37 AM
To: Rebecca MacKinnon
Cc: Max Senges; Elfa.Gylfadottir; Elizabeth Floyd; Andrea Beccalli; Shaila Mistry; HIBBARD Lee; Graciela Selaimen; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; Carlos, Affonso Pereira de Souza; malte.spitz; Biel Company Perez; johan.hallenborg
Subject: RE: [IRP] Freedom House - Feb 2010 Human Rights Summit
?
Address where the event will be streamed - 
?
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/freedom-house
?
Address where the event will be archived after the fact - 
?
http://blip.tv/internetfreedom
________________________________________
From: Rebecca MacKinnon [rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com]
Sent: January 12, 2010 9:34 AM
To: Robert Guerra
Cc: Max Senges; Elfa.Gylfadottir; Elizabeth Floyd; Andrea Beccalli; Shaila Mistry; HIBBARD Lee; Graciela Selaimen; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; Carlos, Affonso Pereira de Souza; malte.spitz; Biel Company Perez; johan.hallenborg
Subject: Re: [IRP] Freedom House - Feb 2010 Human Rights Summit
?
Hi there. Any details about virtual participation? Not seeing any info on the FH website.
Best,
R
?
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Robert Guerra <guerra at freedomhouse.org<mailto:guerra at freedomhouse.org>> wrote:
Dear IRP colleagues,
?
I would like to share with all of you news of an upcoming event that Freedom House will be organizing next month. I will briefly mention the event at the end of today's call. Further details are below as well as in the attached blurb.
?
I am working with my colleague Elizabeth Floyd to have the event include virtual participation as well as have one of the working groups focus on Internet Rights & Internet Freedom.
?
regards
?
Robert
--
?
R. Guerra
Project Director, Internet Freedom, Freedom House
131 Connecticut Ave. NW Fl.6, Washington , DC 20036
Direct: +1 202 747 7067, Main : +1 202 296 5101
Mobile +1 202 569 1800,? Fax:? +1 202 293 2840
Email: guerra at freedomhouse.org<mailto:guerra at freedomhouse.org><mailto:bonner at freedomhouse.org<mailto:bonner at freedomhouse.org>>
?
?
?
Freedom House, the Center for American Progress, and Human Rights First will convene the 2010 Washington Human Rights Summit: Affirming Fundamental Freedoms, in February 2010 in Washington DC . The event will bring together the world?s leading human rights and democracy activists along with political leaders, scholars, and journalists.? Participants will examine challenges to the promotion of rights and freedoms in different parts of the world and set out a forward-looking vision for U.S. foreign policy, multilateral institutions and the international community for the years ahead. For additional information please contact Paula Schriefer <schriefer at freedomhouse.org<mailto:schriefer at freedomhouse.org><mailto:schriefer at freedomhouse.org<mailto:schriefer at freedomhouse.org>>> and Elizabeth Floyd? <floyd at freedomhouse.org<mailto:floyd at freedomhouse.org><mailto:floyd at freedomhouse.org<mailto:floyd at freedomhouse.org>>>
?
?
?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Elizabeth A. Floyd | 2010 Human Rights Summit Coordinator| Democracy Web<http://www.democracyweb.org/> Project Director| Freedom House<http://www.freedomhouse.org/> | 1301 Connecticut Ave NW Washington DC 20036 |? Tel: 202.747.7008 | Fax: 202.293.2840
?
Supporting the right of every individual to be free.
Donate now<http://www.freedomhouse.org/donate>
?
?
?
_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org<mailto:IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
?
?
?
?
--
IMPORTANT: My Hong Kong University e-mail (rmack at hku.hk<mailto:rmack at hku.hk>) will soon be de-activated. Please use my gmail instead (see below).
?
Rebecca MacKinnon
Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org
Tel: +1-617-939-3493
E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com<mailto:rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com>
Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack
Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100118/35b61d43/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3058 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100118/35b61d43/attachment-0001.jpeg>


From katitza  Wed Jan 20 04:05:17 2010
From: katitza (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:05:17 -0500
Subject: [IRP] Counter-terrorism: intrusive measures in fight against
	terrorism should be opposed, says UN expert
Message-ID: <05D6DCEC-B9D5-4D8C-BEF2-41A7E371E3DB@datos-personales.org>

RT @privacyint UN report says global privacy protections needed. [PI  
advised Rapporteur on report.] http://bit.ly/6BeUf7
GENEVA (19 January 2010) - ?The current wave of privacy-intrusive  
measures in the name of countering terrorism should be countered  
through a global declaration on data protection and data privacy,? the  
UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism Martin  
Scheinin said Tuesday, as he released his latest report which focuses  
on the erosion of the right to privacy in the fight against terrorism.*

In his report, Scheinin critically assesses developments that have  
adversely affected the right to privacy in various parts of the world  
using the justification of combating terrorism. These include racial  
or ethnic profiling, creation of privacy-intrusive databases and  
resorting to new technology, such as body scanners, without proper  
human rights assessment.

