<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Deborah,<br>
<br>
Thanks for your response and the very genuine attempts at
accommodating my concerns.<br>
<br>
Any set of civil society actors are of course welcome to make any
statement on WCIT on their own behalf, and also seek wider
endorsements for it. Further comments in-line. <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 23 December 2012 08:50 AM,
Deborah Brown wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALU7RQbHgadYz+JzgU7YHnYhta_t5pWhFrCK9BM_CCYQ6uiX9Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Dear Parminder,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thank you very much for this detailed response. As I wrote to
Michael, and I would like to reiterate here, this statement was
neither meant to speak on behalf of "civil society" as a whole,
nor the BestBits group in full. I see how it might be read this
way, and I have proposed to go back to the group that drafted it
with edits that would clarify exactly who this statement is on
behalf of. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALU7RQbHgadYz+JzgU7YHnYhta_t5pWhFrCK9BM_CCYQ6uiX9Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think it might also help here to give a bit more
information on the origin and intended purpose of this
statement. As you are aware, a number of civil society
representatives in Dubai met with SG Touré during WCIT and had
presented him with concerns regarding limitations civil society
participation (both in person and remotely). They presented him
with a <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM"
target="_blank">letter</a>, which around 70 civil society
orgs/individuals, including IT for Change, signed onto. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, IT for Change stands with that statement, and is happy to sign
on any follow-on statement on procedural issues. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALU7RQbHgadYz+JzgU7YHnYhta_t5pWhFrCK9BM_CCYQ6uiX9Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>After the meeting, there was a general sense that it was of
strategic importance to follow up with the ITU post-WCIT to hold
the SG to the commitments that he made. That is the primary
purpose of the letter. Most of your criticism seems focused on
the first two paragraphs of the statement, which relate to the
content of the ITRs and BestBits, not the following five
paragraphs, which deal with civil society participation. Is that
correct?</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
You are right. My concern is only about para 1 (second line), para 2
and para 3. I agree with the rest of the statement. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALU7RQbHgadYz+JzgU7YHnYhta_t5pWhFrCK9BM_CCYQ6uiX9Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In the immediate post-WCIT environment, it seemed necessary
to take into account the new treaty in this statement. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I do understand that. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALU7RQbHgadYz+JzgU7YHnYhta_t5pWhFrCK9BM_CCYQ6uiX9Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>Referring to the BestBits statement in reacting to the new
ITRs seemed like the natural and right thing to do, but it was
most certainly not meant to speak on behalf of the BestBits
group. There are of course a variety of different views on WCIT,
so it is understandable that there may be disagreement among
BestBits signatories on how the new treaty measures against the
BestBits statement. But as you suggest, initiating that
conversation within the BestBits group may be valuable. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I propose that Jeremy and Andrew attempt that exercise, whether or
not it culminates into an agreement on a single text. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALU7RQbHgadYz+JzgU7YHnYhta_t5pWhFrCK9BM_CCYQ6uiX9Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Since as you note, the BestBits statement is the common
ownership of those who signed it, and as a signatory you object
to the use of selective quotations, I will go back to the group
of signatories of this post-WCIT statement with two options: one
essentially removing the first two paragraphs, and mentions of
BestBits so that it is a statement on civil society
participation only; and the second with the current text with
the minor, but critical change of adding "the undersigned
members of" before any mention of civil society. If everyone who
has signed the current version is equally satisfied with the new
version (first option) then we can go with the narrower
statement. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks. Although, even a narrower statement (without para 1,2 and 3)
has be claimed only to be on the behalf of those who sign it, as all
civil society statements should be. IT for Change would sign that
statement, and it is possible that BestBits as a group may agree to
do so too. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALU7RQbHgadYz+JzgU7YHnYhta_t5pWhFrCK9BM_CCYQ6uiX9Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I hope you appreciate that with around 20 signatories, I'm
not in a position to make substantive edits to the text
unilaterally. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Of course. Through you I address all the present signatories to the
inappropriateness-es that I mentioned in my last email, and this. I
am sure that all will understand the concerns that I have raised. To
repeat, of course any set of actors are welcome to frame any
statement whatsoever on their own behalf, which however should not
appear to have umbilical linkages with any statement of another
group that might or might not be in agreement with the new
statement. <br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALU7RQbHgadYz+JzgU7YHnYhta_t5pWhFrCK9BM_CCYQ6uiX9Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>But I am happy to go back to the signatories and offer an
option that would seem to satisfy your criticism. I also hope
that the intention behind this statement is more clear now. I
look forward to hearing your thoughts on this approach and to
continuing the discussion.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Kind regards, </div>
<div>Deborah </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:28 AM,
parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Hi Deborah<br>
<br>
I find the new ITRs largely in keeping with the BestBits
pre WCIT statement. So, I dont see why we should decry it.
