Dear All,
Today, the Wikimedia Foundation joined with more than 90 other organizations in filing an amicus brief[1] in State of Washington v. Trump[2] currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States. This case challenges the recent executive order[3] issued in the United States on January 27, 2017, which establishes immigration and travel restrictions based on country of origin. Other signatories to the brief include Facebook, Levi Strauss & Co., Microsoft, Mozilla, and Paypal. The brief includes legal arguments against the order itself, and details the real and immediate impact these restrictions will have on the Wikimedia Foundation and other signatories’ staff, users, customers, and operations. We expect it to be filed in other current and future cases challenging the order, as appropriate.
We know that the Foundation’s prior statement[4] on this executive order has generated debate in the communities, on mailing lists and in other forums. Some disapprove, with concern that the Foundation has taken a political stance on behalf of the movement. Others approve, with concerns about the impact of this order on the practicalities and values of open collaboration and sharing. We would like to clarify our perspective on this important issue.
From our perspective, the implications of this order - and the urgency of
our response - are clear. Beyond the issue of the values of open collaboration, this order will also have serious, tangible effects on the Foundation and our ability to support the Wikimedia projects and communities.
From an operational standpoint, orders such as these may substantially
limit our ability to deliver on support for the global Wikimedia communities. Much of the Foundation's work involves travel across borders. We cross borders to develop and sustain strategic partnerships with Wikimedia affiliates and free knowledge advocates. We travel to gatherings and hackathons to support and collaborate with Wikimedians around the world. We represent Wikimedia research and methodologies at conferences with librarians and scientists from across the globe. We meet with community leaders and board members internationally to exercise corporate and community governance and execute strategic oversight.
As the Foundation, we have an obligation to protect the Wikimedia projects and ensure that they thrive in perpetuity. We are not a political organization, but we are passionate about defending free knowledge, and the conditions for its flourishing. We believe that the immigration and travel restrictions posed by the executive order in question will have a detrimental impact on the Foundation's mission and operations, as people are unable to enter the United States or restricted from leaving because they may not be allowed to return home. Board and committee meetings, conferences, conventions, hackathons, and more may be affected by the executive order in its current form, as well by the threatened extension of restrictions to additional countries.
It is our obligation to engage with issues that affect the Wikimedia Foundation's capacity to support Foundation’s mission and the goals of the Wikimedia movement. From freedom of expression to freedom of movement, we will continue to do so, in service of our shared vision. You can read more about the brief on the Foundation’s blog.[5]
Best,
Michelle Paulson Interim General Counsel
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AAmicus_curiae_brief...
[2] https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000860
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769
[4] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/ [5] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/06/amicus-brief-immigration-travel-restri...
On 02/05/2017 10:10 PM, Michelle Paulson wrote:
Dear All,
<snip> We know that the Foundation’s prior statement[4] on this executive order has generated debate in the communities, on mailing lists and in other forums. Some disapprove, with concern that the Foundation has taken a political stance on behalf of the movement. Others approve, with concerns about the impact of this order on the practicalities and values of open collaboration and sharing.
Michelle, thank you for this update and clarification.
I've followed this discussion (and previous, similar discussions) with great interest. My personal views align strongly with the WMF's position, but I also found Yair Rand's argument compelling. There's an important distinction I haven't seen clearly articulated, that might be helpful:
The WMF has a clear interest in protecting *its own* operations, and on that level, I think it makes perfect sense for it to advocate -- along with companies like the partners listed -- against policies that may substantially impede its employees' travel.
But the arguments I have seen advanced by the WMF about what is in its *communities'* interest are not as clear-cut as it may seem. The core activities of Wikimedians involve online collaboration; and while it may be the case that research and qualitative experience supports the notion that travel can enhance that collaboration, there are -- and will always be -- highly productive Wikimedians who never meet fellow volunteer in person, and have no particular interest in doing so. The projects have been built by millions of volunteers, but I would guess that the number of volunteers who have crossed international borders to serve the project number in the thousands (and even fewer have crossed the U.S. border).
