----- Original Message -----

From: Javed Naushahi

To: pakistanictpolicy@yahoogroups.com ; bytesforall_readers@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 6:43 PM

Subject: Re: [pakistanictpolicy] Five Year IT Policy Ready???

 

Ibtida e Ishq hay rota hay kia

Aagay aagay dekhiey hota hay kia

This is unfortunate!

Computer Society darfted the first IT Policy in 1999, that was adopted by Dr. Atta in MoITT, the documents was made comprehensive after input from +200 IT professionals those participated in formulation of IT Policy.

 

Action plan for Rs.4/billion was also there, its the implementation that was not done, only Rs. 400/m spent that was given to univerities. Focus shifted to Mobile telephony year 2001 onwards, and all forgot IT goals. $20/billion was spent in Telecom since year 2000, but IT share is less than 10%.

I am afraid due to mutual business interest of Netsol+AOS the document has been kept close to chest. It shall be a public document; discussed publically through a process under Member IT, MoITT. Ownership is with MoITT.

The key of each national IT policy is (electronic) Integration of economy; that include business & industry, Govt, trade, logistics, banking, citizen and other stakeholders. All other items revolves around it.

It is missing.

 

FBR is loosing RS. 1000/billion every year, and State Bank of Pakistan $10/billion every year in foreign exchange due to non-implementation of IT Policy.

 

Foreign exchange management was outrourced to Kalia; and indirct FBR Revenue collection to Agility (American company) represented by AOS in Pakistan due to non-implementation of action plan.

 

Netsol is also NASDAQ listed American company.

 

IT policy is sandwithed between 2 seths.

 

Tum baltao keh hum batlain kia.

 

Lets' join hands.

 

---

From: Shahzad Ahmad <shahzad@bytesforall.net>
To: pakistanictpolicy@yahoogroups.com; bytesforall_readers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, November 27, 2009 4:34:49 AM
Subject: Re: [pakistanictpolicy] Five Year IT Policy Ready???

Dear Fouad,

You are well aware that from the very start of the process by MoITT, how
well we were engaged with this but then were excluded by the Planning
Commission due to obvious reasons that Govt didn't want interventions by the
civil society.

We had been monitoring this at MoITT level and were informed that the
process is in limbo... BUT now suddenly the policy has been developed and
even ready to be announced.

Can not comment about the actual document until have seen it but just to
clarify that we were and we wanted to be engaged with policy development
process.

best wishes
Shahzad

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa@gmail.com>
To: <pakistanictpolicy@yahoogroups.com>;
<bytesforall_readers@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: [pakistanictpolicy] Five Year IT Policy Ready???


Hi Shahzad,

I have similar mixed feelings about this news. The NEWS officially
reported that:
Task force on ICT submits IT policy to planning commission
http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=92327

In response to this yesterday Rabia Gharid of CIO Magazine posted this
message:
http://ciopakistan.com/2009/11/task-force-on-ict-submits-it-policy-document-to-planning-commission-netsol-pr/
there was no reaction from the Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor nor the
other stakeholders in the original ICT Policy process that was
initiated last year but over taken by the Task Force on ICT by Netsol.

I was afraid of this and despite the fact that we continuously
contacted the govt, a policy devised only on one stakeholder's input,
from the private sector only is about to determine the future for the
rest of the stakeholders. This an unacceptable approach dropping out
all the multistakeholders that originally made up the composition of
the national IT Policy redraft multistakeholders group!



On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Shahzad Ahmad <shahzad@bytesforall.net>
wrote:
>
>
>
> Just saw this ticker on a news channel... can't remember which one that
> Five Year IT Policy is ready to be announced SOON. Anyone know about this?
> Which policy is this? The one being developed by Planning Commission or
> the one by MoITT?
>
> On a different note, as per Supreme Courts decision since PECO could not
> be passed through national assembly so tomorrow it will not be effective
> anymore. Am I right to understand this?
>
> best wishes
> Shahzad
>
>
>


--
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


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

Yahoo! Groups Links





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

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pakistanictpolicy/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pakistanictpolicy/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    pakistanictpolicy-digest@yahoogroups.com
    pakistanictpolicy-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    pakistanictpolicy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

According to the initial information we have on this from last year and this:

1. Salim Ghauri was the Chairman of the Task Force appointed without
the mutual consent of the multistakeholders and participants of the
first and actual National IT Policy Redraft under NIDU and Pakistan
Software Export Board and Ministry of IT where Mr. Ghauri was not
present at all. We the stakeholders of the national consultation were
not informed of Mr. Ghauri's involvement by the govt nor involved
within Mr. Ghauri's involvement.

2. The working groups have been meeting at NetSol Village in Lahore
headed by Salim Ghauri, Chairman of this Task Force.Thus most of the
drafting activity took place within a private corporate concern. None
of the activity took place under the Ministry of IT Premises which is
a key concern that national policy making now happens in private
sector companies? What about transparency of the process of policy
making?

3. Multistakeholder representation from these meetings was discouraged
and more private sector involved including people of  companies like
Aezaz from Systems Ltd and Sajjad Kirmani (NetSol) and it was also
reported that there were more people in the meeting from NetSol than
from the rest of the stakeholders.

4. It was also informed that major players were absent from certain
groups (.pk TLD missing from the e-security work group, pakistan ICT
policy monitor, bytesforall, telecom grid, pakistan research grid
missing representing the civic society).

5. Access by anyone willing to participate and be allowed to join
through open enrollment on the web was denied.

6. Certain segments were totally ignored, for example, the free and
open source community was not part of any working group.

7. The Civil Society and media in general were excluded form all the
working groups.

8. There was no review period for the public before anything was published.

9. Mr. Ghauri had originally declined the request for public
participation because: He declined open invitation to anyone
interested because that slows down the process!

10. Chairmen of working groups were considered as full authority and
no one could participate without their consents.

11. Observation: Why is it that a national level task force was headed
by one company? It ought to be someone industry neutral or if it has
to be industry then it ought to be a trade body like P@SHA.

12. The work of the working groups was supposed to be completed by end
of 2008. The public was kept out of the process for over a year now.

This is the reality of the situation.



On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Javed Naushahi <jnaushahi@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ibtida e Ishq hay rota hay kia
>
> Aagay aagay dekhiey hota hay kia
>
>
>
> This is unfortunate!
>
>
>
> Computer Society darfted the first IT Policy in 1999, that was adopted by Dr.
Atta in MoITT, the documents was made comprehensive after input from +200 IT
professionals those participated in formulation of IT Policy.
>
>
>
> Action plan for Rs.4/billion was also there, its the implementation that was
not done, only Rs. 400/m spent that was given to univerities. Focus shifted to
Mobile telephony year 2001 onwards, and all forgot IT goals. $20/billion was
spent in Telecom since year 2000, but IT share is less than 10%.
>
>
>
>
>
> I am afraid due to mutual business interest of Netsol+AOS the document has
been kept close to chest. It shall be a public document; discussed publically
through a process under Member IT, MoITT. Ownership is with MoITT.
>
>
>
> The key of each national IT policy is (electronic) Integration of economy;
that include business & industry, Govt, trade, logistics, banking, citizen and
other stakeholders. All other items revolves around it.
>
>
>
> It is missing.
>
>
> FBR is loosing RS. 1000/billion every year, and State Bank of Pakistan
$10/billion every year in foreign exchange due to non-implementation of IT
Policy.
>
> Foreign exchange management was outrourced to Kalia; and indirct FBR Revenue
collection to Agility (American company) represented by AOS in Pakistan due to
non-implementation of action plan.
>
> Netsol is also NASDAQ listed American company.
>
> IT policy is sandwithed between 2 seths.
>
> Tum baltao keh hum batlain kia.
>
> Lets' join hands.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Shahzad Ahmad <shahzad@...>
> To: pakistanictpolicy@yahoogroups.com; bytesforall_readers@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, November 27, 2009 4:34:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [pakistanictpolicy] Five Year IT Policy Ready???
>
> Dear Fouad,
>
> You are well aware that from the very start of the process by MoITT, how
> well we were engaged with this but then were excluded by the Planning
> Commission due to obvious reasons that Govt didn't want interventions by the
> civil society.
>
> We had been monitoring this at MoITT level and were informed that the
> process is in limbo... BUT now suddenly the policy has been developed and
> even ready to be announced.
>
> Can not comment about the actual document until have seen it but just to
> clarify that we were and we wanted to be engaged with policy development
> process.
>
> best wishes
> Shahzad
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa@...>
> To: <pakistanictpolicy@yahoogroups.com>;
> <bytesforall_readers@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 5:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [pakistanictpolicy] Five Year IT Policy Ready???
>
>
> Hi Shahzad,
>
> I have similar mixed feelings about this news. The NEWS officially
> reported that:
> Task force on ICT submits IT policy to planning commission
> http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=92327
>
> In response to this yesterday Rabia Gharid of CIO Magazine posted this
> message:
>
http://ciopakistan.com/2009/11/task-force-on-ict-submits-it-policy-document-to-p\
lanning-commission-netsol-pr/
> there was no reaction from the Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor nor the
> other stakeholders in the original ICT Policy process that was
> initiated last year but over taken by the Task Force on ICT by Netsol.
>
> I was afraid of this and despite the fact that we continuously
> contacted the govt, a policy devised only on one stakeholder's input,
> from the private sector only is about to determine the future for the
> rest of the stakeholders. This an unacceptable approach dropping out
> all the multistakeholders that originally made up the composition of
> the national IT Policy redraft multistakeholders group!
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Shahzad Ahmad <shahzad@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Just saw this ticker on a news channel... can't remember which one that
> > Five Year IT Policy is ready to be announced SOON. Anyone know about this?
> > Which policy is this? The one being developed by Planning Commission or
> > the one by MoITT?
> >
> > On a different note, as per Supreme Courts decision since PECO could not
> > be passed through national assembly so tomorrow it will not be effective
> > anymore. Am I right to understand this?
> >
> > best wishes
> > Shahzad
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>


--
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

The sudden action on this is what I am referring to. I was contacted
when I was in Malaysia in December 2008 last year by our network
stakeholders that two meetings had taken place under the umbrella of
NetSol and our representatives from the various technology
associations were in attendance during those meetings and despite
their protests to the structure and working of the group, this report
forwarded by the self-proclaimed IT Task Force is well informed
amongst all the participants of those meetings.

I would like to share the following message Imran Zia of P@SHA at that
early stage:

Originally from Imran Zia to Mr. Ghauri/IT Task Force:

Assalam-o-Alikum,

I am writing to you on behalf of P@SHA (Pakistan Software Houses
Association for IT & ITES). We weren't in the previous kick-off
meeting due to our travel schedule conflicts but we have gone through
the meeting minutes and goals and objectives shared with the
participants in the last meeting. We have significant feedback to
share. And I would like to take a few moments to share what we have to
contribute to this task force and our comments on progress so far.

Establishing this task force to make recommendations to the Govt. of
Pakistan is absolutely a fantastic idea. Previously in September the
MoITT had organized a seminar in Lahore to start work on a similar
initiative. There was wide participation from the industry at large,
civic society, open software organizations in Pakistan, hardware
providers, software companies of all sizes and many others. We had a
very healthy debate on what needed to be done and we were very
encouraged that the process for formulating the next ICT policy in
Pakistan had become an all inclusive process.

On that note, here are a few observations.

1. The current structure of working groups is a good start but these
groups are incomplete in our humble opinion. Some groups have
significant and most important players missing. For example the
Working Group on Quality of Education Policy ought to have P@SHA in
it. We represent a segment that is one of the largest consumers of CS
and engineering graduates in the country. We have been going to
Universities on our own to share our views and our needs. P@SHA did a
seminar at FAST Lahore earlier in the year to discuss just that. The
working group on IT Security and E-commerce as well as
Telecommunication and Network Infrastructure lacks the participation
of .pk TLD.

Ladies and Gentlemen we have missed significant players in the
formation of these working groups. On my own count, P@SHA needs to be
in 5 or 6 of these working groups and it is only mentioned in one. In
fact P@SHA should be one of the key stakeholders in the formation of
the Policty framework, not just one of the participants. The open
source community is very active in Pakistan and I don’t see us
extending a hand to them for participation. There is a group called
the Pakistan ICT Policy group set up by Bytes4All which has all
stakeholders as participants. They should be part of the taskforce as
should media organizations – mainstream as well as new media - as much
of the policy that is developed will affect all of them. We will also
need the media to obtain feedback from those who are not part of the
initial process, to create awareness and to help spread the word.

There are certain government entities that ought to be invited here
too. National ICT R&D Fund for example has to be included.

I think we need to do more to bring in all the relevant players here.

My second point is regarding the structure of working groups. They
need to be open to everyone to participate. In my industry, we have a
very healthy and diverse set of companies. I don’t find these
companies represented here. How about product development focused
companies, in hardware, in software, in emerging technologies. How
about companies of varying sizes? If the size of the companies is the
determining factor in being able to participate, I am sorry to say the
policy apparatus will be dysfunctional and not representative of the
industry. Setting up a reasonable deadline (with consultation of
participants) for completion of policy making task is important but
not to the exclusion of most important players in certain working
groups.
We absolutely need a serious debate on formation of these groups. I
strongly recommend that these be open to everyone who wants to join.
Why not publish this initiative on the Internet, advertise it and have
people sign up on the Internet.

2. Building on the last point, I would also encourage that we use ICT
to encourage participation in the process. Why not have a call-in
number to listen to what is happening here. Why not broadcast the
working of this committee on the Internet. This is a connected world
my colleagues. We ought to demonstrate that we are drinking our own
Kool-Aid if I can be facetious here. More brains at work, the more
ideas will be generated.

3. We need to ponder on the policy making process here. While a lot of
good ideas were discussed in the last meeting, a discussion needs to
take place on setting guidelines for consensus building, conflict
resolution and bringing in more participation. We need to be good
Project Managers. Last night I said no to a client on a decent sized
work I could have got. Why? Because our analysis showed that the
deadlines requested by the project owner were simply ridiculous. We
need to put the horse before the cart. Discuss what needs to be done,
what needs to be in place, what tools and what input we need from all
stakeholders and how we incorporate it. How we resolves conflicts and
differences of opinion in working groups. Once we have the process
nailed down, then we go very very aggressively on a time line. We are
no slackers here and everyone who has been in the ICT business knows
the working hours and commitment we demonstrate to our profession. We
will give it our all once we have a solid framework in place. That is
the right way to do it.

4. At the tail end of the policy making process, we ought to have an
open to public form as well as put the initial version of final
recommendations on the Internet and open it for feedback from all
quarters. Follow that with the Working Groups meeting again to
incorporate this feedback into the recommendations. We are back to
democracy aren’t we so let do the same for the policy making process
of this task force.

I am hoping that the authorities arranging this task force and Working
Groups will take my recommendations of opening up the process to a
wider set of stakeholders with an open heart.
If the wider participation of the ICT sector and the civil society is
considered problematic for the workings of this task force, P@SHA
would seriously doubt the value of its participation in the process.
After all we have a fiduciary responsibility to our member companies
and society at large.

Thank You.

Now what can we say?




On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Shahzad Ahmad <shahzad@...> wrote:
> Dear Fouad,
>
> You are well aware that from the very start of the process by MoITT, how
> well we were engaged with this but then were excluded by the Planning
> Commission due to obvious reasons that Govt didn't want interventions by the
> civil society.
>
> We had been monitoring this at MoITT level and were informed that the
> process is in limbo... BUT now suddenly the policy has been developed and
> even ready to be announced.
>
> Can not comment about the actual document until have seen it but just to
> clarify that we were and we wanted to be engaged with policy development
> process.
>
> best wishes
> Shahzad
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa@...>
> To: <pakistanictpolicy@yahoogroups.com>;
> <bytesforall_readers@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 5:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [pakistanictpolicy] Five Year IT Policy Ready???
>
>
> Hi Shahzad,
>
> I have similar mixed feelings about this news. The NEWS officially
> reported that:
> Task force on ICT submits IT policy to planning commission
> http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=92327
>
> In response to this yesterday Rabia Gharid of CIO Magazine posted this
> message:
>
http://ciopakistan.com/2009/11/task-force-on-ict-submits-it-policy-document-to-p\
lanning-commission-netsol-pr/
> there was no reaction from the Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor nor the
> other stakeholders in the original ICT Policy process that was
> initiated last year but over taken by the Task Force on ICT by Netsol.
>
> I was afraid of this and despite the fact that we continuously
> contacted the govt, a policy devised only on one stakeholder's input,
> from the private sector only is about to determine the future for the
> rest of the stakeholders. This an unacceptable approach dropping out
> all the multistakeholders that originally made up the composition of
> the national IT Policy redraft multistakeholders group!
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Shahzad Ahmad <shahzad@...>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Just saw this ticker on a news channel... can't remember which one that
>> Five Year IT Policy is ready to be announced SOON. Anyone know about this?
>> Which policy is this? The one being developed by Planning Commission or
>> the one by MoITT?
>>
>> On a different note, as per Supreme Courts decision since PECO could not
>> be passed through national assembly so tomorrow it will not be effective
>> anymore. Am I right to understand this?
>>
>> best wishes
>> Shahzad
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>



--
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

Dear Fouad,

You are well aware that from the very start of the process by MoITT, how
well we were engaged with this but then were excluded by the Planning
Commission due to obvious reasons that Govt didn't want interventions by the
civil society.

We had been monitoring this at MoITT level and were informed that the
process is in limbo... BUT now suddenly the policy has been developed and
even ready to be announced.

Can not comment about the actual document until have seen it but just to
clarify that we were and we wanted to be engaged with policy development
process.

best wishes
Shahzad

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa@...>
To: <pakistanictpolicy@yahoogroups.com>;
<bytesforall_readers@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: [pakistanictpolicy] Five Year IT Policy Ready???


Hi Shahzad,

I have similar mixed feelings about this news. The NEWS officially
reported that:
Task force on ICT submits IT policy to planning commission
http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=92327

In response to this yesterday Rabia Gharid of CIO Magazine posted this
message:
http://ciopakistan.com/2009/11/task-force-on-ict-submits-it-policy-document-to-p\
lanning-commission-netsol-pr/
there was no reaction from the Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor nor the
other stakeholders in the original ICT Policy process that was
initiated last year but over taken by the Task Force on ICT by Netsol.

I was afraid of this and despite the fact that we continuously
contacted the govt, a policy devised only on one stakeholder's input,
from the private sector only is about to determine the future for the
rest of the stakeholders. This an unacceptable approach dropping out
all the multistakeholders that originally made up the composition of
the national IT Policy redraft multistakeholders group!



On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Shahzad Ahmad <shahzad@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> Just saw this ticker on a news channel... can't remember which one that
> Five Year IT Policy is ready to be announced SOON. Anyone know about this?
> Which policy is this? The one being developed by Planning Commission or
> the one by MoITT?
>
> On a different note, as per Supreme Courts decision since PECO could not
> be passed through national assembly so tomorrow it will not be effective
> anymore. Am I right to understand this?
>
> best wishes
> Shahzad
>
>
>


--
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


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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hi Shahzad,

I have similar mixed feelings about this news. The NEWS officially
reported that:
Task force on ICT submits IT policy to planning commission
http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=92327

In response to this yesterday Rabia Gharid of CIO Magazine posted this message:
http://ciopakistan.com/2009/11/task-force-on-ict-submits-it-policy-document-to-p\
lanning-commission-netsol-pr/
there was no reaction from the Pakistan ICT Policy Monitor nor the
other stakeholders in the original ICT Policy process that was
initiated last year but over taken by the Task Force on ICT by Netsol.

I was afraid of this and despite the fact that we continuously
contacted the govt, a policy devised only on one stakeholder's input,
from the private sector only is about to determine the future for the
rest of the stakeholders. This an unacceptable approach dropping out
all the multistakeholders that originally made up the composition of
the national IT Policy redraft multistakeholders group!



On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Shahzad Ahmad <shahzad@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Just saw this ticker on a news channel... can't remember which one that Five
Year IT Policy is ready to be announced SOON. Anyone know about this? Which
policy is this? The one being developed by Planning Commission or the one by
MoITT?
>
> On a different note, as per Supreme Courts decision since PECO could not be
passed through national assembly so tomorrow it will not be effective anymore.
Am I right to understand this?
>
> best wishes
> Shahzad
>
>
>


--
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

According to a recent report by Business Recorder Pakistan, the Pakistani
Telecom sector has depicted a remarkable 20 percent growth. Source:
http://www.brecorder.com/index.php?id=988885&currPageNo=1&query=&search=&term=&s\
upDate

The following are the important highlights fiscal year 2008-09 (July 2008 - 
June 2009):
(Thanking Telecompk source
http://telecompk.net/2009/11/22/pta-telecom-industry-pakistan-2008-09/)

You may also be interested in viewing this analysis presented earlier this year:
tate of the Telecom Industry of Pakistan Final
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16255055/State-of-the-Telecom-Industry-of-Pakistan-Fin\
al


Highlights
----------

- Telecom sector revenue grew by 20 percent and generated Rs 327.8 billion as
revenue

- Telecom sector paid Rs 112 billion as tax

- Tele-density (percentage of mobile users) of Pakistan stood at 62 percent
showing a growth rate of 5.4 percent.

- Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) stood at 815 million dollar

- Total investments in the sector stood at 1.7 billion dollar

- Telecom imports also grew by 20 percent and reached 1.6 billion dollar


Mobile Sector
-------------

- The mobile penetration reached 58.2 percent of the total population

- Total mobile subscribers reached 94.3 million (as of September end the number
is 95.9 million) with more than 90 percent of the country having access to
mobile services

-Prepaid subscription is 98 percent, whereas only 2 percent subscribers are
post-paid

- Revenue: cellular revenues grew by 16 percent and stood at Rs 212 billion at
the end of 2008-09
The mobile investments dropped by 48 percent and reached 1.2 billion dollar in
the year under review


LL and WLL
----------

- Basic services (LL. WLL & LDI) showed a healthy revenue growth rate of 26
percent contributing Rs 113 billion to the sector revenue which is around 34
percent of the total telecom sector revenue

- With the declining trend in fixed line tele-density reaching 2.2 percent with
a total of 3.5 million fixed-line subscribers in the country

- Wireless local loop (WLL) tele-density stands at 1.6 percent with 2.65 million
subscribers across Pakistan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Karen Higgs" <khiggs@...>

=======================================================================
APC's assessment of the fourth Internet Governance Forum, Sharm
El-Sheikh, 15-18 November 2009

November 26 2009, Johannesburg, South Africa -- The Association for
Progressive Communications, the world's oldest online network of civil
society organisations working on ICTs and social justice, recognises the
importance of the Internet Governance Forum as a unique opportunity to
promote debate and dialogue between all stakeholders, and supports its
continuation. Here we assess the fourth forum concluded on 18 November
2009 and make a number of recommendations moving forward.

Increased recognition of the importance of human rights in internet
governance

Human rights were far more prominent in this year's IGF as reflected in
workshops and main sessions. Most significant was the consensus among
panelists from all stakeholder groups in the main session on 'Security,
Openness and Privacy' that privacy and security are not to be traded off
against one another or seen as opposing priorities which need to be
balanced. Both are equally important.

Workshops focusing on social media, freedom of expression, freedom of
information and sexuality rights all concluded that technical, legal and
other interventions aiming to regulate use of the internet should be
based firmly on internationally recognised human rights instruments, and
leave people with ultimate control over their own being, actions,
interactions, expressions and data online.

Broad consensus was reached that the development of the internet should
take into account existing human rights frameworks (e.g. the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights) that can help  ensure the enhancement of
individual and collective rights related with online communications.
Many agreed that the IGF should identify  concrete mechanisms to defend,
ensure and uphold internet rights in practice and contribute to
challenges expressed at national and international levels for the
development of regulations and/or guidelines that support the
application of already agreed upon rights frameworks.

