[IRP] MAG Civil Society Representatives

[Fouad Bajwa]

I'd like to support Katitza's concern that we should collaborate and
bring in the actors that have been playing an important role and it
may be that they are not so prominent but they have been working in
the background. There is a need to reach out!

-- Best

Fouad

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
>
> We should try to hook up the initiative with IRP. No need to compete. You
> should talk to Meryem Marzouki, she was leading the HR Caucus many years
> ago. I will see her in Paris, and will hear her thoughts. We should talk to
> Anriette (APC) too! They do good human rights work.
>
>
> On 3/15/12 8:59 AM, Robert Guerra wrote:
>
> I'll float the idea to NGOs that are attending this weekend's Cyber Dialogue
> in Toronto. If there's support, I'll send a note to the list to see if the
> human rights caucus is still active..and if not, who would be interested in
> re-activating it.
>
> cyberdialogue.ca
>
> regards
>
> Robert
>
>
> On 2012-03-15, at 11:56 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>
> You can set up an ad hoc working Group within IGC to deal with Human Rights
> issues and issue a call for volunteers.
>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> From what i've been hearing from Human Rights Experts, it is very likely
>> we'll have to re-activate the Human Rights Caucus for the meeting in Baku.
>>
>> here's a recent article worth looking at...
>>
>>
>> http://www.rferl.org/content/how_azerbaijan_crushes_online_dissent/24515935.html
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> --
>> R. Guerra
>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081
>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom
>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org
>>
>> On 2012-03-15, at 11:42 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>> I think it might work like the CSISAC Steering Committee mailing list or
>> NCUC Exec Committee mailing list. But you know: IGC members dont want that,
>> I think.
>>
>> On 3/15/12 8:21 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> After a rather intense day of negotiations yesterday in which CS (NCUC)
>> took on business, got a lot of heat, but eventually prevailed (on Red
>> Cross/IOC), I'm a little hard pressed at the moment to view favorably
>> launching yet another process to follow. ?But if someone could explain the
>> clear need for such a group, what it would do, how it would work, etc. that
>> would make it easier to think about either way.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 15, 2012, at 7:46 AM, Robert Guerra wrote:
>>
>> Sala,
>>
>> My idea was just that, an idea. Prefer to get feedback from others?cc'd on
>> this message first before suggesting it to the IGF list.
>>
>> Thus the question to those cc'd - Is there value of a CS only IGF
>> strategic working group to discuss the upcoming IGF in Baku?
>>
>> Looking forward to your comments.
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> --
>> R. Guerra
>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081
>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom
>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org
>>
>> On 2012-03-12, at 1:16 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>>
>> Dear Robert et al,
>>
>> Kindly take the initiative to discuss this with the IGC when you deem fit
>> to do so to suss out what they think etc. I can also see where you are
>> coming from.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Sala
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:03 AM, Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sala,
>>>
>>> Consulting the national and/or regional IGF's might be problematic.
>>>
>>> Not all national level IGF's have a strong CS component.?For instance,
>>> the Russia IGF is dominated by pro-kremlin organizers and IGF -USA has a
>>> weak CS component.
>>>
>>> Instead, let me suggest that it might be a good idea to??create a CS only
>>> strategic working group - one that includes CS MAG members, IGC leadership
>>> and key experts (academic and NGOs). The group being a bit more private
>>> would be able to share more sensitive information and discuss strategy ahead
>>> of docs being shared with the far more open IGC mailing list.
>>>
>>> The working group would in a way allow for a safe strategic space for
>>> discussion and brainstorming.
>>>
>>> Suffice it to say, this is ?just an idea of mine for discussion...
>>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>> R. Guerra
>>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081
>>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom
>>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org
>>>
>>> On 2012-03-12, at 12:52 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Robert, I agree. In light of this, perhaps we should consider
>>> preparing for next year year's IGF by working with local and national IGFs
>>> to be able to gather what their issues are from a civil society perspective,
>>> that is from the Arab/Africa/Asia/Europe/Americas/Carribean/Pacific region
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> This could even be a whole year's task and it would be open, transparent
>>> and will involve the list.
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>> Sala
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> let me comment below...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2012-03-12, at 11:31 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Dear All,
>>>> >
>>>> > Kindly see Katitza's advice in relation to the preparation of an IGC
>>>> > Position Statement before the MAG meeting.
>>>>
>>>> It is my view that a position statement should be developed ahead of any
>>>> MAG consultation. It is strategic to do so.
>>>>
>>>> This should happen at any open consultation and/or open MAG meetings .
>>>> Such a statement should include not only a general comments, but also a
>>>> specific set of recommendations for the MAG to take up.
>>>>
>>>> > Grateful if you guys could take the lead role on this in our list. You
>>>> > will have the consolidated suggestions that was sent to the list earlier.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Those ?party to the MAG conversations, should share - in as much as
>>>> possible - what issues are arising and what (in their view) would be a
>>>> strategic intervention / recommendation. Without a clear view of the mood &
>>>> sense of the MAG, it is hard to make a truly strategic intervention.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > You can use this as a foundation for drafting a Statement and feel
>>>> > free to use the Statement Workspace by initiating a Draft which will then be
>>>> > posted for comments.
>>>> >
>>>> We first need to discuss key issues and/or ideas worth mentioning,
>>>> develop a outline, and from there a draft.
>>>>
>>>> Where possible, we should be as open and transparent as possible in
>>>> developing our comments. Statements should be seen as representative as
>>>> possible of the CS view, and that can only be done if done in an open and
>>>> transparent fashion.
>>>>
>>>> We need to figure out if we want to post strategic coordination on the
>>>> open IGC list or instead - at times - have a smaller working group just from
>>>> CS work on strategic documents.
>>>>
>>>> regards
>>>>
>>>> Robert
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>>
>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT
>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Cell: +679 998 2851
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>
>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT
>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Cell: +679 998 2851
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Katitza Rodriguez
>> International Rights Director
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> katitza at eff.org
>> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>>
>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of
>> speech since 1990
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>
> Tweeter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Katitza Rodriguez
> International Rights Director
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> katitza at eff.org
> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>
> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of
> speech since 1990



-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa