Hi everyone,
After all the noise some of us have made at national, regional and
international Internet Governance spaces, it looks like the ITU Council
wants to hear directly “How can small/community/non-profit operators
help in promoting the increase of Internet connectivity?”
This poses an unique opportunity to showcase directly to the ITU Council
all the amazing work that most of you are doing, specially at times
where CNs are gaining more and more visibility to curve the digital
divide and rural marginalization that is now more and more apparent due
to the pandemic. And I say directly because this request is made through
one of the very few consultations the ITU open to all stakeholders: the
Open Public Consultation of the Council Working Group on International
Internet-related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet). I provide a bit of
background about it below for those who are interested.
The consultation is structured as a set of questions, one of them the
one included above, available in the following link:
https://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/consultation-sep2020.aspx
where you can also find important information and instructions on the
submission process.
I think it is strategically important that the ITU receives as many
contributions from each of us as possible highlighting the many
different ways community operators help in promoting the increase of
Internet connectivity. This will surely contribute in creating a more
policy and regulatory environment for community networks in each of your
countries.
I’ve copied some of the basic instructions to participate below.
Participating can be as easy as forwarding existing text you may have
written (the GISWatch country report for those of you who wrote it:
https://www.giswatch.org/community-networks) to the email address below.
Note that your online submission can be drafted in a UN language other
than English (these are Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish),
but you are encouraged (not obliged) to provide a translation in English
for the benefit of all readers.
At APC we are available to provide support to any of you wanting to make
a submission but struggling with the process. Please do not hesitate to
reach out to me directly.
Best,
carlos
== Basic instructions ==
You can include your responses to the questions into the online form in
the following link :
https://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/form-oct2019.aspx OR
send it to InternetPublicViews(a)itu.int including your Full Name, Title,
Country and Organization you are representing.
Your response will then be published on the ITU Website:
https://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/consultation-sep2020.aspx
Please include each submission also includes a short summary/abstract
(1-3 paragraphs). This will form part of the final summary document to
be published after the end of the physical open consultation meeting.
== Background ==
ITU Council Working Groups
There are different Working Groups set up to provide input to the ITU
Council in different matters. In the last last Council Group (February,
2020) meeting four appeared to be active [1]:
- Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy
Issues (CWG-Internet)
- Council working group on Child Online Protection (WG-CP)
- Council Working Group on WSIS (WG-WSIS)
- Council Working Group on Financial and Human Resources (CWG-FHR)
The participation in those working groups varies and some are for
Members States (MS) only, others allow for the participation of Sector
Members (too).
CWG-Internet is limited to Member States, but they hold an open
consultation to all stakeholders. This poses one of the few
opportunities for Civil Society Organizations that are not Sector
Members of the ITU to present their views to the ITU Council. In most
other ITU’s consultations, organizations such as the Association for
Progressive Communications and the Internet Society, both with Sector
Member status do their best to bring the voice of the Civil Society in
general, and of community networks in particular to these spaces.
In particular, CWG-Internet is tasked to identify, study and develop
matters related to international Internet-related public policy issues
and to disseminate its outputs throughout ITU's membership, as well as
to report annually to the Council on activities undertaken on these
subjects [2] [3].
The 13th Session of the ITU Council Working Group on International
Internet-related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet) decided on 20
September 2019 to hold an open consultation (online and physical) on
“International internet-related public policy issues on harnessing new
and emerging telecommunications/ICTs for sustainable development” where
some of our contributions provided already content in relation to
community connectivity [4].
In the 13th Session it was also decided that the next round of Open
Consultations (February 2020 – August 2020), on the topic of “Expanding
Internet Connectivity” with the questions below: [5]
Expanding Internet Connectivity
- What are the challenges and opportunities for expanding Internet
connectivity, particularly to remote and under-served areas? What are
the roles of governments and non-government actors in overcoming these
challenges?
- Are there particular challenges facing land-locked countries in
securing affordable Internet access? What can be done to overcome these
challenges?
- How can small/community/non-profit operators help in promoting the
increase of Internet connectivity?
