(probably this can be commented by more qualified people than myself)
TL;DR Chile's government (Subsecretaria de Telecomunicaciones, SUBTEL) has issued a circular (i.e. an explanation of the law), called circular n. 40[1], earlier in April this year stating that zero-rating go against the Chilean net neutrality law in force (spec. disposition n. 6 and 7. of law n. 18.168)[*]. Today SUBTEL has "confirmed to us [WMF and Wikimedia Chile] that the new order was not intended to prevent Wikipedia Zero and similar free knowledge initiatives"
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/09/22/chilean-regulator-welcomes-wikipedia-ze...
Well, in one word this is, for sure, "a thing".
Cristian
[1] http://www.subtel.gob.cl/transparencia/Perfiles/Transparencia20285/Normativa... [*] {{es}} (end of page 1) "La estructura de la oferta en comento, importan a juicio de esta autoridad una contravención a las normas que en la especie regulan y prohiben conductas discriminatorias de contenidos, aplicaciones o servicios, que integran el principio de Neutralidad de Red contenidas en la normativa sectorial, y en particular al texto del articulo 24o H letra a) de la Ley [dispuesto 6o y 7o de la Ley no. 18,168]" {{en}} "The structure of the offers under scrutiny, imply to the judjement of this authority an infringement of the norms ... which regulate and prohibit conduct of discrimination of contents, applications or services which constitute the principle of Net Neutrality contained in the sectorial norms, and in particular in the text of the article 24th H letter a) of the [aforementioned] law"
Well,
one special exception in one country doesn't put away the fact that Wikipedia Zero is damaging the struggle to keep net neutrality an basic principle around the world.
Wikipedia Zero is undermining globally the activities of NGOs, activists and other entities against commercial and some governmental interests which would like to weaken/destroy net neutrality.
Wikipedia Zero is an argument against net neutrality in the hands of its enemies. With Wikipedia Zero the foundation is endangering its position in the digital civil rights movement as seen at the IGF in Istanbul recently.
Without any globally shared meta concept Wikipedia Zero stays to be a welcomed marketing trick for mobile providers.
Jens Am 22.09.2014 22:39 schrieb "Cristian Consonni" kikkocristian@gmail.com:
(probably this can be commented by more qualified people than myself)
TL;DR Chile's government (Subsecretaria de Telecomunicaciones, SUBTEL) has issued a circular (i.e. an explanation of the law), called circular n. 40[1], earlier in April this year stating that zero-rating go against the Chilean net neutrality law in force (spec. disposition n. 6 and 7. of law n. 18.168)[*]. Today SUBTEL has "confirmed to us [WMF and Wikimedia Chile] that the new order was not intended to prevent Wikipedia Zero and similar free knowledge initiatives"
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/09/22/chilean-regulator-welcomes-wikipedia-ze...
Well, in one word this is, for sure, "a thing".
Cristian
[1] http://www.subtel.gob.cl/transparencia/Perfiles/Transparencia20285/Normativa... [*] {{es}} (end of page 1) "La estructura de la oferta en comento, importan a juicio de esta autoridad una contravención a las normas que en la especie regulan y prohiben conductas discriminatorias de contenidos, aplicaciones o servicios, que integran el principio de Neutralidad de Red contenidas en la normativa sectorial, y en particular al texto del articulo 24o H letra a) de la Ley [dispuesto 6o y 7o de la Ley no. 18,168]" {{en}} "The structure of the offers under scrutiny, imply to the judjement of this authority an infringement of the norms ... which regulate and prohibit conduct of discrimination of contents, applications or services which constitute the principle of Net Neutrality contained in the sectorial norms, and in particular in the text of the article 24th H letter a) of the [aforementioned] law"
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
2014-09-22 22:55 GMT+02:00 Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de:
Well,
one special exception in one country doesn't put away the fact that Wikipedia Zero is damaging the struggle to keep net neutrality an basic principle around the world.
My understanding was that the possibility of having Wikipedia Zero treated as a special exception of Net Neutrality laws was considered unrealistic. My understanding is also that Chile has a strong net neutrality law in place.
Trying to replicate this situation in other countries would still put the movement in a position of "opposing net neutrality"? In principle we could advocate all over the world to "do like Chile".
Wikipedia Zero is undermining globally the activities of NGOs, activists and other entities against commercial and some governmental interests which would like to weaken/destroy net neutrality.
Wikipedia Zero is an argument against net neutrality in the hands of its enemies. With Wikipedia Zero the foundation is endangering its position in the digital civil rights movement as seen at the IGF in Istanbul recently.
{{inline}}
Without any globally shared meta concept Wikipedia Zero stays to be a welcomed marketing trick for mobile providers.
A "globally shared meta concept" of ... what?
C
1. In a time where net neutrality is under massive attack, “do it like Chile“ isn't what really helps to sustain a clear and important principle. It is basically still undermining net neutrality in a fundamental way by implementing different standards to different data at the level of the general user experience.
It is still a marketing trick to lure new paying users to the mobile providers, because every source link out of Wikipedia Zero needs payment.
2. “globally shared meta concept", well, Lila made a good point by pointing out that the question/the understanding of a public sphere in the web isn't really good developed. This could be the chance to develop a concept and a campaign which would allow to stop the damaging Wikipedia Zero project and start/support action to implement a public sphere which could include Wikipedia. That could be a way to bring free knowledge to more people without damaging important rules of a free and open web.
Jens Am 22.09.2014 23:23 schrieb "Cristian Consonni" kikkocristian@gmail.com:
2014-09-22 22:55 GMT+02:00 Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de:
Well,
one special exception in one country doesn't put away the fact that Wikipedia Zero is damaging the struggle to keep net neutrality an basic principle around the world.
My understanding was that the possibility of having Wikipedia Zero treated as a special exception of Net Neutrality laws was considered unrealistic. My understanding is also that Chile has a strong net neutrality law in place.
Trying to replicate this situation in other countries would still put the movement in a position of "opposing net neutrality"? In principle we could advocate all over the world to "do like Chile".
Wikipedia Zero is undermining globally the activities of NGOs, activists
and
other entities against commercial and some governmental interests which would like to weaken/destroy net neutrality.
Wikipedia Zero is an argument against net neutrality in the hands of its enemies. With Wikipedia Zero the foundation is endangering its position
in
the digital civil rights movement as seen at the IGF in Istanbul
recently.
{{inline}}
Without any globally shared meta concept Wikipedia Zero stays to be a
welcomed marketing trick for mobile providers.
A "globally shared meta concept" of ... what?
C
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Hi Cristian,
Thanks for your comments.
I'm glad that Chile is an example of a country with a strong net neutrality law that does not prohibit Wikipedia Zero. Generally, the principle of net neutrality is not that unequivocal that zero-rating can be said to clearly violate it. In fact, out of eight net neutrality laws and regulations worldwide, only one (if any) actually prohibits all zero-rating. Presumably, regulators recognize they have to review zero-rating practices on their merits and see if they pose any harm to the open internet. Otherwise, they will end up prohibiting free access to information for no apparent reason.
Wikipedia Zero, as structured, does not pose harm to the open internet. It promotes free speech and innovation, which are the two underlying purposes of net neutrality. It's structured around our ten operating principles that make sure that the initiative doesn't create a slippery slope towards other harmful services because it would immediately be obvious if they don't operate under similar principles.
With this position, SUBTEL hasn't articulated a Wikipedia Zero exception. He provided an informal clarification that his recent order only prohibited certain commercial bundles. The order didn't cover zero-rating initiatives like Wikipedia Zero. While we don't yet know the exact scope of what's allowed and are asking carriers to seek formal clarification from SUBTEL, I could imagine that this category may include initiatives like zero-rated lending of ebooks from public libraries and free access to non-profit healthcare apps.
We've seen support from net neutrality advocates who can see that a country can have both net neutrality and initiatives like Wikipedia Zero. Some of them helped us prepare our communication to SUBTEL. We are discussing broader policy on how the two could coexist and will report back as soon as we reach a common understanding. In the meantime, here is a summary that CDT prepared of a related panel discussion at IGF earlier this month: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2014/index.php/proposal/view_public/208
Best, Yana
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocristian@gmail.com wrote:
(probably this can be commented by more qualified people than myself)
TL;DR Chile's government (Subsecretaria de Telecomunicaciones, SUBTEL) has issued a circular (i.e. an explanation of the law), called circular n. 40[1], earlier in April this year stating that zero-rating go against the Chilean net neutrality law in force (spec. disposition n. 6 and 7. of law n. 18.168)[*]. Today SUBTEL has "confirmed to us [WMF and Wikimedia Chile] that the new order was not intended to prevent Wikipedia Zero and similar free knowledge initiatives"
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/09/22/chilean-regulator-welcomes-wikipedia-ze...
Well, in one word this is, for sure, "a thing".
Cristian
[1] http://www.subtel.gob.cl/transparencia/Perfiles/Transparencia20285/Normativa... [*] {{es}} (end of page 1) "La estructura de la oferta en comento, importan a juicio de esta autoridad una contravención a las normas que en la especie regulan y prohiben conductas discriminatorias de contenidos, aplicaciones o servicios, que integran el principio de Neutralidad de Red contenidas en la normativa sectorial, y en particular al texto del articulo 24o H letra a) de la Ley [dispuesto 6o y 7o de la Ley no. 18,168]" {{en}} "The structure of the offers under scrutiny, imply to the judjement of this authority an infringement of the norms ... which regulate and prohibit conduct of discrimination of contents, applications or services which constitute the principle of Net Neutrality contained in the sectorial norms, and in particular in the text of the article 24th H letter a) of the [aforementioned] law"
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
“Wikipedia Zero, as structured, does not pose harm to the open internet. It promotes free speech and innovation, which are the two underlying purposes of net neutrality.“ = desperate PR-speak. More Orwell entering some fields of work of the foundation.
Ignoring bad factual consequences of inconsiderately introduced projects seems to be a strong quality in some areas of the foundation.
So, therefore, it has too be said again: Wikipedia Zero is used by mobile providers and its lobbyists to establish an unequal usage of different data, in consequence getting people used to violate net neutrality on a regular base.
Even if the foundation now found a so called net neutrality advocate which is willing to trade the principle for whatever reason, the global gathering (IGF) in Istanbul showed that NGO representatives from USA, Europe and the “Global South“ are strongly worried about the fact that Wikipedia Zero is a breaker of the net neutrality principle (and some foundation representatives strictly ignoring that fact). Member of a “Global South“ initiative called Wikipedia Zero and the way it brings “the internet“ to the poor plainly patronizing. They put Wikipedia in the same category with Facebook and other US-american Websites which hide their marketing tricks behind nice PR-wordings.
The foundation strongly needs to rethink its strategy pushing a project that globally counteracts the actions for protecting net neutrality in a very critical time instead of increasing its dangerous activities in this field. Wikipedia Zero is a clear violation of net neutrality whatever deal the foundation is making with single governments. A global principle can't be changed by one department of one ministry of one country.
The possible alternative: A general channel for all public sphere content would be something totally different, because it would be implemented by laws and multi-stakeholder-agreements around the world and not be based on individual deals. All content which would by these rules then seen as “free knowledge or free education“ would be part of these public sphere without the need to deal with every mobile providers.
No mobile provider will ever allow zero-rated free knowledge Video content when they not forced by an internationally agreed understanding and consequent laws establishing a truly free digital public sphere.
Nowadays deals can be made by a well-staffed organization like the foundation, but surely not by many other producers of free knowledge material. Therefore the recent activities of the foundation are going in the wrong direction. Obviously covering mistakes made in the past with new mistakes is having higher priorities than really finding a better way to ensure free knowledge and respecting basic rules of a free and open web the same time.
Jens Am 23.09.2014 02:27 schrieb "Yana Welinder" ywelinder@wikimedia.org:
Hi Cristian,
Thanks for your comments.
I'm glad that Chile is an example of a country with a strong net neutrality law that does not prohibit Wikipedia Zero. Generally, the principle of net neutrality is not that unequivocal that zero-rating can be said to clearly violate it. In fact, out of eight net neutrality laws and regulations worldwide, only one (if any) actually prohibits all zero-rating. Presumably, regulators recognize they have to review zero-rating practices on their merits and see if they pose any harm to the open internet. Otherwise, they will end up prohibiting free access to information for no apparent reason.
Wikipedia Zero, as structured, does not pose harm to the open internet. It promotes free speech and innovation, which are the two underlying purposes of net neutrality. It's structured around our ten operating principles that make sure that the initiative doesn't create a slippery slope towards other harmful services because it would immediately be obvious if they don't operate under similar principles.
With this position, SUBTEL hasn't articulated a Wikipedia Zero exception. He provided an informal clarification that his recent order only prohibited certain commercial bundles. The order didn't cover zero-rating initiatives like Wikipedia Zero. While we don't yet know the exact scope of what's allowed and are asking carriers to seek formal clarification from SUBTEL, I could imagine that this category may include initiatives like zero-rated lending of ebooks from public libraries and free access to non-profit healthcare apps.
We've seen support from net neutrality advocates who can see that a country can have both net neutrality and initiatives like Wikipedia Zero. Some of them helped us prepare our communication to SUBTEL. We are discussing broader policy on how the two could coexist and will report back as soon as we reach a common understanding. In the meantime, here is a summary that CDT prepared of a related panel discussion at IGF earlier this month: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2014/index.php/proposal/view_public/208
Best, Yana
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Cristian Consonni < kikkocristian@gmail.com> wrote:
(probably this can be commented by more qualified people than myself)
TL;DR Chile's government (Subsecretaria de Telecomunicaciones, SUBTEL) has issued a circular (i.e. an explanation of the law), called circular n. 40[1], earlier in April this year stating that zero-rating go against the Chilean net neutrality law in force (spec. disposition n. 6 and 7. of law n. 18.168)[*]. Today SUBTEL has "confirmed to us [WMF and Wikimedia Chile] that the new order was not intended to prevent Wikipedia Zero and similar free knowledge initiatives"
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/09/22/chilean-regulator-welcomes-wikipedia-ze...
Well, in one word this is, for sure, "a thing".
Cristian
[1] http://www.subtel.gob.cl/transparencia/Perfiles/Transparencia20285/Normativa... [*] {{es}} (end of page 1) "La estructura de la oferta en comento, importan a juicio de esta autoridad una contravención a las normas que en la especie regulan y prohiben conductas discriminatorias de contenidos, aplicaciones o servicios, que integran el principio de Neutralidad de Red contenidas en la normativa sectorial, y en particular al texto del articulo 24o H letra a) de la Ley [dispuesto 6o y 7o de la Ley no. 18,168]" {{en}} "The structure of the offers under scrutiny, imply to the judjement of this authority an infringement of the norms ... which regulate and prohibit conduct of discrimination of contents, applications or services which constitute the principle of Net Neutrality contained in the sectorial norms, and in particular in the text of the article 24th H letter a) of the [aforementioned] law"
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
-- Yana Welinder Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6867 @yanatweets https://twitter.com/yanatweets
NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
2014-09-23 5:15 GMT+02:00 Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de:
So, therefore, it has too be said again: Wikipedia Zero is used by mobile providers and its lobbyists to establish an unequal usage of different data, in consequence getting people used to violate net neutrality on a regular base.
Is there some kind of document or statement from "lobbysts" using Wikipedia Zero as an example in their arguments?
Even if the foundation now found a so called net neutrality advocate which is willing to trade the principle for whatever reason, the global gathering (IGF) in Istanbul showed that NGO representatives from USA, Europe and the “Global South“ are strongly worried about the fact that Wikipedia Zero is a breaker of the net neutrality principle (and some foundation representatives strictly ignoring that fact). Member of a “Global South“ initiative called Wikipedia Zero and the way it brings “the internet“ to the poor plainly patronizing. They put Wikipedia in the same category with Facebook and other US-american Websites which hide their marketing tricks behind nice PR-wordings.
Is there some kind of document of statement from about this?
C
Yes, there are documents. Nearly the whole conference was documented in writing and on video. Apart from the conference it can be seen in the way anti-net neutrality lobbyists and politicians argue. The crack in the net neutrality alliances made by Wikipedia Zero are used by lobbyists of certain interests. Or did you just wanted to suggest that I'm lying, Christian?
Jens Am 23.09.2014 06:10 schrieb "Cristian Consonni" kikkocristian@gmail.com:
2014-09-23 5:15 GMT+02:00 Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de:
So, therefore, it has too be said again: Wikipedia Zero is used by mobile providers and its lobbyists to establish an unequal usage of different
data,
in consequence getting people used to violate net neutrality on a regular base.
Is there some kind of document or statement from "lobbysts" using Wikipedia Zero as an example in their arguments?
Even if the foundation now found a so called net neutrality advocate
which
is willing to trade the principle for whatever reason, the global
gathering
(IGF) in Istanbul showed that NGO representatives from USA, Europe and
the
“Global South“ are strongly worried about the fact that Wikipedia Zero
is a
breaker of the net neutrality principle (and some foundation
representatives
strictly ignoring that fact). Member of a “Global South“ initiative called Wikipedia Zero and the way
it
brings “the internet“ to the poor plainly patronizing. They put
Wikipedia in
the same category with Facebook and other US-american Websites which hide their marketing tricks behind nice PR-wordings.
Is there some kind of document of statement from about this?
C
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
2014-09-23 6:21 GMT+02:00 Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de:
Yes, there are documents. Nearly the whole conference was documented in writing and on video. Apart from the conference it can be seen in the way anti-net neutrality lobbyists and politicians argue. The crack in the net neutrality alliances made by Wikipedia Zero are used by lobbyists of certain interests. Or did you just wanted to suggest that I'm lying, Christian?
