[Kbi-webcivics] {Disarmed} Re: [IA - members] {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Secretary-General Appoints High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

[Timothy Holborn]

Hi Ian,

I've used your email to brainstorm a little more of my thoughts.  I
apologise for the length of it, but selfishly, its helpful to me (whilst
the hope is, that its also helpful for others).

In summary - yes.  its good to see movement, its good to see some level of
professional endorsement, i do wonder why the man who (co-)founded internet
society didn't make use of it - i've had various discussions with him in
past - ISOC is aware of my intention (as it has been for some time) to
establish a global sig, which i believe is the appropriate means to
engage.  I am working on communications infrastructure, local SIG
structural requirements and the 'invest-ability' frameworks required to
set-up this ISOC based global initiative, noting i have tried before and
failed - hopefully, it'll be different this time.  Around the time of an
earlier attempt (as described below)
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/05/ota_isoc_merger/ was established.
 The statements most often made to me, is why would you want to do this in
Australia.

My response is always, because i'm Australian. (alongside the implicit
considerations made, therein).

With respect to your capacities - I am aware of an array of functionality
that's going to come-about with 5G radios.  I can imagine them managing the
'hyper-space' of environments.  The notes about IPv6 being made use of;
seems a little historical for me, and the context of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Broadband_Radio_Service also perhaps
less understood in relation to spectrum efficiency and the future SWOT
frameworks around various wireless communications technologies.  At
present, WiFi devices are reporting back to WWW / App providers over HTTP;
whereas 3g/4g have means to report a little differently.  ideally, the
sanity of a home as a private space is preserved and the emergent issues
are made to be decided by an informed public.

I'm not sure how many people ceremonially wear a fit bit to bed; i'm not
sure what the demographics are for doing so, and i'm not sure how many
mothers and fathers of teenage children would want an alert, as to make a
phone-call if they see a heart-rate spike, when apparently those children
are having a sleep over with a friend; similarly, i'm not sure how doctors
might treat 'depression' of elderly persons where no spikes are present, or
indeed, how their practice management software - might make suggestions
about treatment options.

(i couldn't figure out a better way of explaining the privacy issue)

It has been my view for some time that IPv6 has a very important role to
play, alongside related DNSSEC, DANE and other related built-in
functionality; that can influence things.  I have also been of a view, that
the idea of allocating IPv6 address blocks to persons or property (ie: buy
a house, get an IPv6 address block) is not nonsensical; over many years,
the issues of relating the publicly routable relations between the
beneficial owner of property (et.al.) and the IP Address that property
relates, is not easily facilitated by any other means that i am aware of.
Domain Policies are annualised subscriptions, not life-time subscriptions;
with built-in support for geology related use after death (or
virtualisation of that person, by way of the information contained within
their inforg).

It would be good to figure out how to form a more comprehensive framework
of timely considerations about these matters.  I also envisage a disruptive
influence to come about in relation to emergent institutional trust
foundries - whereby the banking and telecommunications sectors in
particular have cross-over; media sectors, in different ways also.
Obviously, a problem is not a problem - if no one knows about it.  I think,
the intention is to define fewer 'zero-day' events, but at this stage, i
cannot be sure..

*RESPONSE IN GREATER DETAIL:*
I was able to discover the solid 'hello world' app last night, and for
those interested in making statements with working code -
https://github.com/WebCivics/solid-yo - always happy to help.

I haven't been aware of CivicUS, whilst noting the area is becoming a
hotspot for innovation and risk-management through the lens of various
interests.  I hope to find and catch-up with Dr Dhananjayan (Danny)
Sriskandarajah in due-course.

Personally, i have flights of frustration which are somewhat like a flight
of ideas - but they're more concrete in nature.  historically, i remember
back in ~2000-2 making first attempts and both watching and being dismayed
by the way silos developed as intended choices; without the funds available
to produce the apparatus needed to support 'alternative futures'; noting
also, the world before smart phones and the rapid and wonderful engagement
of women into the field of computer science related influences on society;
aongside the broader level of maturity in relation to computer scientists
and the implications of their 'mushrooming' activities (ie: staying up late
at night to the light of a computer monitor) imho - really helps us to
curate improved understandings; if we should so choose to, and i'm entirely
devoted to seeking that out.

