<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> <br>
<br>
I appreciate the weight given to multistakeholder venues,
transparency and free internet as well as supporting the best bits
statements. Now this is the time to remind US delegates and all
other delegates who really mean to support such efforts. To date
WCIT has no official consumer representation body at the platform
while amending ITRs or deciding about the future of the internet.
All the delegates should lend their stated support towards
official civil society representation at this platform because
without formal representation by CSOs and consumer representing
bodies this venue can never be a multistakeholder venue. Now this
is the time to show practical support towards best bits
statements. Lets hope for the best.<br>
<br>
Farooq Ahmed Jam<br>
<br>
On 12/1/2012 9:55 AM, parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:50B98DC8.4010500@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<br>
<br>
Yes, a rather good statement. And such a positive reference to the
'best bits' is very encouraging. <br>
<br>
It also instructive that the US statement singled out the 'best
bits' statement from scores of other statements on the same issue
that are floating around .... In my judgement it is for the reason
that a forum/ meeting associated with a UN forum/ meeting, and
with, even if insufficient, global representation has much greater
legitimacy than any group/ statement which in North centric -
however well resourced, and powerful, and however well polished
its campaigns may be. (Nothing against well resourced and well
polished campaigns; we as an advocacy organisation would ourselves
always try to do well resourced and well polished campaigns) . <br>
<br>
The Best Bits platform should build on this special legitimacy as
a kind of a permanent pre-IGF civil society event.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, to add salt to the serving, I do have some cynical
comments on the US statement as well...<br>
<br>
When they say that global Internet issues should be taken up at
"suitable multistakeholder venues so that these discussions are
well informed by the voices of all interested parties"<br>
<br>
That obvious question is that does the US consider the OECD's
Internet policy/ principles making mechanism multistakeholder,
since US claims (the democratic party's election manisfesto says
so) that they recently negotiated 'global' principles of Internet
policy making at the OECD. This has to be seen along with the fact
that the US is not pushing to 'take' these principles to other,
non OECD, countries....<br>
<br>
And if indeed US thinks that the OECD forum is multistakeholder,
why would a very similar forum - with exactly the same stkaeholder
participation model - and with all countries involved in an equal
measure (which is what the UN CIRP proposal essentially is) be
considered not multistakeholder - and thus presumable out of the
list of the forums implied by the below statement where different
kinds of global IG issues can/ should be taken...<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 01 December 2012 02:02
AM, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:38EA5CFB-488B-478E-95B2-40023720D9EB@acm.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Rather amazing statement.
avri
On 1 Dec 2012, at 00:23, Deborah Brown wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">FYI- Note the reference to Best Bits below.
The blog below is being posted on NTIA, State and FCC websites
The Necessity of an Inclusive, Transparent and Participatory Internet
On the eve of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), we believe that it is the right time to reaffirm the U.S. Government's commitment to the multistakeholder model as the appropriate process for addressing Internet policy and governance issues. The multistakeholder model has enabled the Internet to flourish. It has promoted freedom of expression, both online and off. It has ensured the Internet is a robust, open platform for innovation, investment, economic growth and the creation of wealth throughout the world, including in developing countries.
There are those who may suggest next week in Dubai - and in future venues where Internet policy is discussed - that the United States controls the Internet. Alternatively, they may suggest that in the future governments alone should run the Internet. Our response is grounded in the reality that this is simply not the case. The Internet is a decentralized network of networks and there is no one party - government or industry - that controls the Internet today. And that's a good thing.
The Internet's decentralized, multistakeholder processes enable us all to benefit from the engagement of all interested parties. By encouraging the participation of industry, civil society, technical and academic experts, and governments from around the globe, multistakeholder processes result in broader and more creative problem solving. This is essential when dealing with the Internet, which thrives through the cooperation of many different parties.
The global community has many serious topics to discuss with respect to the Internet. Collectively, we need to ensure that these matters are taken up in suitable multistakeholder venues so that these discussions are well informed by the voices of all interested parties.
Our commitment to the multistakeholder model is based on the fact that transparency, inclusion and participation are the 21st century standards governing discussions related to modern communications. This is a view shared by many around the world and was most recently reiterated by a statement of civil society members and groups from around the world who participated in the "Best Bits" pre-Internet Governance Forum (IGF) meeting held earlier this month in Baku, Azerbaijan. The U.S. Government wishes to lend its support to the spirit of the recommendations contained in the statement.
We have and will continue to advocate for an Internet that is not dominated by any one player or group of players, and one that is free from bureaucratic layers that cannot keep up with the pace of change. We will work with everyone to ensure that we have a global Internet that allows all voices to be heard.
----------------------
Lawrence E. Strickling, Administrator, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
Julius Genachowski, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Phillip L. Verveer, U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy, State Department
--
Deborah Brown
Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:deborah@accessnow.org">deborah@accessnow.org</a>
S. deborah.l.brown
T. deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<p style="font-size:9.0pt;color:black"><b>Farooq Ahmed Jam<br>
Intern<br>
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for
consumers</b><br>
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East<br>
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia<br>
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599</p>
<p style="font-size:9.0pt;color:black"><b>Your rights, our mission
– download CI's Strategy 2015:</b> <a
href="http://consint.info/RightsMission">http://consint.info/RightsMission</a></p>
<p style="font-size:9.0pt;color:black">@Consumers_Int | <a
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org">www.consumersinternational.org</a>
| <a href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a></p>
<p style="font-size:8.0pt;color:#999999">Read our <a
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality"
target="_blank">email confidentiality notice</a>. Don't print
this email unless necessary.</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>