For the IGF positions, I like to read opinions which are different from mine and if they are written there is usually more material for thought. Secondly, I would like to know if the idea of "lobbyists are using Wikipedia Zero to crack net neutrality" is a theoretical thing or it is happening now as in "there are actual lobbyists going around advocating Wikipedia Zero for their own purposes" (and I mean Wikipedia Zero *specifically* not zero rating in general). As the case of Chile is showing, I would like to know if something we think (in this case "Wikipedia Zero can be treated as an exception because it's free knowledge") is a theoretical possibility (even if it is a reasonable possibility) or if it is something that is happening on the ground.
C
Listen I'm doing this on a volunteer level, I'm not taking orders.
When the foundation wants to destroy Wikipedias reputation by forcing a net neutrality violating project on the community in the end I don't care - it's the reputation of Wikimedia which is destroyed not mine.
The arguments are on the table for months. Reality is unfolding. Ignore reality or don't. Read the Wikipedia article on net neutrality and than ask yourself for what questionable reasons a misguided project is run by the foundation and if stopping and rethinking the original purpose instead of ignorantly continuing would be the better path to walk.
Some people in the Foundation are doing whatever they wanna do, obviously arguments don't matter, so reality has to teach them via the consequences which will appear because of these ignorant behaviour.
Pushing Wikimedia out of the alliances of the civil movement which is taking care of a free and open web maybe isn't a good idea. But then again some people always need the hard way to learn.
I spent enough volunteer time of trying to explain, but fighting ignorance is nothing I will spent my precious time with.
Jens Am 23.09.2014 07:00 schrieb "Cristian Consonni" kikkocristian@gmail.com:
2014-09-23 6:21 GMT+02:00 Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de:
Yes, there are documents. Nearly the whole conference was documented in writing and on video. Apart from the conference it can be seen in the way anti-net neutrality lobbyists and politicians argue. The crack in the net neutrality alliances made by Wikipedia Zero are used by lobbyists of
certain
interests. Or did you just wanted to suggest that I'm lying, Christian?
For the IGF positions, I like to read opinions which are different from mine and if they are written there is usually more material for thought. Secondly, I would like to know if the idea of "lobbyists are using Wikipedia Zero to crack net neutrality" is a theoretical thing or it is happening now as in "there are actual lobbyists going around advocating Wikipedia Zero for their own purposes" (and I mean Wikipedia Zero *specifically* not zero rating in general). As the case of Chile is showing, I would like to know if something we think (in this case "Wikipedia Zero can be treated as an exception because it's free knowledge") is a theoretical possibility (even if it is a reasonable possibility) or if it is something that is happening on the ground.
C
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014, Cristian Consonni wrote:
Secondly, I would like to know if the idea of "lobbyists are using Wikipedia Zero to crack net neutrality" is a theoretical thing or it is happening now as in "there are actual lobbyists going around advocating Wikipedia Zero for their own purposes" (and I mean Wikipedia Zero *specifically* not zero rating in general). As the case of Chile is showing, I would like to know if something we think (in this case "Wikipedia Zero can be treated as an exception because it's free knowledge") is a theoretical possibility (even if it is a reasonable possibility) or if it is something that is happening on the ground.
I'd like to share my perspective here, although this year I've been much less active but I still keep a very good contact to various media organisations (among others).
In Poland we have had an open clash of the pro-Internet and pro-content-segregation lobbyists on the ground of online advertisting. T-Mobile has openly threatened to cut and replace ads on their network with their own. This is obviously a reminescence of battles with Internet giants like Google and Poland has been chosen to be a guinea pig to test market, regulatory and media response.
I don't remember and I don't believe that Wikipedia Zero was actually used in such discussion.
There is yet another context of this story which needs to be mentioned - it is the difficulty of engaging the Wikipedia community in public affairs. I think even this very mailing list is an attempt to bridge and coordinate efforts in this area.
I do observe a certain level of mistrust of the core editing community ("we just want to write an encyclopaedia here") towards various Internet activists. Even mild activities of the Polish Wikimedia chapter in this area have been criticized by some. Sometimes I have a feeling some community members would like to have the difficult job of lobbying outsourced to some other organizations and leave Wikipedia brand pure and virgin, free of any kind of decision-influencing (ergo, political) activity. The mistrust of the community is not only directed towards activits - also the initial agreement between Wikimedia Foundation and Orange (implemented in Poland as one of the first markets) - had been a subject of a lively debate within the community itself.
I have personally had committed lots of energy to convince "the community" (whoever it was on the talk page) to join the ACTA protects back then. In the end, it was a Wikimedia community voice that was a tipping point for media attention and the whole thing resulted in massive street protests seldomly seen in this country. Or at least it was one of the major factors.
I don't think the net neutrality debate has taken proper shape in our media; certainly I don't think that media organisations have researched the the material properly to find out about Wikipedia Zero and its implications.
But this subject raises many eyebrows in our internal discussions, "if we don't want that Internet access is only limited to Facebook for free, how is Wikipedia Zero different?". We feel we don't have a satisfactory answer to this should the question pop up.
In the end, are we building a community or are we just one of the "permium content" websites, which needs to expand in order to stay relevant?
//Marcin
saper@plwikipedia
Hello Yana,
On 23 Sep 2014, at 2:26 , Yana Welinder ywelinder@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm glad that Chile is an example of a country with a strong net neutrality law that does not prohibit Wikipedia Zero. Generally, the principle of net neutrality is not that unequivocal that zero-rating can be said to clearly violate it. In fact, out of eight net neutrality laws and regulations worldwide, only one (if any) actually prohibits all zero-rating. Presumably, regulators recognize they have to review zero-rating practices on their merits and see if they pose any harm to the open internet. Otherwise, they will end up prohibiting free access to information for no apparent reason.
The dutch national legislations[1] prevents Zero-Rating, as does the Norwegian Soft-law[2] which was by the way the first provision ever on the field of net neutrality. The Telecom Single Market EU regulation about net neutrality would also prohibit these practises. But because of the actions of the foundation we will have a much harder position to keep these provisions in the fight in the council.