I suspect one of the critical issues has been in resourcing the pathway
where the 'commons' considerations are able to be undertaken by
unencumbered agents.  Whilst i know i am not alone - it is my belief, that
my experience of building 'parts' has been quite unusual; in that, my
contributions to various W3C standards development activities, have not
been governed by an institution of any form - which is particularly
relevent where it comes to the laser focus expected of agents working on
behalf of large corporate bodies - such as microsoft, google, etc.  Indeed
it is the case that the Bill and melinda Gates foundation, alongside
alibaba, visa and many others have already been integrally involved in
these works. nonetheless, i am a little haunted by the times where someone
contacted me after a teleconference to express their regret for not having
been able to support my statements on that official call, only to seek to
ensure i understood their sentiments on an unofficial basis afterwards.

end of the day - people work to support more important outcomes, like happy
kids.  being unentitled to gainful employment in a specialised field,
doesn't help to promote the day to day activities of keeping ones promise
to support kids, to be happy; neither do the burdens of forced,
undocumented secrets designed to undermine their welfare in future through
acts that compromise purpose of the individual actors; and all involved,
make mistakes - are human, and most often bound to the narrow text of
responsibilities outlined by way of various constituents of law in relation
to domicile,

I am still unsure how data stored under foreign law on a commercial basis -
relates privacy by mandate, to legal aliens of those foreign operators.
End of the day, seems to me to be a complex trust model, with various
modalities...   but the circle making decisions on behalf of the worlds
population, responsible moreover for the natural world - in this area of
defining how one may declare what is truth, to show fact - this group of
individual actors, is far too small, in my opinion...


On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 at 11:17 ian.peter--- via members <
members at lists.internet.org.au> wrote:

> Civicus is a well respected international grassroots NGO and I am glad to
> see them on such a committee to provide focus on matters that concern them,
> such as surveillance, privacy, human rights etc. That is a perspective
> certainly needed on this committee. I am also glad to see members with
> specific knowledge around blockchain, artificial intelligence and other
> emerging technologies being at the table. I think the business interests
> there are good - with tech giants such as Alibaba, Microsoft, Ebay and
> Google at the table, along with a reasonable cross section of nation states.
>

- As noted above - looking forward to finding out more about civicus.
- Blockchain / decentralised ledgers and related technologies - provide an
invaluable method to decentralise discovery.  the function, commonly known
as 'search', centralises the infosphere and the use of structured data /
artificial intelligence, to specified operators.  We have issues with
archiving, the maintenance of resources such as wikipedia (and being able
to identify the action-context of an article editor); and increasingly
require these forms of resources (ie: see - http://lod-cloud.net/ ) to make
use of human knowledge in every day life, with a variety of preferences of
how this is done; whether it be through a payment wall, serviced via
various means (ie: free by way of advertising + "your data", Subscription
API, etc.)  or whether we're able to ensure the institutions managing these
services on behalf of their stakeholders, are able to build in the cost of
doing so into the business model.

People generally don't need to pay for opening a bank-account and being
sent a payment instrument.  i don't see why it should cost any more for a
person to be provided the beneficial use of their legal identity.

What makes less sense to me; as is an area of conjecture with respect to
the use of blockchain - is for human identity to be defined by way of a
blockchain, set of attributes applied to that 'data subject' on the
blockchain, by way of institutional actors ("legal personalities"); then
made use of commercially (and by governments) through the application of AI
algorithmically initiated processes, that apply specified 'norms' - against
those 'identity constructs'.

What i did not talk about much in those works over the years, was about
inforgs.  that you, in life, have the beneficial ownership over the
decisions you make in how you interact with other agents (sameAs:
http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_Agent ); that these definitions made by
you, are dynamic, temporally cognisant; and the nature of your
relationships with others neither forms a 'source of truth' for the
definition of you, or others.  that you have the right to
self-determination, but that indeed also - you have responsibilities, that
in ledger form - translate to be accountabilities.

Therein - gets complicated.

*USE CASE*
A financial crimes professional knows - to be good as a criminal actor -
its important to make money, leave no fingerprints, maintain plausible
deniability and an insurance strategy.  If you want to do tax fraud, by
issuing an invoice to claim the GST between two companies; get two people
whose testimony will not be received to do it for you, make the sum low
enough to invalidate investigation, and work from the outset in destroying
their reputation whilst making friends through the use of the funds created
in so doing - to compromise others, to make the cost of accountability too
high...

*DERIVATIVE*
If these systems focus solely on the target identified by way of reporting
an issue, or having carried out an issue; to the exclusion of all others;
and/or, if the systems make the cost of enquiry too prohibitively expensive
(inc. seek to get foreign agents involved in sovereign / state affairs)
then new criminal business models are made able to flourish.

