APrIGF Document Platform

If you omit to the next track in a playlist, Google Play
Music will slide in with the new track info before receding in to the track record.
If someone message or calls you, their contact picture and name will arrive until you answer.

I don’t

a. Providing information intended for the general public to persons with disabilities in accessible formats and technologies appropriate to different kinds of disabilities in a timely manner and without additional cost;
b. Accepting and facilitating the use of sign languages, augmentative and alternative communication, and all other accessible means, modes and for&mats of communication of their choice by persons with disabilities in official interactions;
c. Urging private entities that provide services to the general public, including through the Internet, to provide information and services in accessible and usable formats for persons with disabilities;
d. Encouraging the mass media, including providers of information through the Internet, to make their services accessible to persons with disabilities;
e. Promote the design, development, production and distribution of accessible information and communications technologies and systems at an early stage, so that these technologies and systems become accessible at minimum cost.
f. Promote other appropriate forms of assistance and support to persons with disabilities to ensure their access to information;
g. Promote access for persons with disabilities to new information and communications technologies and systems, including the Internet;
h. purchase of ICT software and hardware by government for public office, education institution and work place need to be usable with the help of assistive technology for example, all software to be usable with the help of screen reading software.
i. . concept on Accessible ICT development must include promotion of “universal design” and “assistive technologies”. Government must address the crucial importance of “ICT accessibility standards/guidelines development”.

Can capacity building be part of this section?

Can E-learning or E-Education be discussed here?

Libraries in some Asia Pacific economies face regulatory hurdles when providing community Internet Access. These can include a:

1.) a telecommunications license, or dispensation from a licensing regime.
2.) a requirement to filter Internet content provided through the network
3.) a requirement to provide interception capabilities for police / government
agencies
4.) a requirement to block Voice over IP technologies including Skype in economies where voice services can only be provided by licensed carriers

An Asia-Pacific strategy for Community networks and public access to ICT should acknowledge these regulatory hurdles and promote their harmonisation or elimination as a step towards ensuring Universal Access.

As I’ve been interested in this topic( and partly inspired by Izumi’s workshop since last year IGF), I’ve written a short paper on the deployment of IPv6 and social, political factors affecting the deployment level. Anyone can find the paper at my blog(borisu0815.github.io), and hope this can help facilitate the discussions.

This was need to be discuss in a manner how we could use our best practices in the scenario.

Telecommunications licensing requirements are a major barrier to connecting the unconnected in developing Asia. Activities such as setting up a community Wi-Fi network are prohibited or made difficult in many economies by regulation, process, and corruption.

True progress in this area cannot be made until telecommunications regulations in developing nations are relaxed to allow communities and their technical partners to innovate.

This group would do well to produce a document summarising regulatory barriers to community networks on a country-by-country basis to highlight the problem and pursue it at a regional level.

This theme of this workshop will also inspire informal meetings at LACIGF2017 and has also been addressed in the Dynamic Coalition on Publicness in the IGF2017.

Joint Statement of the Dynamic Coalition on Publicness Concerning the Right to Be Forgotten

The public realm is losing ground. New regulation and jurisprudence are being conceived to address conflicts concerning the digital dimension of the public space and our ability, as Internet users, to reflect on ourselves. One of them is the so-called “right to be forgotten” (RTBF). The version originally formulated and popularized by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is now being adopted in other regions and with slightly different manifestations including both the right to delist and the right to delete content.
The underlying motive behind the idea of the RTBF is people’s fear of being discriminated against for their past conduct. If this is the case, we need to recognize that blinding ourselves from one another’s wrongs (or supposed wrongs) is not an effective way of addressing and combating unreasonable discrimination. Under current rulings, the supposed wrongdoers can censor search results about themselves just because they think that certain past conduct is currently irrelevant to the moral evaluation of their character by others. Such self-centered censorship will prohibit people from confronting the real forces that are fanning such discrimination. Discrimination can only be addressed when the problems and its causes are known to society.

Furthermore, blinding ourselves to information about others’ conduct is not a proportionate way of combating discrimination. Information that the supposed wrongdoers would like to bury deep within the Internet may be vital for the safety of the people who have pending encounters with the individual in question. Suppressing certain truthful information may be necessary to guard against a high likelihood of immediate discrimination, as in the case of former sex workers or sex abuse victims in certain cultures, but such likelihood must be measured against objective criteria not simply against subjective reputational wishes of the supposed wrongdoers. A viable legal provision against discrimination is possible and in many legislations already existent: either in ex ante forms, such as amnesties or expungement provisions, or in ex post forms protecting other personal rights, such as defamation. RTBF goes beyond that by restricting people trying to protect themselves from sharing vital information. A more effective and proportionate remedy against discrimination is allowing more information to be made available about people so that others’ perceptions of them can be properly contextualized.
Simply put, information is not the reason for discrimination, but prejudice. Prejudice is not based on information, but on the moral decision to do harm by misusing information. We should combat discrimination, not information.

RTBF depends on the temporal relevance of data, as in the phrase “no longer relevant;”thus, it is fundamentally incompatible with freedom of speech and freedom of information. Data does not become irrelevant with the passage of time because data, while becoming irrelevant in one respect or according to a particular perspective, may become or remain relevant from other angles or for other reasons – e.g., for historians, journalists, social scientists, policy-makers, or cultural studies. In fact, the value of data does not reside in the data in itself but in the eyes of the beholder. People may find relevance in old data that other people do not see. Freedom of speech and freedom of information recognizes that pluralistic ideal and grants people of all remote idiosyncrasies the right to impart or receive information as long as such action does not present a high risk of immediate and substantial harm. Freedom of speech does not judge on the relevance of speech.

The popular defense of RTBF – that it does not apply to public figures or information of public significance – misses this point. Public interest is in constant flux. Suppression of seemingly insignificant data may suppress the possibility of public discourse because revelation of important public facts is often made possible by assembling a mosaic of facts that seem irrelevant to the majority of the people at given times. This is why RTBF is extremely problematic in many transitioning countries where full information is urgently needed to address impunities from colonial and dictatorial periods. Particularly in those countries, distinguishing between public and private figures is often impossible without the full availability of information.

Finally, RTBF does not condemn the so-called “no longer relevant information” itself, but rather focuses on making that lawful information available online. In the future, this may mean that, those, especially the impoverished, who are limited to using censored search results will not have access to the information that the rich will be able to uncover by hiring people to conduct brute investigations. RTBF is therefore directly opposed to the Internet’s potential as the equalizer and liberator in terms of facilitating people’s access to information.

We believe that the RTBF results from a misconception of the public realm in the digital age. There is a need for research to first understand the scope and dynamics of the public space after digitization. An increase in the amount and availability of information online affects our thinking about privacy, and it challenges our understanding of the public and the private. The RTBF as articulated by the ECJ, however, does not even attempt to do that, but rather tries to apply the norm regardless of whether it is public or private.

For these reasons, we believe that RTBF jurisprudence should be withdrawn and should not be expanded in any way.

Please sign here. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSftuxOmHMYdPVWQY3UOoZYnVd_eyWwUMi06nAh3LeVa7E-G4g/viewform?c=0&w=1

the name of the program is mislead

the discussion is interesting but it does not touch the point about what is the hack

actually, I understand about we will show about idea or prototype of “hacking” government or surveillance. but we just talk about platform for collect violent data.