Perhaps in the future, things will go more smoothly if the WMF be very clear in its public statements when it is speaking on *its own behalf*, and when it is speaking *on behalf of its communities*. And when it's the latter, if public statements could only result from consultations that clearly establish a strong consensus within the communities.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
Would this action fall under "Collaborative advocacy" in the Foundation Policy and Political Association Guideline? The section refers to "collaborat[ing] with another organization to take action on a particular policy or political question". The example given is signing a petition by the EFF against Internet censorship. The required steps include (among other requirements) consultation with the Public Policy Advisory Group, along with getting consensus in a broader RfC except where time does not permit. I find it difficult to believe that this situation is so critical and urgent that an RfC in advance was impossible, so if it does fall under that section, the policy was yet again violated. Frankly, I don't believe that an RfC would pass in the first place. If you've been following the earlier thread, you may be aware that there is increasing alarm at the risk of the movement being hijacked by political interests, and this new action is not helping matters.
This was a unilateral political actions in a sensitive area without prior discussion. The Guideline does say that the WMF may deviate from the policy if specifically approved by the General Council, although I don't know why deviating would be warranted here. Was this done here? Who was involved in the decision? Was the Board consulted, as suggested by the guidelines (although as an "Optional" step)? Or was it simply considered to not fall under the policy at all? Is the guideline still in effect, or was it eliminated or changed without the document on Meta being updated?
The amicus brief specifically challenges the refugee suspension, among other areas. Is this topic considered to be within the WMF's goals, or was bringing the WMF into an irrelevant political battle considered simply an unavoidable side-effect in the effort to protect WMF operations by means of national political intervention?
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_ Association_Guideline#Collaborative_Advocacy
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Michelle Paulson mpaulson@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear All,
Today, the Wikimedia Foundation joined with more than 90 other organizations in filing an amicus brief[1] in State of Washington v. Trump[2] currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States. This case challenges the recent executive order[3] issued in the United States on January 27, 2017, which establishes immigration and travel restrictions based on country of origin. Other signatories to the brief include Facebook, Levi Strauss & Co., Microsoft, Mozilla, and Paypal. The brief includes legal arguments against the order itself, and details the real and immediate impact these restrictions will have on the Wikimedia Foundation and other signatories’ staff, users, customers, and operations. We expect it to be filed in other current and future cases challenging the order, as appropriate.
We know that the Foundation’s prior statement[4] on this executive order has generated debate in the communities, on mailing lists and in other forums. Some disapprove, with concern that the Foundation has taken a political stance on behalf of the movement. Others approve, with concerns about the impact of this order on the practicalities and values of open collaboration and sharing. We would like to clarify our perspective on this important issue.
From our perspective, the implications of this order - and the urgency of our response - are clear. Beyond the issue of the values of open collaboration, this order will also have serious, tangible effects on the Foundation and our ability to support the Wikimedia projects and communities.
From an operational standpoint, orders such as these may substantially limit our ability to deliver on support for the global Wikimedia communities. Much of the Foundation's work involves travel across borders. We cross borders to develop and sustain strategic partnerships with Wikimedia affiliates and free knowledge advocates. We travel to gatherings and hackathons to support and collaborate with Wikimedians around the world. We represent Wikimedia research and methodologies at conferences with librarians and scientists from across the globe. We meet with community leaders and board members internationally to exercise corporate and community governance and execute strategic oversight.
As the Foundation, we have an obligation to protect the Wikimedia projects and ensure that they thrive in perpetuity. We are not a political organization, but we are passionate about defending free knowledge, and the conditions for its flourishing. We believe that the immigration and travel restrictions posed by the executive order in question will have a detrimental impact on the Foundation's mission and operations, as people are unable to enter the United States or restricted from leaving because they may not be allowed to return home. Board and committee meetings, conferences, conventions, hackathons, and more may be affected by the executive order in its current form, as well by the threatened extension of restrictions to additional countries.
It is our obligation to engage with issues that affect the Wikimedia Foundation's capacity to support Foundation’s mission and the goals of the Wikimedia movement. From freedom of expression to freedom of movement, we will continue to do so, in service of our shared vision. You can read more about the brief on the Foundation’s blog.[5]
Best,
Michelle Paulson Interim General Counsel
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File% 3AAmicus_curiae_brief_of_Tech_Companies_%26_Orgs%2C_ Washington_v._Trump.pdf&page=1
[2] https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000860
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769
[4] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/ [5] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/06/amicus-brief-immigration-travel- restrictions/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Yair,
Yes board was informed in the process.
Plus when situation started a few days ago, board expressed full support stepping up against that specific EO.