Excluding Zero-Rating from the issue of net neutrality is really not a good start for a debate, assuming you want a debate. I know in the US things are viewed differently and Zero-Rating is perceived to be a minor problem. But should the US really set the standard in this issue with their oligopoly in the ISP market and aggressive Zero-Rating products like AT&T’s sponsored data? [3]
Wikipedia Zero, as structured, does not pose harm to the open internet. It promotes free speech and innovation, which are the two underlying purposes of net neutrality. It's structured around our ten operating principles that make sure that the initiative doesn't create a slippery slope towards other harmful services because it would immediately be obvious if they don't operate under similar principles.
About these operating principles. On Wikimania we discussed the criteria that determine in which countries Wikipedia Zero can be offered. The discussion about W0 is always connected to the global south and giving access to people in under-developed-telecommunications markets. To paraphrase: make the wikipedia knowledge base and brand accessible to people that otherwise couldn’t effort it. Yana told me that there are internal criteria the Foundation uses to determine whether a country is under-developed enough for a roll-out of Wikipedia Zero. You promised to make those criteria public to ease the debate. What is the time table for their release?
On a connected issue, are there plans to remove Wikipedia Zero from countries which reach a development state which would no longer require this type of subsidy?
The price difference between voice-only and voice+1GB/month plans with movistar.cl is 30%…
With this position, SUBTEL hasn't articulated a Wikipedia Zero exception. He provided an informal clarification that his recent order only prohibited certain commercial bundles. The order didn't cover zero-rating initiatives like Wikipedia Zero. While we don't yet know the exact scope of what's allowed and are asking carriers to seek formal clarification from SUBTEL, I could imagine that this category may include initiatives like zero-rated lending of ebooks from public libraries and free access to non-profit healthcare apps.
If I understand you correctly the national regulatory authority will now decide on a case by case basis whether Zero-Rating is allowed for a particular service in Chile or not. Again, we discussed at Wikimania that the Foundation is still working on distinction criteria between Wikipedia Zero and Facebook Zero. The four criteria[4] which were release prior to Wikimania were heavily criticised[5] by several actors working on a policy level with net neutrality and to my knowledge never were discussed internally or externally prior to their release by the Foundation.
To sum this up, SUBTEL now has to job you failed at. To determine how to allow W0, but to prevent F0?
For Facebook it makes a lot of sense to just wait and let Wikipedia Zero remove all legal safeguards against Zero-Rating and then follow on their foot steps into formerly protected markets.
We've seen support from net neutrality advocates who can see that a country can have both net neutrality and initiatives like Wikipedia Zero. Some of them helped us prepare our communication to SUBTEL. We are discussing broader policy on how the two could coexist and will report back as soon as we reach a common understanding. In the meantime, here is a summary that CDT prepared of a related panel discussion at IGF earlier this month: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2014/index.php/proposal/view_public/208
It is one thing to have a service you are convinced of and ignoring criticism from your own community. But to actively fight laws that ensure the principle which made Wikipedias success possible in the first place, that’s just outrageously short-sided.
Best Regards, Thomas
PS: I really hope we can have an orderly debate on this important issue. There has to be mutual ground.
Best, Yana
[1] https://www.bof.nl/2011/06/27/translations-of-key-dutch-internet-freedom-pro... [2] see Guidelines for Internet neutrality by the Norwegian Post and telecommunications Authority Principle 3: Internet users are entitled to an Internet connection that is free of discrimination with regard to type of application, service or content or based on sender or receiver address. * This means that there shall be no discrimination among individual data streams that [3] http://www.att.com/att/sponsoreddata/en/index.html [4] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-prote... [5] https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/08/08/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-...
============================== Verein Initiative für Netzfreiheit Bürgerrechte im digitalen Zeitalter
Thomas Lohninger : www.netzfreiheit.org : thomas.lohninger@netzfreiheit.org : +43 (0) 6801238611
: GPG Fingerprint socialhack.eu/gpg.pub : 1B79 2E14 2E31 0E7E 2742 : 3990 BE16 D613 7FC1 9312
It is almost a month since this thread died. I would really like to know answers to my questions.
What are the criteria for countries that can have Wikipedia Zero?
What is the legal formula by which the foundation intends to distinct Wikipedia Zero from Facebook Zero?
Looking forward to a good and respectful discussion.
Best Regards, Thomas
On 24 Sep 2014, at 17:40 , Thomas Lohninger thomas.lohninger@netzfreiheit.org wrote:
Hello Yana,
On 23 Sep 2014, at 2:26 , Yana Welinder ywelinder@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm glad that Chile is an example of a country with a strong net neutrality law that does not prohibit Wikipedia Zero. Generally, the principle of net neutrality is not that unequivocal that zero-rating can be said to clearly violate it. In fact, out of eight net neutrality laws and regulations worldwide, only one (if any) actually prohibits all zero-rating. Presumably, regulators recognize they have to review zero-rating practices on their merits and see if they pose any harm to the open internet. Otherwise, they will end up prohibiting free access to information for no apparent reason.
The dutch national legislations[1] prevents Zero-Rating, as does the Norwegian Soft-law[2] which was by the way the first provision ever on the field of net neutrality. The Telecom Single Market EU regulation about net neutrality would also prohibit these practises. But because of the actions of the foundation we will have a much harder position to keep these provisions in the fight in the council.
Excluding Zero-Rating from the issue of net neutrality is really not a good start for a debate, assuming you want a debate. I know in the US things are viewed differently and Zero-Rating is perceived to be a minor problem. But should the US really set the standard in this issue with their oligopoly in the ISP market and aggressive Zero-Rating products like AT&T’s sponsored data? [3]
Wikipedia Zero, as structured, does not pose harm to the open internet. It promotes free speech and innovation, which are the two underlying purposes of net neutrality. It's structured around our ten operating principles that make sure that the initiative doesn't create a slippery slope towards other harmful services because it would immediately be obvious if they don't operate under similar principles.
