[IRP] New Participant, Introduction : William Wade

[William Wade]

Hello IRP Community,

My name is William Wade, an American undergraduate student at the  
University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. I study public policy and  
economics, but I enjoy entrepreneurship and  cybernetic anthropology /  
dynamical systems analysis much more than the clunky economizing  
disciplines I am frequently exposed to.

To give you a sense of how I got here, I joined several lists from IGF  
groups when researching internet privacy and behavior analysis for  
school. My goal was to evaluate whether Federal guidelines and  
monitoring techniques for both firms and agents here in the United  
States would be an amenable proposition to resolve aggravated issues  
of privacy within an increasingly open society that is undergoing both  
significant and rapid generational and consumer-oriented shifts.

Big questions quickly rose such as " Is the continuing rapid,  
simultaneous and widely distributed development of the internet (and  
in particular it's tandem complex emergence of new mediums & forms of  
media) well enough understood to legislate? Is moral hazard a factor  
across generational lines or across differing types of end-users? Are  
undesired restrictive outcomes of regulation disproportionately  
distributed across different major user-groups?" "Has our national  
understanding of and political dialogue around the internet been  
sufficiently informed and adequately framed?"

So, I caught the bug. I've been wanting to engage others in a  
proactive, serious and strategically meaningful space to sit out.  
Wanting to answer some of questions mentioned before and to move onto  
tackling some more powerful ones, I came to this group to explore  
understanding on the role and shape of privacy and to become a better  
systems oriented thinker. I have grown very much through and felt  
validated by the open, inclusive, honest and transparent dialogue  
present in the tone and process of this analytical space. I'm looking  
forward to listening and working with you all.

Now, I have some questions for you all. What has worked well for this  
group in the past when individuals raise new questions or propose  
latent or new perspectives on a matter? Is there an active record of  
settled and/or unresolved issues? Is there a record of ongoing topical  
discussions?


I am once again very, very excited about working aggressively in a  
good group to grapple with challenges and to refine fundamentals to  
social technologies. I am also very excited about looking toward more  
productive lines of thinking about solutions and about looking at the  
interesting places where they come from. There is a tremendously  
powerful and decentralized ecology of individual actors and other  
interesting things that are both taking shape in a wonderful digital  
world and giving shape to a wonderful digital world.



Best,


William

William Seth Wade

William.Wade at unc.edu
919.624.1987


On Dec 16, 2009, at 9:17 AM, irp-request at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org 
  wrote:

> Send IRP mailing list submissions to
> 	irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	irp-request at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	irp-owner at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of IRP digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. irp website hacked (Max Senges)
>   2. Re: [Expression] appologies - input - multistakholderism & a
>      telco meeting? (Meryem Marzouki)
>   3. European Civil Society Data Protection Award (Meryem Marzouki)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:48:06 +0100
> From: Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com>
> To: irp <Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
> Cc: Robert Guerra <guerra at freedomhouse.org>
> Subject: [IRP] irp website hacked
> Message-ID:
> 	<4d976d8e0912160148qf96881fob2f9f31254d18ad1 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> hi everybody
>
> unfortunatley our website has been hacked - not sure what has  
> happened, but
> everything is available and ready for you at http://ibr-beta.cpsr.org/
>
> 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/20091216/a0274707/attachment-0001.htm 
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:45:17 +0100
> From: Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info>
> To: expression <expression at ipjustice.org>,	irp
> 	<Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
> Subject: Re: [IRP] [Expression] appologies - input -
> 	multistakholderism & a	telco meeting?
> Message-ID: <33057785-3CBA-4C2C-8A30-7A51C3A52ABF at marzouki.info>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes;
> 	format=flowed
>
> Dear Max and all,
>
> First of all, there is no issue with any stakeholder, nor with any
> multistakeholder approach. The point is not who's speaking, from
> which constituency - especially when people are supposed to speak in
> their personal capacity - but what is argued. As far as I'm
> concerned, I'm used to discuss with governments, private sector
> representatives, NGOs and other civil society actors, or you name it,
> not only of course in informal discussions, but also in more formal
> settings where each one is officially representing his/her own
> organization or institution. You might be surprised to know that
> sometimes and on some issues, as an NGO representative or as an
> academic (which are my two usual "hats"), I find easier agreement
> with some governments or some company representatives than with some
> NGOs, simply because at some point we share a common understanding of
> a given issue. Thus, one should not take for granted that a given
> constituency share the same vision of a given issue: there are
> disagreements among NGOs, among governments, and even among
> corporates or industry sector when their interests are competing. I
> thought that was obvious. Moreover, the point is not to *believe* or
> not in a multistakeholder approach, just like if this was a new
> religion or cult. It is rather to have different viewpoints,
> interests and visions represented and discussed.
>
> Second, we are here in dynamic coalitions on, respectively, freedom
> of expression and more generally human rights on the Internet. My
> understanding is that those who join a coalition have a reasonable
> prior knowledge of the main issue the coalition is dealing with, and
> share a common willing to advance the issue. For instance, the
> freedom of expression coalition is defined as aiming "to provide an
> open platform to further freedom of expression and the media on the
> Internet". Thus, one might be surprised when asked "to define limits
> of freedom of expression", even if through "best practices". At
> least, one might expect that others in the same coalition are already
> aware of the debates and controversies surrounding the issue with
> their main arguments and are taking stock of the achievements so far.
> Simply on the very subject of this thread: this has been debated, as
> I already said, for more than a decade. There are well known
> arguments, cases - including transnational ones - jurisprudences,
> experiments, legislation, codes of practice, declarations,
> recommendations, tons of academic and non academic papers, ... :
> everything you can imagine.
> Obviously, no one is expected to know everything, but still, a
> coalition like this one cannot start from scratch and operate in a
> vaccum. There is nothing wrong though in being simply interested to
> know more about an issue, and experts in some fields are laymen in
> others. However, a coalition or a working group willing to achieve
> concrete outcome should not be confused with general public
> deliberation spaces.
> Moreover, even if I'm wrong on this and the coalition should be
> understood as a public education and deliberation space, then it's
> even less acceptable to wake up one morning and come with so-called
> best practices to limit freedom of expression, with a national
> example qualified as a "best practice" without any debate nor account
> or any critical point of view (*this* is what I call a biased
> discussion), and a proposal to discuss whether it makes sense to set
> up a similar body at the global level.
>
> Third, regarding language. Yes, it does matter. It does matter how
> one formulates an issue. It does matter to use precise language and
> not fuzzy, empty, trendy (?) words, for the discussion being
> unbiased, honest and rigorous.
>
> Fourth, when someone comes with a "problem" or a "challenge",
> especially when already accompanied with a "solution", the first task
> is to analyse if this is a real problem or challenge, that would need
> to be socially addressed. Some deconstruction might help here. Even
> prior to that, what is the problem exactly? I've already noticed that
> there was a mix between two different issues: illegal content and
> harfmul content for some populations (say, children). You cannot deal
> with both issues in the same way. You cannot deal as well with all
> types of illegal content in the same way (an this is the reason why
> there are different laws, even in the same country). Does the
> infraction fall under civil law or criminal law? Moreover, is the
> problem national or crossborder? Here again, there is a (huge)
> difference: does the issue of the competence of jurisdiction need to
> be addressed or not? (list of questions not exhaustive). Most
> importantly, does the "solution" create other, possibly even more
> important, problems?
>
> Five, we all agree that the legal process is long and expensive. But