At the content regulation and sexuality rights workshop organised by the
APC women's programme (APC WNSP) and the Alternative Law Forum workshop
participants argued that user education intended to address potential
harm in an increasingly networked world must integrate a positive sexual
rights approach to adequately respond to both the positive and negative
potential of the internet, especially in relation to children.
Over-emphasis of the “dangers” of the internet could prejudice its
comprehensive use by all users, young and old. As recommended by Wieke
Vink from the Youth Coalition on Sexual and Sexual Reproductive Health
Rights, "What we could do – what we should do, is think creatively about
age-appropriate access to pornography and about developing content which
is more gender-just and open, and about encouraging people to protect
their sexual health, e.g. by using condoms – both in the online and
offline world."

APC is with the many civil society groups who felt that a fresh attempt
should be made to propose that human rights be one of the main themes in
the fifth IGF to be held in Lithuania in 2010.
Social networking, media and privacy rights
'Social media' was the subject of the 'emerging issues' final session
and various workshops which directed attention to  the concerns of
individual users.  These concerns included privacy rights, the right to
anonymity online, the 'right to delete and forget', the impact of data
being used for purposes other than which the user intended, data being
collected without the user's knowledge, and users not knowing what
others know about them .

APC is extremely pleased that this area is gaining prominence in the
IGF. The power of the internet today is felt through user-generated
content, content sharing, and the use of social networking tools in
mobilising people against oppression and repression. It is vital that
policy and regulation enable this while also protecting individuals
against abuse.

An interesting thread in these discussions was the role of
user-education. Some people felt that educating children from a very
early age to be aware of their rights to privacy and safe internet use
should become priority. Others felt that children and young people are
increasingly using the internet on their own terms, and that efforts to
guide them are very unlikely to be successful.

APC believes that privacy advocates need to find a way to articulate
their concerns in a way that makes sense to internet users, and as an
internet community we should consider establishing norms that can be
used to better inform users when they register for social networking
sites. In the use of social networking services, users must be able to
retain control over their data and privacy, and as far as possible, to
develop both technical and legal instruments that enables this in the
simplest way. This requires the owners and operators of social
networking sites to be transparent and accountable to their users what
their privacy policies are and enable users to have control. It was
evident that research and dialogue on policy and regulation and the
behaviour of users and commercial entities is needed and the IGF is the
ideal space for continuing this exploration.

Access1

At the first three IGFs 'access' was a priority issue for APC. We
published an issue paper in 20082 on the consensus that was reached with
regard to the roles of different stakeholders (government, civil
society, business, etc.) and the importance of coherence between ICT and
development policies and public interest regulation. For IGF4, the
challenge was to build on this consensus and to showcase and share
innovative practices by operators and regulators that have successfully
advanced people's access to the internet. Unfortunately, the opportunity
to share workable strategies was not maximised and the proposal
expressed in the 2008 IGF stocktaking session to have smaller roundtable
discussions on issues where there is consensus was dropped, and the
potential for groundbreaking engagement was lost.

A major concern for APC was an observation that many actors felt that
extensive mobile penetration has resolved the access challenge. Many
parts of the world still need large scale deployment of optic fibre to
facilitate affordable access for people for whom last mile or last metre
connectivity is or will be wireless. In this light we emphasised the
importance of broadband backbone, internationally, regionally and
nationally.

Very few people can - as yet - speak coherently about mobile broadband.
Where mobile devices were spoken of, it was mainly in relation to smart
phones and their facility for social networking. Mobile internet is
immensely powerful and will resolve access issues for billions of
individual users, particularly if 'budget telecom' models are used that
make cheap 'pay as you use' internet access available. National
broadband strategies that set out the key players and their
responsibilities as well as targets for broadband roll-out that will
benefit the majority of our populations are also needed.

Cost and affordability remains at the centre of the access challenge.
Regulators are still not effectively preventing practices by powerful
operators such as inflated pricing and anti-competitive behaviour. Yet,
the debate around curtailing monopolies over international gateways and
extortionate interconnection fees - especially in Africa and Latin
America - is lacking in the IGF. This is an issue area where dialogue
and greater transparency is sorely needed and the IGF is an ideal space
for kick-starting such discussions.

These concerns were only partially addressed during this IGF, however,
access is now well established as a critical component of the governance
of the internet. The successful promotion of broadband strategies that
address the above issues are critical for the next stage of the
internet's evolution as a space for greater exchange of information,
education  and culture and as a platform for user-generated content and
participatory democracy.

A Development Agenda for the IGF

Development including measuring the impact of sustainable development,
was highlighted in many workshops and in the main session on internet
governance in the light of the WSIS principles. There was a strong
feeling that with the exception of 'access', development issues have not
received adequate attention in the IGF.

Developing country participation was noticeably low and increasing it
has to be a priority for the next IGF. The responsibility lies not just
with the secretariat and workshop organisers, but with developing
country stakeholders themselves. However, the issue of financial
resources will have to be addressed, particularly to support
participation from civil society, researchers, and small to medium
businesses in developing countries.

One way in which this can be done is to make support available for
speakers and session moderators from developing countries. During the
IGF it was very noticeable that more questions and comments were
received from the floor when session chairs, moderators and speakers
were from developing countries.

Articulating a  development agenda in internet governance would help the
IGF address a range of issues such as capacity building, developing
country participation in internet governance and in the IGF, and
substantive policy issues of concern to developing country stakeholders.

Regional perspectives

National and regional IGFs continue to grow from strength to strength
and is a very clear indicator of the impact of the IGF. A panel on
regional perspectives was included in this year's agenda. We feel these
spaces have an important role to play in linking national, regional and
global dimensions of internet governance within the IGF as a complex
policy system. The IGF should find ways to reflect regional inputs in
the global IGF agenda in a more systematic way. In addition, the
regional and national processes have to be strengthened in their own
right and the nature and character of those processes should be defined
by the regional, national and local actors.

One concern that APC has is that in the absence of more widespread
regional IGFs taking place the issues of certain regions are not being
addressed at the IGF. We urge the participants from regions such as
Central Asia, island states and Southern Africa where regional events
are not currently being convened to endeavour to do so in the next year.