About these operating principles. On Wikimania we discussed the criteria that determine in which countries Wikipedia Zero can be offered. The discussion about W0 is always connected to the global south and giving access to people in under-developed-telecommunications markets. To paraphrase: make the wikipedia knowledge base and brand accessible to people that otherwise couldn’t effort it. Yana told me that there are internal criteria the Foundation uses to determine whether a country is under-developed enough for a roll-out of Wikipedia Zero. You promised to make those criteria public to ease the debate. What is the time table for their release?
On a connected issue, are there plans to remove Wikipedia Zero from countries which reach a development state which would no longer require this type of subsidy?
The price difference between voice-only and voice+1GB/month plans with movistar.cl is 30%…
With this position, SUBTEL hasn't articulated a Wikipedia Zero exception. He provided an informal clarification that his recent order only prohibited certain commercial bundles. The order didn't cover zero-rating initiatives like Wikipedia Zero. While we don't yet know the exact scope of what's allowed and are asking carriers to seek formal clarification from SUBTEL, I could imagine that this category may include initiatives like zero-rated lending of ebooks from public libraries and free access to non-profit healthcare apps.
If I understand you correctly the national regulatory authority will now decide on a case by case basis whether Zero-Rating is allowed for a particular service in Chile or not. Again, we discussed at Wikimania that the Foundation is still working on distinction criteria between Wikipedia Zero and Facebook Zero. The four criteria[4] which were release prior to Wikimania were heavily criticised[5] by several actors working on a policy level with net neutrality and to my knowledge never were discussed internally or externally prior to their release by the Foundation.
To sum this up, SUBTEL now has to job you failed at. To determine how to allow W0, but to prevent F0?
For Facebook it makes a lot of sense to just wait and let Wikipedia Zero remove all legal safeguards against Zero-Rating and then follow on their foot steps into formerly protected markets.
We've seen support from net neutrality advocates who can see that a country can have both net neutrality and initiatives like Wikipedia Zero. Some of them helped us prepare our communication to SUBTEL. We are discussing broader policy on how the two could coexist and will report back as soon as we reach a common understanding. In the meantime, here is a summary that CDT prepared of a related panel discussion at IGF earlier this month: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2014/index.php/proposal/view_public/208
It is one thing to have a service you are convinced of and ignoring criticism from your own community. But to actively fight laws that ensure the principle which made Wikipedias success possible in the first place, that’s just outrageously short-sided.
Best Regards, Thomas
PS: I really hope we can have an orderly debate on this important issue. There has to be mutual ground.
Best, Yana
[1] https://www.bof.nl/2011/06/27/translations-of-key-dutch-internet-freedom-pro... [2] see Guidelines for Internet neutrality by the Norwegian Post and telecommunications Authority Principle 3: Internet users are entitled to an Internet connection that is free of discrimination with regard to type of application, service or content or based on sender or receiver address.
- This means that there shall be no discrimination among individual data streams that
[3] http://www.att.com/att/sponsoreddata/en/index.html [4] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-prote... [5] https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/08/08/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-...
============================== Verein Initiative für Netzfreiheit Bürgerrechte im digitalen Zeitalter
Thomas Lohninger : www.netzfreiheit.org : thomas.lohninger@netzfreiheit.org : +43 (0) 6801238611
: GPG Fingerprint socialhack.eu/gpg.pub : 1B79 2E14 2E31 0E7E 2742 : 3990 BE16 D613 7FC1 9312
============================== Verein Initiative für Netzfreiheit Bürgerrechte im digitalen Zeitalter
Thomas Lohninger : www.netzfreiheit.org : thomas.lohninger@netzfreiheit.org : +43 (0) 6801238611
: GPG Fingerprint socialhack.eu/gpg.pub : 1B79 2E14 2E31 0E7E 2742 : 3990 BE16 D613 7FC1 9312
2014-10-16 18:18 GMT+02:00 Thomas Lohninger thomas.lohninger@netzfreiheit.org:
It is almost a month since this thread died. I would really like to know answers to my questions.
What are the criteria for countries that can have Wikipedia Zero?
What is the legal formula by which the foundation intends to distinct Wikipedia Zero from Facebook Zero?
Looking forward to a good and respectful discussion.
I think these criteria should be added to the Wikipedia Zero operating principles: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero_Operating_Principles
Cristian
Hi Thomas,
As other lists members have written here before, this mailing list serves an important purpose for us to get input from Wikimedians.
But if you or anyone at EDRi would like to reach out to me, I'm happy to continue discussing this with you. I'd be particularly happy to do so if I know that my words will not get twisted at a later time (e.g. I told you that I would discuss the Wikipedia Zero team whether the criteria for how we identify target countries makes sense and did not promise to make particular criteria public).
Best, Yana
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Thomas Lohninger < thomas.lohninger@netzfreiheit.org> wrote:
It is almost a month since this thread died. I would really like to know answers to my questions.
What are the criteria for countries that can have Wikipedia Zero?
What is the legal formula by which the foundation intends to distinct Wikipedia Zero from Facebook Zero?
Looking forward to a good and respectful discussion.
Best Regards, Thomas
On 24 Sep 2014, at 17:40 , Thomas Lohninger < thomas.lohninger@netzfreiheit.org> wrote:
Hello Yana,
On 23 Sep 2014, at 2:26 , Yana Welinder ywelinder@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm glad that Chile is an example of a country with a strong net neutrality law that does not prohibit Wikipedia Zero. Generally, the principle of net neutrality is not that unequivocal that zero-rating can be said to clearly violate it. In fact, out of eight net neutrality laws and regulations worldwide, only one (if any) actually prohibits all zero-rating. Presumably, regulators recognize they have to review zero-rating practices on their merits and see if they pose any harm to the open internet. Otherwise, they will end up prohibiting free access to information for no apparent reason.
The dutch national legislations[1] prevents Zero-Rating, as does the Norwegian Soft-law[2] which was by the way the first provision ever on the field of net neutrality. The Telecom Single Market EU regulation about net neutrality would also prohibit these practises. But because of the actions of the foundation we will have a much harder position to keep these provisions in the fight in the council.