*Considerations*
Whilst a great deal of work was done via W3C, there was a trend that
no-matter who involved made attempts - their limited scope failed to attend
to issues that even cause threats to their own purposes, their own charters
- and, imho, it was just all considered to be 'too hard'.  In this way,
arguably over ~20 years, whilst leadership is often sought - where that
role is sought to simply be in front of others; the outcomes are not the
same.  I do not believe it was this sense of operationally ideological
leadership, that brought several nations, including Australia, into a forum
that post WW2 established the UN UDHR.

Sadly also - it can sometimes be the case that advocacy organisations
seeking to improve the situation for citizens, can end-up leading the
charge towards establishing works that make the situation worse; or may act
to fix one set of problems, whilst introducing new ones.  The image of
Narelle was taken at a conference i put together in 2017 'trust factory' -
in that conference, Andrew Mcleod[1] spoke about his experience working
with the UN, and how to influence change in this area[2].  We were let-down
with the production equipment required to produce the intended youtube
videos (short-form) on the day; but thankfully, Dave Lorenzini[3] captured
it for me.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLjlq8X3Pwk
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbgtUZ0gkoM
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keyhole,_Inc&oldid=733479836


> So all in all I don't think it is too bad. Better representation of the
> global south might be able to be argued for, and I hope the committee calls
> on some of the resources from the old "usual suspect" internet governance
> interest groups for their inputs - although I think their lack of presence
> on the committee itself might actually be advantageous.
>

My take on it, without seeking to be bound to any singular perspective on
this very multifaceted complex cross-section of international development;

Is that there is serious money influenced by the implications of these
works, and that the disruptive influence on ecosystems established for
international 'cloud' information management systems - is enormous.  Whilst
in some cases, they could simply change their Terms of Reference to ensure
the citizens data is stored in relation to their choice of law - by default
- this suggestion has been met with resistance, and i'm not sure what our
government representatives who are privvy to the complexities of these
matters are able to tell their stakeholders - ie: the Australian People.

I believe the establishment of this group is both very good, but also
something to be considered as 'early days'.  it is challenging to undertake
work, and not care about the projected provenance of the outcome - it is
most challenging for those who conditionally invest on the basis of a good
business model, of some sort.

the 'one world government' actors, whether by way of incompetence of
intentional acts - are indeed threatening freedom of thought in a manner
where they seek seek to usurp the rights of others, for a little coin, on a
basis of 'all care, no responsibility'...  The issues are not new - ie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKOk4Y4inVY

But they'll be processed as 'emerging issues'...  The US has been at war
for a very long time.  I'm not easily able to reference the war-time law
constituents, but with all wars there are casualties.  peace, requires
ceremony and the means for people from difference places to convene and
communicate to each-other, the nuances they have in their interpretations
of moral grammar[4].  I think, i know where this needs to be done[5] and i
think i have some sense of why that's not a silly idea[7] and i'm not
particularly fussed about whether or not people generally understand
why[8], whilst noting, freedom of thought - is reliant upon the means to
ensure the algorithms that interfere with our reality, the ones that retain
the lowest distortion values - like an SNR ( signal to noise ratio )
evaluation - I think it is very important those techniques, those
technologies - are produced as commons and not the proprietary intellectual
property for a particular group, of commercial actors by way of a legal
personality.

I think this objective is still beyond the realm of what could be achieved
by the Australian Government; even if it threw billions of dollars at
data61 / CSIRO to make an attempt in the traditional way.   I think the way
this can work,

is by inviting the world to a table, to a room - to a place governed by our
custodianship, as Australians, to figure out how we can do it together.  My
thoughts are that to achieve this long-term goal - we have needed firstly,
to collaborate locally; and through that lens, form an international topic
based global chapter ("web civics") as to continue to pursue this
leadership position, that i have been making the attempt to garnish; on the
basis, that i've been working on this knowledge banking 'thing' for 20
years, and never envisaged that i would have been given a free satellite
connection, with a dish from the community, whilst living in a paddock
forming working relationships with the people who invented the internet -
getting the build process done for 'verifiable claims' and the
infrastructure needed for people to store those claims; which frankly, is
about far more than simply - the money; whilst noting, getting this right -
setting up an effective 'knowledge economy' marketplace internationally,

If it works, there is not a lack of money, of socioeconomic value flowing
through it.  I think amongst the first things that have needed to be
attended to, is the kindness equation[9]; but perhaps therein, we also need
to get past the hurdle of expectations that this 'stuff' should be easily
understood in a paragraph.

in future, i think there will be libraries dedicated to the topic; but
we're not going to benefit from those resources, if we want to be involved
in inventing it to begin wth.  there will be no available undergrad courses
that qualify people in it; the practice of invention, means taking on the
burden for forming art; which when done on a global scale, is far better
than eh.