Critical internet resources (CIR)

The CIR main session discussed the new Affirmation of Commitments (AoC)3
between the US government and ICANN and was seen as an important step
forward in internet governance. The AoC has generated a new mood within
the IGF in which the old stand-off regarding US control of ICANN is no
longer a central issue. Stakeholders are visibly more relaxed about
engaging on the critical issues in managing the internet. Nevertheless,
the continued US control over the root zone file remains contentious and
APC proposed  that responsibility for the root zone file be transferred
to ICANN as soon as possible.4

Application of the WSIS Principles: Towards a code of good practice on
access to information, transparency and participation5

This joint initiative between the Council of Europe, the UNECE and APC
took further steps forward in consulting stakeholders on a draft code of
good practice which was well received and a number of internet
governance institutions participated in reviewing the code and expressed
willingness to make use of the code to assess their processes as soon as
the next iteration becomes available6.

The draft document recommends
that:
The development and administration of Internet policy and standards
should be open, transparent and inclusive
Organisations active on Internet governance should disseminate
information about their work in diverse languages
Opportunities to participate in the work of Internet governance entities
should be widely publicised
Internet governance entities should actively foster participation in
their work by all those who are affected by the decisions they make, and
independently of their physical location and financial resources
All information which is relevant to Internet governance and
decision-making should be publically available
Organisations should regularly review their policy and practice with
regard to information, participation and decision making processes.

The Code of Good Practice is an instrument that can play a role in the
practicial implementation of the WSIS principles of multilateralism,
transparency, democracy and multi-stakeholder participation in internet
governance. APC's Anriette Esterhuysen co-moderated the main session on
Internet Governance in the light of the WSIS principles7. The session
explored the extent to which the IGF had fulfilled its mandate in
paragraph 72.i of the Tunis Agenda on the Information Society to
'promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
principles in Internet governance processes'. In this session it became
apparent that the WSIS principles have certain lacunae when it comes to
promoting human rights and development in internet governance.

Participation

The lack of sufficient developing country participation was already
mentioned above. Also important is the participation of women. If the
IGF is to be a real multi-stakeholder platform, then serious attention
needs to be paid to the still very visible gender gap at all levels of
access and participation to this forum, including agenda shaping,
representation and diversity within each stakeholder groups.

Of a positive note was the participation of young people and more
effective remote participation. There appeared to be distinct drop in
the average age of IGF participants this year. This is a great
achievement and is particularly important as we address emerging issues
such as the public policy challenges posed by social networking.

Nevertheless, many of the workshops and main sessions that addressed
issues related to the youth, did not have young people as speakers.
Remote participation, while still challenging at times, worked far
better than in previous IGFs. We want to commend all who worked to make
this happen and thank the remote participants for the effort they made
to join.

Worrying events at the 2009 IGF

ONI poster incident

On the first day of the IGF, at a lunch-time event organised by the Open
Net Initiative, a poster promoting a new book called "Access Controlled"
was removed by security personnel on the grounds that contained a
sentence that violated UN policy. The sentence in question read “The
first generation of Internet controls consisted largely of building
firewalls at key Internet gateways; China’s famous “Great Firewall of
China” is one of the first national Internet filtering systems.”
Apparently, the motivation of the United Nations Security office actions
was that the poster displeased Chinese government officials attending
the IGF. APC understands that the IGF has to adhere to UN protocols and
policies. However, it is unfortunate that some governments, by virtue of
their power and position, use protocols to stifle debate and discussion
on issues relevant to internet governance, the very objective of the IGF.

Host Country Honorary Session

On the final day of the IGF,  Mrs Suzanne Mubarak, the wife of the
president of Egypt, hosted a session. The event and resulting shifts in
the programme was only made known to workshop and main session
organisers two days before the Forum commenced. The insertion of an
unscheduled event on the last day of the Forum by the host-country
disrupted the work of the Forum. The intense security required, which
included participants being prohibited from bringing their mobile phones
and cameras into the venue, undermined  the atmosphere of open and
constructive engagement among stake-holders which is a key attribute of
the IGF.  It marred the otherwise exemplary efforts of the Egyptian
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology in hosting the IGF.

The future of the IGF

APC made a statement to support the continuation of the IGF beyond the
expiry of its five-year mandate in 2010 in the “taking stock session”8.
http://www.apc.org/en/node/9601 We highlighted the value of national and
regional IGFs and proposed that thematic IGFs be adopted as a way of
exploring issues in more depth in between the annual meetings.

Conclusion and recommendations

The fourth IGF was a little cautious with regard to making any new
innovations or including new controversial subjects for discussion.
This caution can be partly attributed to the IGF review process and a
desire not to offend any constituency when the IGF’s future is at stake.
The US government’s Affirmation of Commitments which gives ICANN greater
independence from US control also took the sting out of the contentious
debates of the past IGFs on critical internet resources management and
enhanced cooperation on public policy principles affecting such
management. The issue of linguistic diversity has been emerging strongly
albeit primarily  through the focus on Internationalised Domain Names).

The consensus on privacy and security being equally important aspects of
internet governance rather than critical issues that need to be balanced
or traded off against one another is significant and paves the way for
the discussion of a global privacy standard. Perhaps these are signs of
maturity – that the IGF has reached a certain equilibrium and acceptance
of itself as an open space for constructive, forward-looking policy
dialogue.

Going forward APC would like to recommend the following:

1. Regional and national IGFs

APC as a co-convenor of the Latin American and Caribbean and East
African IGFs supports the idea of regional IGFs that can serve the
purpose of defining regional priorities and enabling greater
participation from multiple stakeholders at regional level. We believe
that national IGFs are a powerful mechanism for learning, problem
solving, collective action and building partnership among different
stakeholders at national level. We can commit to participating in
convening regional IGFs in Southern Africa, Southern Europe and South
East Asia - all regions which we feel are not adequately participating
in the global IGF.

2. Thematic IGFs

To address the need  for more in-depth discussion of certain issues in a
maturing IGF APC recommends the introduction of thematic IGFs between
global IGFs. Thematic IGFs can provide forums for individuals with the
necessary expertise from different stakeholder groups to engage specific
issues in greater depth and then communicate the outcomes of their
discussions to the internet community at large, or to specific institutions.

Issues which require more in-depth multi-stakeholder engagement that
emerged at the 2009 IGF include the development of global privacy
standards, user literacy and education, the future of the root zone
file, and a Development Agenda on internet governance.