Based on his evaluation, the UN independent expert dismisses the  
perception that, in an all-encompassing process of ?balancing?,  
counter-terrorism always outweighs privacy. Instead, he calls for a  
rigorous analytical framework for securing that any restrictions on  
privacy rights are necessary, proportionate and adequately regulated.

One of his main recommendations is that the inter-governmental Human  
Rights Council ?should launch a process aiming at a global declaration  
on data protection and data privacy.?

The Special Rapporteur also encourages the Human Rights Committee, the  
independent expert body supervising compliance with the Covenant on  
Civil and Political Rights, to consider drawing up a general comment  
on the right to privacy, including the proper scope of its  
limitations. Scheinin will present his report to the Human Rights  
Council in Geneva in the second week of March.

In his previous reports, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and  
counter-terrorism has addressed themes such as definitions of  
terrorism, racial and ethnic profiling, the right to a fair trial, and  
the gender impact of counter-terrorism measures.

Mr. Scheinin was appointed Special Rapporteur by the United Nations  
Commission on Human Rights in August 2005. The mandate was renewed by  
Human Rights Council Resolution 6/28.

As Special Rapporteur. He is independent from any Government and  
serves in his individual capacity. Mr. Scheinin is Professor of Public  
International Law at the European University Institute in Florence.

(*) See the full report: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/terrorism/rapporteur/docs/A_HRC_13_37_AEV.pdf 
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100119/cc25e7c5/attachment.htm>


From katitza  Mon Jan 25 20:27:59 2010
From: katitza (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:27:59 -0500
Subject: [IRP] International Privacy Day: Real Problems, Real Solutions
References: <E281F13E-04F1-4088-B8AB-F2A367C00FB0@datos-personales.org>
Message-ID: <197672D6-0D6D-4440-BC1A-2A5E13326D20@datos-personales.org>

-------
International Privacy Day: Real Problems, Real Solutions
-------

January 28 is International Privacy Day, the day that the first  
international convention for privacy was signed. Many groups around  
the world are celebrating this day.

As supporters of the Madrid Declaration, we are calling on national  
governments to ratified the Privacy Convention 108.

As the Declaration states, we urge countries:

"that have not ratified Council of Europe Convention 108 together with  
the Protocol of 2001 to do so as expeditiously as possible."

"that have not yet established a comprehensive framework for privacy  
protection and an independent data protection authority to do so as  
expeditiously as possible;"

"that have established legal frameworks for privacy protection to  
ensure effective implementation and enforcement, and to cooperate at  
the international and regional level;

The Madrid Privacy Declaration is a substantial document that  
reaffirms international instruments for privacy protection, identifies  
new challenges, and call for concrete actions.

More than 300 privacy and consumer experts and organizations around  
the globe have signed the Declaration.


ACTIONS:

ENDORSE: The Madrid Privacy Declaration. Spread the word.

INVITE your friends. BECOME a Fan

BLOG: About "January 28: International Privacy Day. Real Problems,  
Real Solutions" and celebrate the anniversary of the Council of Europe  
Convention on Data Protection.

SHARE: This page in your wall.

PROMOTE: The ?Privacy - January 28? banner.

POST: A Privacy Video.

ORGANIZE: A campaign.

WATCH: A movie. Here are a few of our favorites
-"Gattaca," "Enemy of the State," "The Lives of Others," "Eagle Eye?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100125/b273c3a4/attachment.htm>


From katitza  Mon Jan 25 20:49:14 2010
From: katitza (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:49:14 -0500
Subject: [IRP] International Privacy Day: Real Problems, Real Solutions
Message-ID: <BF3F23FC-561F-4695-951F-DF6ECD36321C@datos-personales.org>

(with links)

International Privacy Day: Real Problems, Real Solutions
----------------------------------

January 28 is International Privacy Day, the day that the first  
international convention for privacy was signed. Many groups around  
the world are celebrating this day.

As supporters of the Madrid Declaration, we are calling on national  
governments to ratified the Privacy Convention 108.

As the Declaration states, we urge countries:

"that have not ratified Council of Europe Convention 108 together with  
the Protocol of 2001 to do so as expeditiously as possible."