;)

Tim.

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr2K8mo-A5g&t=4898s
[5]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rKMzkKf6Xf6TUqPw0S9PurFMtrA_na0f/view?usp=sharing

[6] https://vimeo.com/30416090
[7] http://thecommonwealth.org/our-charter
[8] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/#3.2
[9]
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/reinventing-kindness-equation-timothy-holborn/



>
> Ian Peter
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Todd Hubers via members" <members at lists.internet.org.au>
> To: "Internet Australia" <members at lists.internet.org.au>
> Cc: "Todd Hubers" <todd.hubers at gmail.com>;
> kbi-webcivics at lists.internet.org.au
> Sent: 17/07/2018 10:09:58 AM
> Subject: [IA - members] {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Secretary-General
> Appoints High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation | Meetings Coverage and
> Press Releases
>
> Interesting stuff Tim,
>
> I had a look at CivicUS, and their platform is what worries me about
> Digital, Internet, and similar advocacy groups: they have almost unlimited
> scope, delving into youth, gender, and climate change. They have many
> "activities" around those focus areas. This is a clear departure from
> "focus". Not only is the scope broad, but it's also politically partisan,
> with no olive branch to gently coax in, and convince the ~50% of
> populations who lean conservatively.
>
> I think the benefit of the internet is the fact that all those political
> issues may be freely discussed. It's the freedom of the internet that must
> be a central focus, not social issues.
>
> So Tim rightly points out a key tool for that, TOR. But where is the
> pinned TOR headline on the CivicUS website. But that's something that
> should be the outcome of a correctly and narrowly defined mission, and a
> strong strategy for reaching goals.
>
> So it looks like CivicUS is something very different to what is needed
> globally to tackle the real problems of the world, but certainly a part of
> the solution.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 at 15:22, Timothy Holborn via members <
> members at lists.internet.org.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> (apologies if its' a bit of a rant - typing it - is helping to orientate
>> me)
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 at 13:27 Narelle Clark <narellec at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There is one Aussie, but I don't think he's been here for years (dual UK
>>> based in South Africa). It would be good to touch base and get a meet up
>>> should he make it here, though.
>>>
>>
>> I think the US/China leadership thing is quite strategic.  It would be
>> great to meet the Australian man noted to be involved.  I wonder how
>> CivicUS is similar in any way to my works on WebCivics...   Interestingly:
>> https://www.trustfactory.net/ is part of https://www.isolvtech.com/
>> which is based in SA. Which is a bit different to the local version...
>>
>>  they do a bunch of stuff around 'plausible deniability' which is always
>> interesting ;)
>>
>>
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> Narelle
>>>
>>>
>> MY LONGER RESPONSE
>>
>> Thoughts;
>>
>> [image: trust.jpg]
>>
>> It is most important solutions are defined rapidly. I think waiting for
>> people to catch-up, isn't going to help them. I hope we can continue to
>> pursue leadership in Australia but not at the cost of ensuring a
>> well-formed solution is made available in a timely manner.
>>
>> In Vint's recent presentation in Australia (perhaps in future - an
>> announcement to members might be made as to ensure the opportunity to know
>> these things are on); Vint remarked,
>>
>> “We have a big problem – I call it the digital dark age – in that we
>> don’t curate our digital content with much care until we realise its too
>> late. So I’m a big fan of trying to create and preserve data, to assure
>> ourselves that digital content can be moved from one medium to another –
>> that we are able to preserve software. Creating a sophisticated regime for
>> curating, preserving and accessing our data is just as important as
>> preserving the original bits of data.”
>> source:
>> https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/internet-past-and-present-vint-cerf-conversation-toby-walsh
>>
>>
>>
>> Negotiating the validity of Universal Human Rights (
>> http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ ); where those rights may be
>> appropriated or denied by way of new medium - as to render meaningful
>> service to proprietary commercial interests of a party (ie: rent-seeking
>> behaviours) isn't something to be entertained lightly; One might place bets
>> on the manifest characteristics through which the qualities of a mediums
>> characteristics to maintain good data-hygiene in some areas; and be allowed
>> to deteriorate in others, will continue to manifest, without good advocacy
>> support - enabling the means to discern the intricacies of good policy vs.
>> old ones, in our emergent 'knowledge economy'.
>>
