<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Garamond;
panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Thanks for your comments Deborah and I'll reply to them inline…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Deborah Brown [mailto:deborah@accessnow.org] <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 21, 2012 10:01 AM<br><b>To:</b> michael gurstein<br><b>Cc:</b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org; McTim; bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: FW: [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Dear Michael, <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thank you for raising these issues. I think there are a few misunderstandings here that I hope I can clarify. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] okay</span></i></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>This statement is not meant to act as a spokesperson for civil society or Best Bits. As I noted in my email that was forwarded to this list, the statement "is meant to be complementary to other post-WCIT civil society statements that focus on the substance of the ITRs." If renaming the document "A civil society statement..." and including "the undersigned members of" before mentions of "civil society" would clarify that, I think we can definitely make those changes. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] I think that would be preferable… although I guess I would like to see how it was phrased… I would like to think that there was a normative agreement within CS and that to some degree that this was articulated in the statement from BestBits but that statement was I think carefully crafted so as to not attempt to be definitive on the part of CS nor should it have been, nor should this one be so presented…<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I'ld have to look at the other statements from various CS folks in the context of Dubai but given the peculiarity of the arrangements governing CS participation (including acting as representatives/spokespersons for certain "national interests"/delegations and certain funding arrangements for attendance) at the WCIT one can hardly see anything that was said/articulated from there as being representative of anything much beyond the opinions of a particular sub-set of people who managed by some means or other to make it to Dubai.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>As it happens, a number of organizations that were very involved in Best Bits have endorsed the statement, so listing those organizations should be a good indication of who within Best Bits supports the statement, and who does not.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] I'll look forward to seeing this</span></i></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Also, this is not an Access statement, but was drafted by some civil society representatives who were present in Dubai. As one of the people who was remaining in Dubai towards the end, I volunteered to circulate the statement for sign on. It has around 20 signatories at the moment. I am happy to circulate this list once I have had the chance to collect the names. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] okay but see my comments above concerning the issue of statements coming out of CS Dubai</span></i></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>If I understand correctly, much of your criticism is related to the limited scope of issues and principles that this statement addresses. I cannot speak on behalf of the group that drafted this, but I believe that the focus was kept narrow and focused mostly on the issues raised in the letter that was presented to the ITU ahead of the 10 December meeting with Hamadoun Touré (letter accessible here: <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM">https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] of course I have no idea of this, but one of my observations/concerns about CS in Dubai is that nowhere/no one seemed to be raising the issues that are the usual fare of CS i.e. inclusion, net neutrality, human rights, the public interest--which BTW and perhaps not incidentally were issues that were being raised by many of those countries who did sign the WCIT agreement… That the folks who got in to see M. Toure said something or other is neither here nor there… If I (and I would expect many others) had been there I/we would most certainly have raised some additional issues. I think the issues articulated are dramatically skewed to those issues primarily of interest to the "North" and even within that to a sub-set of CS in the North, and thus I think in no senses should represent or be presented as representing CS position overall. </span></i></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I will take your concerns back to the group that drafted this and see if there is appetite for revising the statement at this late date. If there is not, hopefully making the changes I mentioned at the end of the second paragraph of this email will be sufficient in clarifying that this statement only has the support of the groups/individuals whose names are listed on the public version.<span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] Okay, but again I have significant concerns that this statement is narrowing the focus of CS and turning away from the potential leadership position which (if only by default) I think was accorded to CS as an outcome of Dubai. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I think an explanation has to be given as to why even a component of CS should be univocally accepting the framework of criticism that was articulated by certain national and corporate interests (and by implication rejecting those normal CS positions e.g. digital inclusion, human rights, etc. being articulated by at least certain of the "signers"); and further I would be very interested in the reasons behind the failure of this statement to present a position for the positive values and vision for an Internet in the public interest that CS presumably should be articulating.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I regret any miscommunications/misunderstandings here. Thank you again for your feedback and I look forward to continuing this discussion.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] Best,<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Mike</span></i></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Best regards, <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Deborah <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:24 PM, michael gurstein <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com" target="_blank">gurstein@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p><b><i><span style='color:#1F497D'>McTim, you were asking…</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><div><p><b>Civil Society statement on the new ITRs and the future of multi-stakeholder engagement</b><o:p></o:p></p><p>December 21, 2012<o:p></o:p></p><p>Civil society is disappointed<o:p></o:p></p></div><p><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] did I go to heaven and come back to find that someone made you folks king/queen of CS?</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><div><p>that the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) could not come to consensus in revising the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs). <o:p></o:p></p></div><p><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] why should we/CS care whether the States came to a concensus or not… unless of course, our "interests" are the same as the "interests" of specific states/corporations</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><div><p>We understand, however, the serious concerns that a number of governments have expressed with regard to the potential impact of the new regulations.