> it provides for guarantees: due process, rule of law, transparency,
> etc. Moreover, it's a repressive (a posteriori, after an infraction
> has been established) process, not a preventive (a priori) one. Are
> the alternatives showing the same guarantees? To my knowledge (of
> European initiatives), they don't.
>
> Six, you mention mediation bodies (I actually mean mediation between
> two parties, not gatekeeping here). They are indeed useful as dispute
> resolution means in some sectors and for some kinds of disputes,  and
> they already exist for non Internet as well as for Internet issues.
> But mediation has a legal definition: it is different from
> arbitration and of course from court decision. One main difference is
> that the mediation is non binding: a mediation body does not make any
> decision, it helps the parties to find an agreement. Even with this
> non binding character, there are issues with some mediation bodies,
> as the mediation might orientate the agreement so that one party is
> favored over the other. However, we're speaking of fundamental rights
> here. Moreover, sometimes it is not possible to find an agreement:
> have you ever seen an agreement reached between, say, a racist party
> and an antiracist organization? Not to mention that, when racism is
> forbidden by law and is a criminal matter (as it is in some
> countries), this is not an issue that should be dealt with through
> mediation or agreement: it must be decided by court.
>
> All these are important points to frame the issue. In my opinion,
> they are valid whatever is one's general understanding of the need
> for regulation, and, more precisely, the need for social regulation
> of expression. Roughly speaking, there are two main positions among
> freedom of expression advocates: no, or yes but within the limits of
> article 20 of the international covenant on civil and political
> rights. Sorry Milton, but you'll have to suffer once more the
> opposition between the two positions, because it is real, not because
> of any stupid chauvinism. It is so real that USA has introduced
> important reservations to article 20 when ratifying ICCPR.. But yet,
> in practice and depending on the contexts and cases, this opposition
> is not always that clear and radical.
>
> Best,
> Meryem
>
> Le 15 d?c. 09 ? 13:10, Max Senges a ?crit :
>
>> Dear Meryem, Milton, Ronald and all
>>
>> I understand that all three of you are veterans in this discourse;
>> I also see that there are many traps to avoid and that I have (like
>> everybody) much to learn.
>>
>> What I do not understand is why the German example I choose is not
>> an interesting starting point for a discussion about what means
>> would be useful to maximise freedom of expression while providing
>> institutions that allow to mitigate and resolve complaints?
>>
>> I am here to work towards good rights based governance solutions
>> and I am here to learn. If we believe in the multistakeholder
>> approach then we should all aim not to stigmatize stakeholder
>> specific language ( - which by the way I would have used exactly
>> the same 3 months ago when i was civil society - ) but have an
>> unbiased discussion. I have now learned that it is unacceptable for
>> experts to speak of "limits of FoE" but rather speak of "balance
>> between rights". I understand that language is important, but so is
>> a collaborative atmosphere where good-intentions and a shared
>> vision are presumed until the discussion shows otherwise.
>>
>> In both Milton and Meryem's posts did I see much critique but very
>> little in terms of ideas on how to address the challenges. Simply
>> to say that we have the UDHR and there are courts people can go to
>> is, in my humble opinion, ignoring the fact that the net has led to
>> an explosion of freedom of expression (as in the amount of globally
>> published information) and subsequently an explosion of cases of
>> hate speech, scandals where private information is spied out,
>> defamation etc.
>>
>> We simply do not have an institutional ecosystem that is capable of
>> dealing with all the cases. And I say ecosystem because I do think
>> that all stakeholders should play a role. Some elements are
>> legislatory and judicatory governmental instruments and
>> institutions, others are with companies through self-regulation and
>> alliances like the GNI, as well as individual netizens by
>> participating in the public discourse and possibly through being
>> "juryman" or "mediators".
>>
>> The last aspect is particularly intriguing. In my understanding
>> user generated content needs user generated governance (at least to
>> deal with the 90% of cases that don't go to court). Basically if we
>> want to maintain an environment where users can express themselves
>> freely (meaning with pre-screening) we need to develop a system to
>> resolve complaints that is reasonable and that scales. With
>> reasonable i mean that it causes reasonable burden while producing
>> reasonably good decisions. Hence it would not be possible to ask a
>> platform provider to hire sufficient specialists to deal with all
>> the complaints. This would a create a pretty high financial burden
>> that would have to be translated in higher costs, and it would put
>> the platform provider in a gatekeeper or judge position which is
>> also highly undesirable. What might be a good idea is to ask
>> netizens of good standing to help find a solution to a given
>> complaint. Mostly it would be a mediation between the opposing
>> parties, but it would be a first (semi-)formal step that might
>> resolve a good part of the many cases that never end up in court.
>> Basically what I assess is a rather significant gap between (1)
>> informal or conversational complaints, discussions and resolutions
>> around Freedom of Expression and (2) the possiblity to go to the
>> legal system and fight it out.
>>
>>
>>
>> Another aspect, which the freedom of expression debate shares with
>> all internet governance topics, is the question who's laws come to
>> bear if a chilenian expresses herself in a defamatory way towards a
>> russian in a thaiwanese forum, while on vacation in .... you get
>> the picture. The insitutional ecosystem I would love to talk about
>> should address this question.
>>
>>
>>
>> Allow me to close with a word of caution: I believe it is important
>> that we maintain a constructive multistakeholder dialog where
>> everybody, but esp. private sector and governmental participants,
>> feel encouraged to contribute, because if only civil society
>> experts are discussing and working together it is simply not