>> Societies and their systems of government need verifiable claims -
>> imagine an agenda that wilfully sought to undermine the social purpose of a
>> court-room. Imagine being subjugated for seeking to protect the relevance
>> of a court of law. Maybe South Africa will be more progressive in these
>> areas than we are... maybe we're simply not equipped.
>>
>> If we're planning for a society that in a realm of dynamic data - is
>> sought to rely upon a basis of hear-say, due to a decline of available
>> options, perhaps the intended representation is that people don't really
>> need courts... these sorts of facetious objects are not entirely without
>> merit... When i was preparing for the TF conference, Anni was curating her
>> WebScience conference (held in Canberra) around the concept of getting
>> people to 'wake up'. (
>> https://www.thinknpc.org/publications/represents-human-digital-age/ )
>>
>> I think if we're able to step it up, get the right framework of
>> leadership support as required for international engagement, international
>> leadership; a framework that can be engaged and relied upon in a manner
>> that has both funding and momentum; we might have a chance...
>>
>> IMHO - It is NOT going to work is otherwise gainfully employed persons
>> (including but not exclusive to academics) wait until the risk-profile
>> lowers as to raise an internal project, off the back of the work done by
>> unpaid volunteers...
>>
>> It's impossible to parse the knowledge amassed by 'thought leaders'...
>> Things need to be done today, like updating the 'how to build a solid App'
>> hello world documents available https://github.com/solid/ to support
>> those working http://gitter.im/solid/ | whose work is spoken about (to
>> some degree)
>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/07/the-man-who-created-the-world-wide-web-has-some-regrets
>> |
>> https://www.economist.com/special-report/2018/06/28/how-to-fix-what-has-gone-wrong-with-the-internet
>> | and as far as almost anyone knows,
>>
>> There are no Australians involved in that project. I think TimBL might be
>> in AU soon? But that's hear-say... either-way, i'd prefer to see a greater
>> investment made into AU leadership in this knowledge economy area. I read a
>> big investment in this area was recently made:
>> https://www.themandarin.com.au/95308-australian-government-and-big-blue-mint-1-billion-advanced-technologies-deal/
>> To which whilst i have concerns about the sociological lock-ins, some of
>> these decisions may bring about by way of how information management
>> systems are designed to be mandatorily used - talking to myself ain't going
>> to help... indeed, even when influences are made, without recognition for
>> contributions - without good provenance systems in place - the underlying
>> foundations used to build these 'knowledge economy ecosystems' are still
>> broken. It changes the nature of the debate, from an Australia where
>> universal income needs to be factored into their design decisions; where
>> changes to health-policy to rationalise whether a royal commission into
>> health (particularly mental health) services is cheaper / better than
>> considering the impact to the reality of services provided as medicare
>> fails to meet the needs of good doctors and patients who need clinicians
>> who take an interest in them; more than the person managing the automatic
>> check-out machine at the local super market.
>>
>> Choices are being made - i see very little conversation about it. I think
>> this illustrates clearly - something is very wrong.
>>
>> IMHO - It is imperative for all commercial undertakings that a binding
>> commitments to human rights by way of an open forum, the means to make use
>> of appropriate infrastructure such as IETF (whilst it would be nice if they
>> supported RDF) as to ensure a commercially agnostic & non-binding info
>> sphere environment for socioeconomic support of life (and the natural
>> world). It is my opinion one of the very few means to do this in a manner
>> that works with government, but is not bound to the obligations of a
>> government department to defend its position where the needs of government
>> (inc. "rule of law", security, tax & revenue protection) are at odds to the
>> needs of the people, of citizens. Sometimes the problem is about the
>> behaviours of an agent, sometimes its the nuances of an actor
>>
>> Some help with
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xKHONGoepiq29r7NMB9T6yd6kPcfWY2JsaDzK6OqnHE/edit?usp=sharing
>> would be useful. i think it needs to be broken down into a memorandum or
>> introductory document; followed by the SIG TOR & perhaps a 3rd elements
>> about working-group objects? not sure.
>>
>> It's progressed a bit from the 2013 document: *MailScanner has detected
>> definite fraud in the website at "drive.google.com". Do not trust this
>> website:* *MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at
>> "drive.google.com". Do not trust this website:* *MailScanner has
>> detected definite fraud in the website at "drive.google.com". Do not trust
>> this website:*
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_-AWWDVv3V2SVpVR3E4T1hETlE/view?usp=sharing