Excluding Zero-Rating from the issue of net neutrality is really not a good start for a debate, assuming you want a debate. I know in the US things are viewed differently and Zero-Rating is perceived to be a minor problem. But should the US really set the standard in this issue with their oligopoly in the ISP market and aggressive Zero-Rating products like AT&T’s sponsored data? [3]
Wikipedia Zero, as structured, does not pose harm to the open internet. It promotes free speech and innovation, which are the two underlying purposes of net neutrality. It's structured around our ten operating principles that make sure that the initiative doesn't create a slippery slope towards other harmful services because it would immediately be obvious if they don't operate under similar principles.
About these operating principles. On Wikimania we discussed the criteria that determine in which countries Wikipedia Zero can be offered. The discussion about W0 is always connected to the global south and giving access to people in under-developed-telecommunications markets. To paraphrase: make the wikipedia knowledge base and brand accessible to people that otherwise couldn’t effort it. Yana told me that there are internal criteria the Foundation uses to determine whether a country is under-developed enough for a roll-out of Wikipedia Zero. You promised to make those criteria public to ease the debate. What is the time table for their release?
On a connected issue, are there plans to remove Wikipedia Zero from countries which reach a development state which would no longer require this type of subsidy?
The price difference between voice-only and voice+1GB/month plans with movistar.cl is 30%…
With this position, SUBTEL hasn't articulated a Wikipedia Zero exception. He provided an informal clarification that his recent order only prohibited certain commercial bundles. The order didn't cover zero-rating initiatives like Wikipedia Zero. While we don't yet know the exact scope of what's allowed and are asking carriers to seek formal clarification from SUBTEL, I could imagine that this category may include initiatives like zero-rated lending of ebooks from public libraries and free access to non-profit healthcare apps.
If I understand you correctly the national regulatory authority will now decide on a case by case basis whether Zero-Rating is allowed for a particular service in Chile or not. Again, we discussed at Wikimania that the Foundation is still working on distinction criteria between Wikipedia Zero and Facebook Zero. The four criteria[4] which were release prior to Wikimania were heavily criticised[5] by several actors working on a policy level with net neutrality and to my knowledge never were discussed internally or externally prior to their release by the Foundation.
To sum this up, SUBTEL now has to job you failed at. To determine how to allow W0, but to prevent F0?
For Facebook it makes a lot of sense to just wait and let Wikipedia Zero remove all legal safeguards against Zero-Rating and then follow on their foot steps into formerly protected markets.
We've seen support from net neutrality advocates who can see that a country can have both net neutrality and initiatives like Wikipedia Zero. Some of them helped us prepare our communication to SUBTEL. We are discussing broader policy on how the two could coexist and will report back as soon as we reach a common understanding. In the meantime, here is a summary that CDT prepared of a related panel discussion at IGF earlier this month: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2014/index.php/proposal/view_public/208
It is one thing to have a service you are convinced of and ignoring criticism from your own community. But to actively fight laws that ensure the principle which made Wikipedias success possible in the first place, that’s just outrageously short-sided.
Best Regards, Thomas
PS: I really hope we can have an orderly debate on this important issue. There has to be mutual ground.
Best, Yana
[1] https://www.bof.nl/2011/06/27/translations-of-key-dutch-internet-freedom-pro... [2] see Guidelines for Internet neutrality by the Norwegian Post and telecommunications Authority Principle 3: Internet users are entitled to an Internet connection that is free of discrimination with regard to type of application, service or content or based on sender or receiver address.
- This means that there shall be no discrimination among individual data
streams that [3] http://www.att.com/att/sponsoreddata/en/index.html [4] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-prote... [5] https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/08/08/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-...
============================== *Verein Initiative für Netzfreiheit* Bürgerrechte im digitalen Zeitalter
Thomas Lohninger : www.netzfreiheit.org https://netzfreiheit.org/ : thomas.lohninger@netzfreiheit.org //thomas.lohninger@netzfreiheit.org : +43 (0) 6801238611
: GPG Fingerprint socialhack.eu/gpg.pub http://socialhack.eu/pgp.pub : 1B79 2E14 2E31 0E7E 2742 : 3990 BE16 D613 7FC1 9312
============================== *Verein Initiative für Netzfreiheit* Bürgerrechte im digitalen Zeitalter
Thomas Lohninger : www.netzfreiheit.org https://netzfreiheit.org/ : thomas.lohninger@netzfreiheit.org //thomas.lohninger@netzfreiheit.org : +43 (0) 6801238611
: GPG Fingerprint socialhack.eu/gpg.pub http://socialhack.eu/pgp.pub : 1B79 2E14 2E31 0E7E 2742 : 3990 BE16 D613 7FC1 9312
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Hello Yana,
I apologise to you if my actions were interpreted as a breach of trust. I was under the impression that our conversation and the information you mentioned were part of the public discussion about Wikipedia Zero which took place at Wikimania14.
It was not my understanding that even the existence of certain information should not be mentioned to our community. Particularly when this information is the basis for political actions of the Foundation in foreign countries. With the active engagement of the Foundation in regulatory affairs in Chile I was acting under the believe that at least the transparency standards of FOI would apply.
Best Regards, Thomas
On 16 Oct 2014, at 19:18 , Yana Welinder ywelinder@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Thomas,
As other lists members have written here before, this mailing list serves an important purpose for us to get input from Wikimedians.
But if you or anyone at EDRi would like to reach out to me, I'm happy to continue discussing this with you. I'd be particularly happy to do so if I know that my words will not get twisted at a later time (e.g. I told you that I would discuss the Wikipedia Zero team whether the criteria for how we identify target countries makes sense and did not promise to make particular criteria public).
Best, Yana
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Thomas Lohninger thomas.lohninger@netzfreiheit.org wrote: It is almost a month since this thread died. I would really like to know answers to my questions.
What are the criteria for countries that can have Wikipedia Zero?