[1] https://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/groups.aspx
[2] https://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/default.aspx
[3] https://www.itu.int/md/S19-CL-C-0136/en
[4]
https://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/consultation-oct2019.aspx
[5]
https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/19/rclintpol13/c/S19-RCLINTPOL13-C-001…
--
Carlos Rey-Moreno, PhD
Local Access Policy and Regulation Coordinator
Association for Progressive Communications
https://www.apc.org/en/project/connecting-unconnected-supporting-community-…
Cel: +27 (0) 76 986 3633
Skype: carlos.reymoreno Twitter: Creym
I hear G20 are supporting CN. Does anyone know of any specifics regarding this policy please? Regards AmalI De Silva-Mitchell
Sent from my Galaxy Tab A (2016)-------- Original message --------From: Carlos <carlos(a)apc.org> Date: 27/05/2020 22:20 (GMT-08:00) To: dc3 <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net> Subject: [DC3] ITU Council seeking input on how Community Networks increase
Internet connectivity
Hi everyone,
After all the noise some of us have made at national, regional and
international Internet Governance spaces, it looks like the ITU Council
wants to hear directly “How can small/community/non-profit operators
help in promoting the increase of Internet connectivity?”
This poses an unique opportunity to showcase directly to the ITU Council
all the amazing work that most of you are doing, specially at times
where CNs are gaining more and more visibility to curve the digital
divide and rural marginalization that is now more and more apparent due
to the pandemic. And I say directly because this request is made through
one of the very few consultations the ITU open to all stakeholders: the
Open Public Consultation of the Council Working Group on International
Internet-related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet). I provide a bit of
background about it below for those who are interested.
The consultation is structured as a set of questions, one of them the
one included above, available in the following link:
https://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/consultation-sep2020.aspx
where you can also find important information and instructions on the
submission process.
I think it is strategically important that the ITU receives as many
contributions from each of us as possible highlighting the many
different ways community operators help in promoting the increase of
Internet connectivity. This will surely contribute in creating a more
policy and regulatory environment for community networks in each of your
countries.
I’ve copied some of the basic instructions to participate below.
Participating can be as easy as forwarding existing text you may have
written (the GISWatch country report for those of you who wrote it:
https://www.giswatch.org/community-networks) to the email address below.
Note that your online submission can be drafted in a UN language other
than English (these are Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish),
but you are encouraged (not obliged) to provide a translation in English
for the benefit of all readers.
At APC we are available to provide support to any of you wanting to make
a submission but struggling with the process. Please do not hesitate to
reach out to me directly.
Best,
carlos
== Basic instructions ==
You can include your responses to the questions into the online form in
the following link :
https://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/form-oct2019.aspx OR
send it to InternetPublicViews(a)itu.int including your Full Name, Title,
Country and Organization you are representing.
Your response will then be published on the ITU Website:
https://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/consultation-sep2020.aspx
Please include each submission also includes a short summary/abstract
(1-3 paragraphs). This will form part of the final summary document to
be published after the end of the physical open consultation meeting.
== Background ==
ITU Council Working Groups
There are different Working Groups set up to provide input to the ITU
Council in different matters. In the last last Council Group (February,
2020) meeting four appeared to be active [1]:
- Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy
Issues (CWG-Internet)
- Council working group on Child Online Protection (WG-CP)
- Council Working Group on WSIS (WG-WSIS)
- Council Working Group on Financial and Human Resources (CWG-FHR)
The participation in those working groups varies and some are for
Members States (MS) only, others allow for the participation of Sector
Members (too).
CWG-Internet is limited to Member States, but they hold an open
consultation to all stakeholders. This poses one of the few
opportunities for Civil Society Organizations that are not Sector
Members of the ITU to present their views to the ITU Council. In most
other ITU’s consultations, organizations such as the Association for
Progressive Communications and the Internet Society, both with Sector
Member status do their best to bring the voice of the Civil Society in
general, and of community networks in particular to these spaces.
In particular, CWG-Internet is tasked to identify, study and develop
matters related to international Internet-related public policy issues
and to disseminate its outputs throughout ITU's membership, as well as
to report annually to the Council on activities undertaken on these
subjects [2] [3].
The 13th Session of the ITU Council Working Group on International
Internet-related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet) decided on 20
September 2019 to hold an open consultation (online and physical) on
“International internet-related public policy issues on harnessing new
and emerging telecommunications/ICTs for sustainable development” where
some of our contributions provided already content in relation to
community connectivity [4].
In the 13th Session it was also decided that the next round of Open
Consultations (February 2020 – August 2020), on the topic of “Expanding
Internet Connectivity” with the questions below: [5]
Expanding Internet Connectivity
- What are the challenges and opportunities for expanding Internet
connectivity, particularly to remote and under-served areas? What are
the roles of governments and non-government actors in overcoming these
challenges?
- Are there particular challenges facing land-locked countries in
securing affordable Internet access? What can be done to overcome these
challenges?
- How can small/community/non-profit operators help in promoting the
increase of Internet connectivity?
[1] https://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/groups.aspx
[2] https://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/default.aspx
[3] https://www.itu.int/md/S19-CL-C-0136/en
[4]
https://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/consultation-oct2019.aspx
[5]
https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/19/rclintpol13/c/S19-RCLINTPOL13-C-001…
--
Carlos Rey-Moreno, PhD
Local Access Policy and Regulation Coordinator
Association for Progressive Communications
https://www.apc.org/en/project/connecting-unconnected-supporting-community-…
Cel: +27 (0) 76 986 3633
Skype: carlos.reymoreno Twitter: Creym
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
Dear all,
In case anyone else is interested in participating to the booklet on "The Value of Internet Openness at Times of Crises", please send me your drafts by 15 August.
FYI, many of the contributions that were originally submitted for the online symposium on Covid19 and Internet Openness are available on MediaNama https://www.medianama.com/tag/covid19-and-internet-openness/
A second batch will be added “in exclusivity” to the booklet to be released during the online IGF 2020
All the best
Luca
(apologies for cross-posting)
Good morning, I hope everyone is keeping well in this troubled times.
I'd like to share with you the 5th Webinar of the AUC series on Internet Resilience that will take place next Thursday 30th July from 11:00 to
12:30 UTC and that we have been curating from APC. It is about Complementary Access Models with a special focus on community networks,
with what I believe is an great and diverse line up. You can find all the information here: https://www.apc.org/en/node/36617/
And you can directly sign up here: https://isoc.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_29SOkv6YQquoXJES0sKlDw
Apologies for the late notice, I really hope it still arrives on time for those with an interest in attending. It will also be recorded in
case you have other plans at that time.
It would be very grateful if you can share it in your networks.
best,
carlos
--
Carlos Rey-Moreno, PhD
Co-lead Local Networks: Policy and Strategy
Association for Progressive Communications
https://www.apc.org/en/project/connecting-unconnected-supporting-community-…
Cel: +27 (0) 76 986 3633
Skype: carlos.reymoreno Twitter: Creym
Carlos,
It is particularly disturbing to see the condition to use mobile telephony
as an element for registering and authenticating users. It attempts to get
the State to accord undue importance to an industrial sector.
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy/>
6.Internet(a)gmail.com
twitter.com/shivaindia
On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 12:45 AM Carlos Afonso via Governance <
governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org> wrote:
> Dear people, as some of you probably know, the Brazilian Congress is
> discussing a crucial bill of law on fake news. A version of the bill has
> been approved by the Senate (where the proposal originated) and is now
> under discussion in the Chamber of Deputies. Below is a precise review of
> the situation, by the Brazilian chapter of the Internet Society).
>
> The text refers to the statement on the bill of law published by the
> Brazilian chapter, which can be read here in Portuguese and English:
>
>
> https://isoc.org.br/noticia/capitulos-da-isoc-apoiam-nota-tecnica-da-isoc-b…
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> =============================
>
> This is a brief report on the recent developments in the Brazilian
> Congress regarding the Bill on Fake News.
>
> Despite strong opposition from civil society organizations and tech
> companies, which asked for a postponing of the voting so that a more
> informed discussion could take place, the Bill has been voted and approved
> by the Senate on June 30. Voting result was 45 in favor, 32 against the
> Bill (1 abstention + the President), from a total of 89 senators.
>
> The Bill now goes to the House of Representatives, where it can be amended
> or even rejected. If amended, it must come back to the Senate for another
> round of discussion and voting. Forecast is that it might take up to 3
> months for the matter to return to the Senate. *But recent press coverage
> indicates that things might be expedited in the House in a response to
> Bolsonaro's announced willingness to veto some parts of the project that
> might affect "freedom of expression".* If finally approved by the Senate,
> it must be sanctioned by the President, who can interpose his veto to
> specific parts of the text. So we still have many opportunities to fight
> for a much better version of the Bill.
>
> Some important highlights on the version that has been approved, both
> positive and negative ones:
>
>
> - End-to-end encryption was recognized as legal. But traceability
> through "forwarding metadata" was kept, and this was the hardest fight
> so far. Several organizations are threatening to take the matter to the
> Supreme Court, because of the threat to privacy.
> - Facial recognition was not inserted as means to identify users (as
> promised by the Rapporteur the weekend before the vote). Providers are
> required to develop measures to "identify users" accused of "inauthentic
> behavior". Collection of phone numbers is not mandatory anymore. The
> Bill now states that "those apps that rely on phone numbers to function are
> obliged to suspend services to those phone lines that are cancelled by the
> operator".
> - A last-minute copyright rule was suppressed from the Bill in the
> final round of deliberations.
> - Data localization was suppressed from the Bill. A CLOUD Act-inspired rule
> was adopted to oblige companies to provide access from Brazil to data
> stored abroad.
> - Mandatory arbitration for Terms of Service was suppressed. The
> Intermediary Liability regime from the “Marco Civil” stands untouched. But
> complicated rules related to authorization for providers to remove content
> immediately remain, in cases of "harmful consequences, information security
> or user security, threats to the functionality of the service, hate speech,
> child pornography, support to suicide and self-mutilation", "defamation and
> slander" against politicians, trademarks, individuals and legal entities,
> as well as "content that lead to error or confusion, including through deep
> fakes" (which is very broad). There is a need to ensure that all those
> reached by the content are also reached by a 'right of reply' in cases of
> defamation and slander.
> - The issue of TCP/IP ports in CG-NATed connections still remains.
>
> We thank the support from other Chapters to the statements we published.
> They were collected here
> <https://isoc.org.br/noticia/capitulos-da-isoc-apoiam-nota-tecnica-da-isoc-b…>
> and also resonated on Twitter.
>
> for ISOC-BR
>
> Flavio Wagner, chair
>
>
> --
> Governance mailing list
> Governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org
> https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
Hi everyone,
I came across this short guide to designing off-grid power systems on
Reddit, and I figured it may be relevant. It's not extensive or detailed,
but I found it helpful:
https://traverseda.github.io/lessons/offgridPower.md.html
Best,
-Michael
Dear people, as some of you probably know, the Brazilian Congress is discussing a crucial bill of law on fake news. A version of the bill has been approved by the Senate (where the proposal originated) and is now under discussion in the Chamber of Deputies. Below is a precise review of the situation, by Flavio Wagner, chair of the Brazilian chapter of Internet Society.
Flavio refers to the statement on the bill of law published by the Brazilian chapter, which can be read here in Portuguese and English:
https://isoc.org.br/noticia/capitulos-da-isoc-apoiam-nota-tecnica-da-isoc-b…
fraternal regards
--c.a.
=============================
This is a brief report on the recent developments in the Brazilian Congress regarding the Bill on Fake News.
Despite strong opposition from civil society organizations and tech companies, which asked for a postponing of the voting so that a more informed discussion could take place, the Bill has been voted and approved by the Senate on June 30. Voting result was 45 in favor, 32 against the Bill (1 abstention + the President), from a total of 89 senators.
The Bill now goes to the House of Representatives, where it can be amended or even rejected. If amended, it must come back to the Senate for another round of discussion and voting. Forecast is that it might take up to 3 months for the matter to return to the Senate. *But recent press coverage indicates that things might be expedited in the House in a response to Bolsonaro's announced willingness to veto some parts of the project that might affect "freedom of expression"_._* If finally approved by the Senate, it must be sanctioned by the President, who can interpose his veto to specific parts of the text. So we still have many opportunities to fight for a much better version of the Bill.
Some important highlights on the version that has been approved, both positive and negative ones:
* End-to-end encryption was recognized as legal. But traceability through "forwarding metadata" was kept, and this was the hardest fight so far. Several organizations are threatening to take the matter to the Supreme Court, because of the threat to privacy.
* Facial recognition was not inserted as means to identify users(as promised by the Rapporteur the weekend before the vote). Providers are required to develop measures to "identify users" accused of "inauthentic behavior". Collection of phone numbersis not mandatory anymore. The Bill now states that "those apps that rely on phone numbers to function are obliged to suspend services to those phone lines that are cancelled by the operator".
* A last-minute copyright rule was suppressed from the Billin the final round of deliberations.
* Data localization was suppressed from the Bill. A CLOUD Act-inspired rule was adopted to oblige companies to provide access from Brazil to data stored abroad.
* Mandatory arbitration for Terms of Service was suppressed.**The Intermediary Liability regime from the “Marco Civil” stands untouched. But complicated rules related to authorization for providers to remove content immediately remain, in cases of "harmful consequences, information security or user security, threats to the functionality of the service, hate speech, child pornography, support to suicide and self-mutilation", "defamation and slander" against politicians, trademarks, individuals and legal entities, as well as "content that lead to error or confusion, including through deep fakes" (which is very broad). There is a need to ensure that all those reached by the content are also reached by a 'right of reply' in cases of defamation and slander.
* The issue of TCP/IP ports in CG-NATed connections still remains.
We thank the support from other Chapters to the statements we published. They were collected here <https://isoc.org.br/noticia/capitulos-da-isoc-apoiam-nota-tecnica-da-isoc-b…>and also resonated on Twitter.
Flávio