Christophe HENNER Chair of the board of trustees chenner@wikimedia.org +33650664739
twitter *@schiste* skype *christophe_henner*
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:
Would this action fall under "Collaborative advocacy" in the Foundation Policy and Political Association Guideline? The section refers to "collaborat[ing] with another organization to take action on a particular policy or political question". The example given is signing a petition by the EFF against Internet censorship. The required steps include (among other requirements) consultation with the Public Policy Advisory Group, along with getting consensus in a broader RfC except where time does not permit. I find it difficult to believe that this situation is so critical and urgent that an RfC in advance was impossible, so if it does fall under that section, the policy was yet again violated. Frankly, I don't believe that an RfC would pass in the first place. If you've been following the earlier thread, you may be aware that there is increasing alarm at the risk of the movement being hijacked by political interests, and this new action is not helping matters.
This was a unilateral political actions in a sensitive area without prior discussion. The Guideline does say that the WMF may deviate from the policy if specifically approved by the General Council, although I don't know why deviating would be warranted here. Was this done here? Who was involved in the decision? Was the Board consulted, as suggested by the guidelines (although as an "Optional" step)? Or was it simply considered to not fall under the policy at all? Is the guideline still in effect, or was it eliminated or changed without the document on Meta being updated?
The amicus brief specifically challenges the refugee suspension, among other areas. Is this topic considered to be within the WMF's goals, or was bringing the WMF into an irrelevant political battle considered simply an unavoidable side-effect in the effort to protect WMF operations by means of national political intervention?
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_ Association_Guideline#Collaborative_Advocacy
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Michelle Paulson mpaulson@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear All,
Today, the Wikimedia Foundation joined with more than 90 other organizations in filing an amicus brief[1] in State of Washington v. Trump[2] currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States. This case challenges the recent executive order[3] issued in the United States on January 27, 2017, which establishes immigration and travel restrictions based on country of origin. Other signatories to the brief include Facebook, Levi Strauss & Co., Microsoft, Mozilla, and Paypal. The brief includes legal arguments against the order itself, and details the real and immediate impact these restrictions will have on the Wikimedia Foundation and other signatories’ staff, users, customers, and
operations.
We expect it to be filed in other current and future cases challenging
the
order, as appropriate.
We know that the Foundation’s prior statement[4] on this executive order has generated debate in the communities, on mailing lists and in other forums. Some disapprove, with concern that the Foundation has taken a political stance on behalf of the movement. Others approve, with concerns about the impact of this order on the practicalities and values of open collaboration and sharing. We would like to clarify our perspective on
this
important issue.
From our perspective, the implications of this order - and the urgency of our response - are clear. Beyond the issue of the values of open collaboration, this order will also have serious, tangible effects on the Foundation and our ability to support the Wikimedia projects and communities.
From an operational standpoint, orders such as these may substantially limit our ability to deliver on support for the global Wikimedia communities. Much of the Foundation's work involves travel across
borders.
We cross borders to develop and sustain strategic partnerships with Wikimedia affiliates and free knowledge advocates. We travel to
gatherings
and hackathons to support and collaborate with Wikimedians around the world. We represent Wikimedia research and methodologies at conferences with librarians and scientists from across the globe. We meet with community leaders and board members internationally to exercise corporate and community governance and execute strategic oversight.
As the Foundation, we have an obligation to protect the Wikimedia
projects
and ensure that they thrive in perpetuity. We are not a political organization, but we are passionate about defending free knowledge, and
the
conditions for its flourishing. We believe that the immigration and
travel
restrictions posed by the executive order in question will have a detrimental impact on the Foundation's mission and operations, as people are unable to enter the United States or restricted from leaving because they may not be allowed to return home. Board and committee meetings, conferences, conventions, hackathons, and more may be affected by the executive order in its current form, as well by the threatened extension
of
restrictions to additional countries.
It is our obligation to engage with issues that affect the Wikimedia Foundation's capacity to support Foundation’s mission and the goals of
the
Wikimedia movement. From freedom of expression to freedom of movement, we will continue to do so, in service of our shared vision. You can read
more
about the brief on the Foundation’s blog.[5]
Best,
Michelle Paulson Interim General Counsel
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File% 3AAmicus_curiae_brief_of_Tech_Companies_%26_Orgs%2C_ Washington_v._Trump.pdf&page=1
[2] https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000860
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769
[4] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/ [5] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/06/amicus-brief-immigration-travel- restrictions/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org