>> multistakeholderism.
>>
>> When there is a problem it needs to be addressed and I am the last
>> one to run away from a debate, but I want to work and learn
>> together with all of you not be lectured and told my suggestion (to
>> look at the German institutional setup to negotiate youth
>> protection and limits to freedom of expression) would be completely
>> unacceptable. It is surely true that the German setup is not
>> perfect, but it works quite well and it is transparent. I'd love to
>> learn about other setups that are more applicable and even more
>> interesting I'd love to hear from setups that scale and therefore
>> work on a global level.
>>
>> I am sorry that we started this discussion on the wrong foot, but i
>> certainly hope it will transform into a constructive one and I
>> would like to invite others in the FoE coalition to contribute.
>> However given the current situation I would like to suggest that we
>> organize a skype/phone meeting to re-frame the conversation and lay
>> out a way forward.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Max (says: rewind my selecta)
>>
>> ---
>> "The future is here. It?s just not widely distributed yet."
>> ?William Gibson
>>
>> ......................................................................
>> .....
>>
>> Max Senges
>> Berlin
>>
>> www.maxsenges.com
>>
>> Mobile: 01622122755
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 3:38 AM, <KovenRonald at aol.com> wrote:
>> Dear Max and All --
>>
>> I hesitate to join in this discussion. I certainly hope that by
>> agreeing wholeheartedly with Meryem's analysis, I won't compromise
>> her position in the eyes of those who think there's something
>> basically unacceptable about a position so generally accepted by
>> the US human rights community and under so much pressure amongst
>> Europeans who approve the French Revolutionary notion that "there
>> is no freedom without regulation."
>>
>> That position seems to be based on a deep insecurity over life in
>> an environment without detailed rules as well as a deep distrust of
>> humankind. The libertarian position is based on a hopefully not
>> misplaced confidence in human nature.
>>
>> I willingly admit that ?a se discute. What disturbs me about your
>> approach, Max is that it seems to be based on a growingly rigid
>> conviction that yours is the only logical or admissible position.
>> That's not a personal attack -- just my observation about how you
>> come to the debate. And nothing would please me more than to be
>> proven wrong.
>>
>> I feel very strongly that there is absolutely nothing wrong with
>> the word "libeeral" in the Anglo-Saxon sense and that the
>> conservative attempts to turn "liberal" into a dirty word are
>> intellectually obscene. Liberalism involves adherence to the values
>> of skepticism and doubt.
>>
>> But your pressing ahead as you seem to have done, Max, to promote
>> ideas regardless of any and all objections seem to indicate that
>> what I have always taken to be a liberal personality has been
>> neutralized by a non-liberal ideology.
>>
>> That's ad hominem, if you like, but that in and of itself doesn't
>> in logic mean that the observation is incorrect. I nevertheless
>> hope that it is indeed wrong. Please do prove me wrong by showing a
>> bit more willingness to consider on their merits the arguments of
>> those who have criticized your positions.
>>
>> I must reluctantly conclude that personal psychology does play a
>> role in discussions of this nature. We aren't talking about pure
>> logic because what is central to the discussion is attitudes toward
>> human nature, and that is intensely personal. Choice and
>> interpretation of data in such a discussion seems in the final
>> analysis to be a function of personality on a rigidity/flexibility
>> continuum -- a liberal-conservative personal psychology continuum,
>> if you will.
>>
>> Hmm. I didn't even realize that I thought that -- proof, I hope, of
>> a form of liberalism.
>>
>> Best regards, Rony Koven
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> You are subscribed as: %(user_address)s
>>
>> To be removed from this list send an email to Expression-
>> request at ipjustice.org with the subject "unsubscribe" and you will
>> be removed.
>>
>> Or - click on this:
>> mailto:Expression-request at ipjustice.org?subject=unsubscribe
>>
>> To change your options:
>> %(user_optionsurl)s
>>
>> Expression mailing list
>> Expression at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/expression
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> You are subscribed as: %(user_address)s
>>
>> To be removed from this list send an email to Expression-
>> request at ipjustice.org with the subject "unsubscribe" and you will
>> be removed.
>>
>> Or - click on this:
>> mailto:Expression-request at ipjustice.org?subject=unsubscribe
>>
>> To change your options:
>> %(user_optionsurl)s
>>
>> Expression mailing list
>> Expression at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/expression
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:41:53 +0100
> From: Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info>
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, irp
> 	<Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>,
> 	privacy-coalition at lists.apc.org, WSIS-EU <wsis-euc at fsfeurope.org>
> Subject: [IRP] European Civil Society Data Protection Award
> Message-ID: <0F732EBC-28DA-4493-8507-40C858824802 at marzouki.info>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed";
> 	DelSp="yes"
>
> Dear all,
>
> Please find enclosed a joint press release by two european
> associations, AEDH (association for the defense of human rights) and
> EDRI (European digital rights), who have joined forces to launch a
> new initiative: the ECSDPA (European Civil Society Data Protection
> Award). The call for nominations is at: http://www.ecsdpa.org. The
> first ECSDPA will be awarded on 28 January 2010, as a European civil
> society contribution to the Data Protection day.
> I hope you will participate to the nomination process, and help
> disseminate this information.
> Best,
> Meryem Marzouki
>
> --
> 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 --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: ECSDPA-PR-151209en.pdf
> Type: application/pdf
> Size: 71296 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20091215/84ba8b8f/attachment.pdf 
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
>
> End of IRP Digest, Vol 11, Issue 19
> ***********************************