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] as the above, and what is our alternative norm-based response to these "new regulations"… what do want to see in their place or as an alternative…</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><div><p>As civil society stated in its Best Bits statement, a key criterion for ITRs should be that “any proposed revisions are confined to the traditional scope of the ITRs” and “where international regulation is required around technical issues [it] is limited to telecommunications networks and interoperability standards.” We regret that an Internet governance-related resolution has been included in the Final Acts of WCIT, despite assertions by many that WCIT was not about Internet governance. We are also concerned by the lack of clarity around the applicability of the treaty, which as defined could have unforeseen consequences for an open internet, and the lack of specificity in key terms, such as security, which may negatively impact the public’s rights to privacy and freedom of expression.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] there was a lot of other stuff in that statement--"net neutrality", "public interest", "human rights", "affordable access" etc. why focus only on these areas and not mention the others…</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><div><p>This said, civil society would like to acknowledge and thank those governments that opened their delegations to members of civil society and other stakeholder groups. This was a very important initial step in establishing a civil society voice in the proceedings and we trust that it signals a wider commitment to multi-stakeholder approaches in public policy development and decision-making on telecommunications and Internet-related matters. We trust that this openness and inclusive approach will continue and extend to upcoming ITU-related work and beyond, and we urge other governments to welcome and engage with civil society going forward.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] yes, but CS has other principles as well, why not mention some of those and hold governments accountable against those</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><div><p>As we communicated to ITU Secretary General Touré, we also commend the ITU on first steps towards greater transparency and openness with regard to access to and webcasting of plenary sessions and Committee 5 sessions, as well as soliciting public submissions. These initial steps enabled civil society to play a constructive, albeit limited, role at the WCIT.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] yes, see above</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><div><p>However there remain serious limitations to engaging with the ITU. The substantive policy deliberations in working groups were neither webcast nor open to unaffiliated civil society. Further, while it is positive that the ITU opened the process to public comment, these comments were never part of the official record. We raised both of these challenges with the Secretary General, in writing and in person, and he committed to addressing these concerns and appealing to member states, as appropriate. Although the WCIT has concluded, we renew our request to have the public comments submitted as official ITU documents to capture these positions for the historical record.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] yes, see above</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><div><p>We also raised the issue of the lack of any institutional mechanism for civil society participation at the ITU. While the participation of civil society representatives in government delegations benefits both the delegations and the WCIT’s deliberations as a whole, it cannot substitute for engagement with independent members of civil society. We will be following up on these important matters with the Secretary General and welcome his commitment to considering institutional remedies to this challenge.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] yes, see above</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><div><p>Looking forward, civil society seeks to work with governments and other stakeholders around the globe towards an ever more inclusive and substantive multi-stakeholder engagement on telecommunications, Internet, and related matters. <o:p></o:p></p></div><p><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] surely we want something more than simply an "inclusive…multi-stakeholder engagement"--what about "net neutrality", inclusive access and use etc.etc</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><div><p>Much more needs to be done with regard to opening the ITU to greater genuine multi-stakeholder participation and in particular independent civil society participation - institutional change will need to occur and we will work with the ITU and other stakeholders to bring this about. These changes are vitally important and need to be addressed as soon as possible given the upcoming 2013 World Telecommunication Policy Forum, World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS+10) and 2014 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>[MG>] surely CS is concerned with things other than its own capacity to intervene in this particular set of discussions… why not use this as a framework to start articulating those broader values--which to my mind are framed overall in the context of a global Internet governed in the public interest and for the public good.</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><div><p><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>M</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>-- <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#888888'>Deborah Brown</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#888888'>Policy Analyst</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#888888'>Access | AccessNow.org</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#888888'>E. <a href="mailto:deborah@accessnow.org" target="_blank"><span style='color:#1155CC'>deborah@accessnow.org</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#888888'>S. deborah.l.brown</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#888888'>T. deblebrown</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#888888'>PGP 0x5EB4727D</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br clear=all><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>-- <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#888888'>Deborah Brown</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#888888'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#888888'>Policy Analyst</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#888888'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#888888'>Access | AccessNow.org</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#888888'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#888888'>E. <a href="mailto:deborah@accessnow.org" target="_blank"><span style='color:#1155CC'>deborah@accessnow.org</span></a></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#888888'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#888888'>S. deborah.l.brown</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#888888'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#888888'>T. deblebrown</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#888888'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#888888'>PGP 0x5EB4727D</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#888888'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>