What is the legal formula by which the foundation intends to distinct Wikipedia Zero from Facebook Zero?
Looking forward to a good and respectful discussion.
Best Regards, Thomas
On 24 Sep 2014, at 17:40 , Thomas Lohninger thomas.lohninger@netzfreiheit.org wrote:
Hello Yana,
On 23 Sep 2014, at 2:26 , Yana Welinder ywelinder@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm glad that Chile is an example of a country with a strong net neutrality law that does not prohibit Wikipedia Zero. Generally, the principle of net neutrality is not that unequivocal that zero-rating can be said to clearly violate it. In fact, out of eight net neutrality laws and regulations worldwide, only one (if any) actually prohibits all zero-rating. Presumably, regulators recognize they have to review zero-rating practices on their merits and see if they pose any harm to the open internet. Otherwise, they will end up prohibiting free access to information for no apparent reason.
The dutch national legislations[1] prevents Zero-Rating, as does the Norwegian Soft-law[2] which was by the way the first provision ever on the field of net neutrality. The Telecom Single Market EU regulation about net neutrality would also prohibit these practises. But because of the actions of the foundation we will have a much harder position to keep these provisions in the fight in the council.
Excluding Zero-Rating from the issue of net neutrality is really not a good start for a debate, assuming you want a debate. I know in the US things are viewed differently and Zero-Rating is perceived to be a minor problem. But should the US really set the standard in this issue with their oligopoly in the ISP market and aggressive Zero-Rating products like AT&T’s sponsored data? [3]
Wikipedia Zero, as structured, does not pose harm to the open internet. It promotes free speech and innovation, which are the two underlying purposes of net neutrality. It's structured around our ten operating principles that make sure that the initiative doesn't create a slippery slope towards other harmful services because it would immediately be obvious if they don't operate under similar principles.
About these operating principles. On Wikimania we discussed the criteria that determine in which countries Wikipedia Zero can be offered. The discussion about W0 is always connected to the global south and giving access to people in under-developed-telecommunications markets. To paraphrase: make the wikipedia knowledge base and brand accessible to people that otherwise couldn’t effort it. Yana told me that there are internal criteria the Foundation uses to determine whether a country is under-developed enough for a roll-out of Wikipedia Zero. You promised to make those criteria public to ease the debate. What is the time table for their release?
On a connected issue, are there plans to remove Wikipedia Zero from countries which reach a development state which would no longer require this type of subsidy?
The price difference between voice-only and voice+1GB/month plans with movistar.cl is 30%…
With this position, SUBTEL hasn't articulated a Wikipedia Zero exception. He provided an informal clarification that his recent order only prohibited certain commercial bundles. The order didn't cover zero-rating initiatives like Wikipedia Zero. While we don't yet know the exact scope of what's allowed and are asking carriers to seek formal clarification from SUBTEL, I could imagine that this category may include initiatives like zero-rated lending of ebooks from public libraries and free access to non-profit healthcare apps.
If I understand you correctly the national regulatory authority will now decide on a case by case basis whether Zero-Rating is allowed for a particular service in Chile or not. Again, we discussed at Wikimania that the Foundation is still working on distinction criteria between Wikipedia Zero and Facebook Zero. The four criteria[4] which were release prior to Wikimania were heavily criticised[5] by several actors working on a policy level with net neutrality and to my knowledge never were discussed internally or externally prior to their release by the Foundation.
To sum this up, SUBTEL now has to job you failed at. To determine how to allow W0, but to prevent F0?
For Facebook it makes a lot of sense to just wait and let Wikipedia Zero remove all legal safeguards against Zero-Rating and then follow on their foot steps into formerly protected markets.
We've seen support from net neutrality advocates who can see that a country can have both net neutrality and initiatives like Wikipedia Zero. Some of them helped us prepare our communication to SUBTEL. We are discussing broader policy on how the two could coexist and will report back as soon as we reach a common understanding. In the meantime, here is a summary that CDT prepared of a related panel discussion at IGF earlier this month: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2014/index.php/proposal/view_public/208
It is one thing to have a service you are convinced of and ignoring criticism from your own community. But to actively fight laws that ensure the principle which made Wikipedias success possible in the first place, that’s just outrageously short-sided.
Best Regards, Thomas
PS: I really hope we can have an orderly debate on this important issue. There has to be mutual ground.
Best, Yana
[1] https://www.bof.nl/2011/06/27/translations-of-key-dutch-internet-freedom-pro... [2] see Guidelines for Internet neutrality by the Norwegian Post and telecommunications Authority Principle 3: Internet users are entitled to an Internet connection that is free of discrimination with regard to type of application, service or content or based on sender or receiver address.
- This means that there shall be no discrimination among individual data streams that
[3] http://www.att.com/att/sponsoreddata/en/index.html [4] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-prote... [5] https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/08/08/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-...
============================== Verein Initiative für Netzfreiheit Bürgerrechte im digitalen Zeitalter
Thomas Lohninger : www.netzfreiheit.org : thomas.lohninger@netzfreiheit.org : +43 (0) 6801238611
: GPG Fingerprint socialhack.eu/gpg.pub : 1B79 2E14 2E31 0E7E 2742 : 3990 BE16 D613 7FC1 9312
============================== Verein Initiative für Netzfreiheit Bürgerrechte im digitalen Zeitalter
Thomas Lohninger : www.netzfreiheit.org : thomas.lohninger@netzfreiheit.org : +43 (0) 6801238611
: GPG Fingerprint socialhack.eu/gpg.pub : 1B79 2E14 2E31 0E7E 2742 : 3990 BE16 D613 7FC1 9312
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
============================== Verein Initiative für Netzfreiheit Bürgerrechte im digitalen Zeitalter
Thomas Lohninger : www.netzfreiheit.org : thomas.lohninger@netzfreiheit.org : +43 (0) 6801238611
: GPG Fingerprint socialhack.eu/gpg.pub : 1B79 2E14 2E31 0E7E 2742 : 3990 BE16 D613 7FC1 9312
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org