>> <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_-AWWDVv3V2SVpVR3E4T1hETlE/view?usp=sharing>
>>
>> (which might help others with background) and is less dense than
>> explaining the theoretical (and provenance, from 2000) relationship with
>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/#3.2
>>
>> So, FWIW: I think its important to get the TOR done, before starting a
>> conversation with the banking sector about machine readable itemised tax
>> receipts; or other potential scopes of work, that i think are all quite
>> important and extremely complex.
>>
>> Meanwhile - i'm still of the thought that speaking about ensuring UHD
>> Sport is delivered freely to 'consumers' is an easier way to get people
>> thinking about the relationship between their homes and families; and data.
>> This is in-turn saying - let arrogance, of operators, be considered
>> immutable - 'long live consumers' (not that they really think, what that
>> accolade made for a pay-packet actually means in areas beyond their field
>> of expertise, like health. perhaps media people think medical people are
>> happy to subjugate themselves because they are expected to live by a
>> different set of moral rules - perhaps they don't understand the pressures
>> put upon them...)
>>
>> I have stated very clearly over many years (sadly in past, to deaf ears)
>> that ISOC-AU is the place to start making significant progress on these
>> issues. I am pleased new energy has started to grow, but it is very
>> fragile... These works don't do themselves, people need to wake-up, ISOC-AU
>> needs to improve its collaboration environment pronto.  Honestly, atm, i'm
>> really not sure how to fund it.  which is troubling me.   It is alot easier
>> to send a series of issues / problem statements '/ high-level solutions, to
>> others overseas who are funded to do the work involved in getting
>> work-product done.  Indeed also, in an environment where there is a severe
>> drought of appropriately supported resources - its actually better to do
>> things that way...   But it distorts the market.  It makes people think,
>> less energy is expended than is real; it does not proportionately
>> illustrate a value-matrix around work-product; it distorts it, which leads
>> to reliability / security issues.  A bunch of major websites, and the ones
>> made before them had no revenue or moreover certainly - not enough.  The
>> investments made led to
>> https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1bHmB8_f7ASRHm97TwhZmmEQnTKU -
>> noting the distinction between those developed in the floppy disk age - vs.
>> those that developed as online data storage became a thing --> in this next
>> envisaged shift - i'd like to see how the Australian Banking Sector remains
>> a local industry.  I would like to ensure the definition of a great many
>> things, remain local.  it seems others also have concerns:
>> http://about.abc.net.au/speeches/an-abc-fit-for-the-future/
>>
>> But perhaps these works need to uplift themselves, out of the gutter.
>> I'm not entirely sure what to do next.  Am very interested in more help.
>> https://doodle.com/poll/idt7tyxwcpugkdha should help - I've also created
>> a new invite link for the WebCivics Slack set-up:
>> https://join.slack.com/t/webcivics/shared_invite/enQtMzk5MDA2NTMyMDk4LTU0OGQzMGI1ZGIzODBiMDBjYmMzNDRkMmE1ODI0YzBiNTdmMzY2MGQ3NDNlYzhkYzU1OTU3NjMzYmU5YjY1ZTc
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Tim.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 9:57 PM Timothy Holborn via members <
>>> members at lists.internet.org.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> FYI: https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sga1817.doc.htm
>>>>
>>>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/UNSGdigicoop
>>>>
>>>> (Noting implicitly therein;
>>>> https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/?Text=&Goal=16&Target=16.9 )
>>>>
>>>> Do we know if any Aussies are involved?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Tim.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Narelle
>>> narellec at gmail.com
>>>
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and
>> is
>> believed to be clean. _______________________________________________
>> members mailing list
>> members at lists.internet.org.au
>> http://lists.internet.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/members
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> Todd Hubers
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
> _______________________________________________
> members mailing list
> members at lists.internet.org.au
> http://lists.internet.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/members
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internet.org.au/pipermail/kbi-webcivics/attachments/20180717/975f984a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: trust.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 35049 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.internet.org.au/pipermail/kbi-webcivics/attachments/20180717/975f984a/attachment-0001.jpg>