3. Main sessions on development and on human rights

As stated above we believe that a main session on human rights in
internet governance and a development agenda for internet governance
should be included in the next IGF. We propose that a draft outline of
issues that can form a development agenda in the IGF be developed and
discussed just before the February 2010 open consultation. It can then
be presented for feedback at regional IGFs.

4. Effective resourcing of the IGF secretariat

Over the years of its existence the IGF has developed an adaptive
ecosystem in which all stakeholders can interact on the basis of
equality of input. This is an important dimension which depends on the
adroit and careful shepherding of the IGF performed by the IGF
secretariat under the effective and diplomatic leadership of Nitin Desai
and Markus Kummer. The vital role of the IGF secretariat in its current
form to the success of the IGF should not be under-estimated. We have
heard a lot of corridor talk that the status of the secretariat should
be changed in some way and located more firmly in the UN system. We feel
that the IGF should continue to operate under the auspices of the UN
while continually aiming to enhance its multi-stakeholder nature. If the
IGF is to continue to succeed and make further strides in fulfilling its
mandate, the secretariat needs to be properly resourced.

Some stakeholders think that those countries who provide financial
support to the IGF have more say over its annual programme as a
consequence of their funding of the IGF secretariat. We have not found
this assertion to be true. The IGF secretariat needs independence from
any form of undue influence. We propose that a terms of reference for
donations could be put in place to protect the IGF secretariat’s
independence. In addition, there should be a travel fund for speakers
from developing countries that is accessible and transparently managed
by a multi-stakeholder group, in order to prevent a single stakeholder
exerting undue influence over the selection of funded participants in
the IGF.

5. Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group meetings and open consultations

We propose that the open consultation be extended to two days and the
MAG meeting reduced to one day. This would maximise the openness of the
process by which input is received and discussed.

6. Innovative and creative meeting formats

We recommend that the IGF continue to develop innovative and creative
meeting formats. The suggestions made earlier in the year at the open
consultations on the IGF programme to have round-table discussions aimed
at building consensus on issues like accessibility, access or child
protection were not taken forward. The super sessions were a step
forward and because they were three hours long it was easier for
faciltators to involve remote participants in the workshops. We feel
that a fresh attempt should be made at IGF5 to experiment with
round-table discussions.

7. Learning from experience in taking stock and going forward

We encourage the secretariat and the hosts of the first four IGFs,
Greece, Brazil, India and Egypt to convene to share lessons learned from
hosting the IGFs and to submit a report to the UN Secretary General and
the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) as part
of the input into the continuation of the IGF.

Finally, we would like to thank all who contributed to the fourth IGF:
the government of Egypt, the IGF secretariat, the Multi-Stakeholder
Advisory Group, dynamic coalitions and workshop organisers, those who
provided financial support, speakers and moderators, the Egyptian
volunteers who provided technical and logistical support, and all the
IGF participants who help make this such a unique event.

Issue: Example of Corporate Internet Authoritarianism - Amazon does
not allow Pakistan to download Kindle Software for PC's

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

I would like to share an example of how Corporate Internet
Authoritarianism may affect us from the developing world that I
recently encountered. The case presented is that Amazon.com's Kindle,
an e-book reader device available for - Amazon does not allow Pakistan
to download Kindle Software for PC's.

The IGF in Sharam El-Sheikh was a very fascinating event. Apart from
the many issues and arguments that arose this year, the participants
displayed use of some fascinating devices for recording or following
through the proceedings that many of us developing world people have
neither seen nor have access to. The major fascination for me was from
small FLIP HD Camcorders and various types of E-book Readers.  During
the IGF or while flying over to the event, I saw many kinds of
wireless e-book readers like Amazon.com's Kindle and some other
European models in the hands of people from the developed world. Upon
asking them the price of their devices they were all US$300 and above.
Here is the link to Kindle:
http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Wireless-Reading-Display-Generation/dp/B0015T963C/r\
ef=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1259153142&sr=8-1-catcorr

Bringing my fascination of Wireless E-Book Readers back to Pakistan, I
have been trying to figure out how do various e-books and reports
appear on an e-book reader and whether some special format is required
to view books on such readers. I attempted to access the report
"Informing Communities: Sustaining Democracy in the Digital Age
(Kindle Edition) by The Knight Commission on the Information Needs of
Communities in a Democracy http://report.knightcomm.org/" through
Amazon.com Kindle version.

In order to read such a report on a Kindle device without a Kindle,
one has to have the Kindle E-Book Reader software installed on their
PCs. The following is the message that was displayed on the link given
below in a test attempt to download the Kindle Software for my PC in
order to read the Kindle version of the report "Informing Communities:
Sustaining Democracy in the Digital Age (Kindle Edition) by The Knight
Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy"

a. Kindle Software Link:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/kindle/pc/ref=kcp_pc_lnd_dtl_3

b. Knight Commission's Report Link:
http://www.amazon.com/Informing-Communities-Sustaining-Democracy-ebook/dp/B002RC\
ZAIQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255448042&sr=1-1-spell

c. Kindle Software Denial Link:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/kindle/pc/download/ref=amb_link_85354831_1?pf_rd_m=ATVP\
DKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=1YM290GP1HNEPAGQSKS4&pf_rd_t=1401&pf_rd_p=494\
702651&pf_rd_i=1000426311

Message on Page:
We're sorry. Kindle for PC is not currently available in Pakistan.
Are you traveling outside your country?
Sign in to see if Kindle for PC is available for download in your country.
›Continue shopping the Kindle store

Would this mean that if I actually had a Kindle, I would not get
support for it or would not be allowed to have a PC version of the
Kindle software program? Interestingly Amazon.com allows you to
continue shopping but doesn't allow Pakistani's to download the Kindle
Software. Isn't that a wonderfully incredible approach from the one of
the world's e-commerce giants that continue to contribute to
increasing the digital divide over software offerings that they give
in the developed world for free but we from the developing world
cannot access it!

Print screen to see the error is posted on my blog at
http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.org

--
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

******************************************
TAKE BACK THE TECH!
16 DAYS OF ACTIVISM: TAKE CONTROL OF TECHNOLOGY TO END VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN
www.TakeBackTheTech.net
25 Nov - 10 Dec
******************************************

From 25 November to 10 December, get ready to click your mouse, flex your
SMS fingers and engage full energy to take control of technology to end
violence against women.

APC's Women's Programme calls on users of the radio, television, internet,
emails and mobile phones to Take Back the Tech!

//In Malaysia, women in the community are learning how to blog, and
posting their perceptions on violence against women in their own
language//
//In Mexico, women's communication rights activists and journalists plan
for 16 days of feminist tweeting on technology how-tos and against
violence against women//
//In the Republic of Congo, students will write and perform a play on
violence against women and technology//

============================
What is the campaign about?
============================
Take Back the Tech!  is a collaborative campaign for anyone using the
internet and technology to protest violence against women (VAW). Initiated
by APC's women's programme (APC WNSP) in 2006, and built by a diverse
movement of individuals, organisations, collectives and communities, the
campaign is part of the UN-sanctioned 16 Days of Activism Against
Gender-based Violence which begins on November 25 each year.

It is our right to shape, define, participate, use and share knowledge,
information and technology, and to create digital spaces that are safe and
equal. Take Back the Tech! calls all users of information and
communications technologies (ICTs) -especially girls and  women but also
men and boys- to take control of technology and consciously use it to
change unequal power relations.

Take Back the Tech! will be happening all over the world, including in
Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Cambodia, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC),
Republic of  Congo, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, South Africa,
Uganda as part of APC WNSP's efforts to achieve Millenium development Goal
3 to promote gender equality and empower women
http://www.apcwomen.org/node/695.

www.TakeBackTheTech.net

===============================
How can you Take Back the Tech?
===============================

**Spread the word**
-------------------
State your stand and help us spread the word about the campaign. Send this
message on, change your email signature or status messages to point to the
campaign website, send a digital postcard, put the campaign banner on your
site, chalk it on a sidewalk, any creative ways you can think of to spread
the word! If you are on Twitter, tweet with us by using the hashtag:
#takebackthetech. If you are a blogger, ka-BLOG with us :) Spread the word
by translating actions and slogans in your local languages, and
disseminating the campaign and its daily actions through any of your
online channels.

**16 daily actions**
--------------------
Simple daily actions throughout the 16 days show how to use technology
strategically to counter VAW. From sending SMS, to making digital
postcards, learning a new software, playing with radio or remembering
forgotten names in the history of  IT development, you can take action
with the tools and platforms you have at hand. Check the campaign website
during the 16 days to take part in daily actions.

**Ka-BLOG with us**
----------------
Explore and broaden the knowledge around technology and internet and
violence against women by joining the Take Back the Tech! 16-day
blogathon.

New to blogging? This is the perfect reason to start your own, or at
least, click that "comment" button to have your say. In Filipino slang,
"ka-BLOG" means someone you blog with, we can all blog together to raise
awareness and help end VAW. Tag your blog posts using Technorati tag:
"takebackthetech", or register your blog on the campaign website, or email
us: ideas@.... Join our movement to transform the
blogosphere!

**Start a campaign**
---------------------
Start your own Take Back the Tech! campaign. Independent and creative
initiatives to Take Back the Tech! are taking off in different parts of
the world, translating content and action to address local needs and
priorities.

Use the campaign website to highlight your action, or find information and
resources. There are campaign kits,  images and graphics, tips on how to
be safe online, articles and links, available in English, Spanish and
French.  If you don't have an online publishing space, you can have your
own page on the site. Email us to let us know how we can support your
action: ideas@....

**Digital stories, audiocasts & more**
--------------------------------------
Learn by listening to the experience and stories of women and men affected
by VAW. The campaign website will feature digital stories, audiocasts,
video clips and postcards. If you have something you would like to share,
just log on to the campaign site and submit your story.

**Suggest an action**
---------------------
Help shape the campaign by sharing your experience and ideas. If you have
thoughts, email us or log on to the site, and make it part of the
campaign.

Check www.TakeBackTheTech.net daily from 25 November to 10 December, and
take control of technology to end violence against women.

For more information: send an email to ideas@...

Join us on Facebook: http://apps.facebook.com/causes/40159
Connect with other campaigners:
http://lists.apcwomen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/takebackthetech

*********************************************************
Take Back the Tech! is an initiative of the APC Women's Networking Support
Programme (APC WNSP), a global network of women who support women's
networking for social change and women's empowerment through the use of
information and communication technologies (ICTs) especially internet,
founded in 1993. The APC WNSP is part of the Association for Progressive
Communications (APC).
http://www.apcwomen.org/about/
http://www.apc.org
MDG3: Strengthening women's strategic use of technology to combat violence
against women and girls  http://www.apcwomen.org/node/695 and
http://www.apc.org/en/node/7892/
*********************************************************
END

Greetings from the IGF,

Our ONI reception today at the IGF was rattled by IGF security, who objected
to a poster advertising "Access Controlled", the book to be introduced at
this event.
The poster was thrown on the floor and we were told to remove it because of
the reference to China and Tibet.  We refused, and security guards came and
removed it. The incident was witnessed by many.

The poster promoting ONI new forthcoming book "Access Controlled" was
removed by the IGF's organizers because a sentence in the poster violated
UN's policy. The sentence in question reads, "The first generation of
Internet controls consisted largely of building firewalls at key Internet
gateways; China's famous "Great Firewall of China" is one of the first
national Internet filtering systems."

"If we cannot discuss topics about Internet censorship and surveillance
policy at a forum about Internet governance then what is the point of
something like the IGF," said Ron Deibert Director of the Citizen Lab, Munk
Centre for International Studies,and one of ONI's principal investigators.

According to Ron Deibert of The Citizen Lab and Open Net Initiatives (ONI)
Principal, one of the organizers of the reception event, he will file a
complaint against the`censorship' of their event and send it to the United
Nations Human Rights Commission.

"We condemn this undemocratic act of censoring our event just because
someone is trying to impress or be in the good graces of the Chinese
government. It is ironic that while people are allowed to gather here to
discuss freedom of expression online, censorship and surveillance practices
on the Internet, we are being restricted in expressing our views," said Al
Alegre of the Foundation for Media Alternatives, a member of the ONI
Network.

We the members of ONI Network protest on this censorship at IGF, and ask the
question that What IGF is for, if we can not discuss Internet Governance
issues at this forum.

Best wishes and regards

Shahzad