"that have not yet established a comprehensive framework for privacy  
protection and an independent data protection authority to do so as  
expeditiously as possible;"

"that have established legal frameworks for privacy protection to  
ensure effective implementation and enforcement, and to cooperate at  
the international and regional level;

The Madrid Privacy Declaration is a substantial document that  
reaffirms international instruments for privacy protection, identifies  
new challenges, and call for concrete actions.

More than 300 privacy and consumer experts and organizations around  
the globe have signed the Declaration.


ACTIONS:

ENDORSE: The Madrid Privacy Declaration. Spread the word. http://www.thepublicvoice.org/madrid-declaration
INVITE your friends. BECOME a Fan. http://www.facebook.com/pages/International-Privacy-Day/264341804606
SHARE: This page on your wall.
BLOG: About "January 28: International Privacy Day. Real Problems,  
Real Solutions" and celebrate the anniversary of the Council of Europe  
Convention on Data Protection.
PROMOTE: The ?Privacy - January 28? banner.
POST: A Privacy Video.
ORGANIZE: A campaign.
WATCH: A movie. Here are a few of our favorites
-"Gattaca," "Enemy of the State," "The Lives of Others," "Eagle Eye?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100125/d1ff9528/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: privacy-day.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 10456 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100125/d1ff9528/attachment-0001.jpg>


From katitza  Tue Jan 26 00:35:54 2010
From: katitza (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:35:54 -0500
Subject: [IRP] Data Protection Guide
Message-ID: <75504DF6-35D5-48DB-96E4-F857DDD58B0F@datos-personales.org>

Hola,

I thought this info. might be of interest of the group.

What are your rights as a citizen?

http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/guide/index_en.htm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100125/aebd7c9a/attachment.htm>


From lisa  Thu Jan 28 13:24:56 2010
From: lisa (Lisa Horner)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:24:56 -0000
Subject: [IRP] Monthly conference call and 2010 workplan
Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F64AB@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>

Hi all

 

Our monthly conference call is due next Thursday 4th February....

 

I hope as many people as possible will join, especially steering group
members.

 

1) Timing of the call:  There's been a suggestion to provide options for
time of the call to try and make sure as many people as possible can
join.  There's also the old time zone problem of having members from San
Francisco to Hong Kong.  I thought it might be a good idea to coordinate
via the doodle tool which is easy to use. I've suggested a few times
across the day next Thursday here:
http://www.doodle.com/mzms7zvgwz6i594a.  Please enter your name and mark
your preferences for the call time.  You can use the handy time zone
menu to change the settings according to where you are so we don't get
confused! 

 

I'll select a time when most people can make it.

 

We could also talk about alternating the time of the call every month so
that people in the Americas and people in Asia can participate
regularly. 

 

2) Platform for the call:  We've been using Skype for the calls, but the
quality of the call was terrible last time which made it difficult to
communicate properly.  However, I haven't managed to find a good
substitute.  Don sent through a suggestion for a phone conferencing
system, but we would still have to pay to use it, from $40 a month
subscription or 12 cents per minute.  Does anyone already subscribe to a
system like this that the IRP could "borrow" once a month?  We could
also look into funding options.

 

 Unless someone can come up with a good alternative in the next week, I
suggest we use the skype conferencing for this call, and we can discuss
other options over the next month.  I'll send the number round with a
finalised time and agenda next week.

 

3) Agenda: 

 

Please send your suggestions for the agenda through.  My suggestions
are:

 

a)      Work plan and work areas.

I'd really like to discuss the various different tasks that we have over
the next year, and invite people to volunteer to take responsibility for
different areas.  To be effective, we have to know what we're doing and
coordinate.  I've drafted a calendar of things I think we need to look
at over the next year, and a list of tasks.  Please could people have a
look and edit/add/comment.  You can access it here:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AbEcBWyGO2nQZGQ4YmM3Z2ZfM2ZiY2Y5cGdu&h
l=en

(NB - I tried to create a wiki page on our website but it wouldn't let
me).

 

We can also discuss in the conference call, and if people have any
specific areas they'd like to address, please let me know in advance so
I can add it to the agenda for the call.  Please also feel free to
volunteer for any of the areas of work!

 

b)      Update on initiatives:

-          Charter process

-          Regional IGF workshops

-          Any others...please let me know.

 

c)       Anything else?

 

 

Please feed in your ideas and join the call so that we can get 2010 off
to a really good start.

 

All the best,

Lisa

 

___________________________________________________________

Lisa Horner

Head of Research & Policy  Global Partners and Associates

338 City Road, London, EC1V 2PY, UK

Office: + 44 207 239 8251     Mobile: +44 7867 795859

lisa at global-partners.co.uk <mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk>
www.global-partners.co.uk <http://www.global-partners.co.uk/>  

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100128/0a2d6b59/attachment.htm>