The ITRs speaks everywhere only about telecommunication
networks (if you dont think so, pl do point out the
relevant part). In Baku we actually did agree that the
physical layer of the Internet - implied by general terms
like access to broadband etc - can be covered by the
ITRs. This understanding was the basis of the agreement on
the language that IP layer and above must not be
regulated. However, developed countires did not even agree
to terms concerned with the physical layer of the Internet
- like access to broadband - to be included in the ITRs.
This I understand was against what we wanted. So probably
we should speak about it.<br>
<br>
As for the Internet resolution which is not a part of the
ITRs but appended to it, this compromise actually appears
very symmetric to the the compromise that we reached at
the BestBits meeting, whereby the last sentence of our
statement read....<br>
<br>
"More generally we call upon the ITU to promote principles
of net neutrality, open standards, affordable access and
universal service, and effective competition. "<br>
<br>
All/ most of these issues are Internet issues. In fact,
although the BestBit statement was open to it, the
physical layer of the Internet was no included in the
ITRs, how we can now criticise its inclusion even in an
appended resolution. Why is your proposed statement
speaking against the 'Internet resolution' that is not
even part of the ITRs. We should welcome it since it
correspond to the manner in which we structured our own
statement. Quoting from your proposed statement "We regret
that an Internet governance-related resolution has been
included in the Final Acts of WCIT"<br>
<br>
When the proposed statement says<br>
<br>
"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."<br>
<br>
Can you specify what clarity would we have wanted to be
included. The preamble says 'content is not included', it
says, the ITRs will be implemented in a manner that
respects and upholds human rights. What else could have
been written in the form of clarifying text. Can you
please state some specifics in this regard. <br>
<br>
It is extremely rare that civil society makes a statement
of expectations from an global meeting/ treaty and than
the meeting/ treaty actually meets those expectations to
the extent that the new ITRs meet the expectations of the
BestBits statement. This is how I look at it but I am
ready to hear the views of others and discuss the matter
further.<br>
<br>
The proposed statement uses selectively text from the
BestBits statement and in this respect seem to take
forward the same initiative, which is quite misleading. As
I said, I disagree with the assessment presented in the
proposed statement of the correlation of the BEstBits
statement with the new ITRs. I see the correlation as
largely positive.<br>
<br>
Therefore it would not be right for the proposed statement
to selectively quote in the manner it does from the
BestBits statement and make its case based on that
quotation . The BestBits statement is the common ownership
of those who signed it, and as one of signatories I object
to the manner in which the proposed statement selectively
quotes the BestBits statement, without giving the full
picture. If you indeed want to go ahead with the statement
please remove those quotes from the besbits statement. <br>
<br>
In the end, It is disappointing that while a civil society
group got together to draft a pre WCIT statement, a post
WCIT statement is being presented by a good number of
participants of that group as a fait accompli, and was not
developed together in this group. On the other hand, of
course any group has a right to issue its own statement.
However, I do appeal to those managing the Bestbits group
at present to see if we can draft a BestBits statement on
WCIT outcomes. <br>
<br>
Also, agreeing with Micheal, the proposed statement cannot
use the term 'civil society in a generic manner, as if it
represents 'the' civil society. <br>
<br>
Willing to talk further on the above issues. <br>
<br>
Thanks and best regards, parminder <br>
<br>
<div>
<div><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.igcaucus.org"
target="_blank">bestbits-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.igcaucus.org"
target="_blank">mailto:bestbits-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Deborah Brown<br>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><b>Sent:</b>
Thursday, December 20, 2012 2:09 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wcit12@cdt.org" target="_blank">wcit12@cdt.org</a>;
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org"
target="_blank"><bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org></a>;
AfriCS-IG<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [bestbits] Your sign on requested-
Civil society statement post-WCIT</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear all, </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">As a follow up to the civil
society letter to WCIT (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM"
target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM</a>)
that a number of organizations on this list have
signed on to, civil society representatives in
Dubai drafted a statement on the new ITRs and the
future of multi-stakeholder engagement. The text
of the statement is pasted below.</p>
</div>
<p>This statement assesses the opportunities and
challenges faced by civil society at WCIT and sets
out shortcomings we would like to see addressed to
achieve meaningful civil society participation at
the ITU moving forward. It is meant to be
complementary to other post-WCIT civil society
statements that focus on the substance of the ITRs. </p>
<p>We would very much like to secure sign on from your
organization. We feel that there is a strategic
importance of having this communication with the ITU
Secretariat on record as we look to future
conversations/events. Though the timing is not
ideal, we plan to publish this statement with the
list of signatories and send a copy to the ITU on
Monday. Therefore,<u> we request that you reply to
this email by 0900 EST/1400 UTC on Monday, January
24 if you would like to sign on</u>. Like with the
earlier letter, we will leave the statement open for
sign on and update the list of
signatories regularly. I will send out a publicly
accessible link with the statement and list of
signatories on Monday for people to post and
circulate, but it would also be great to discuss
ways to draw attention to this statement in the New
Year.</p>
<p>Please let me know if you have any questions, and
thank you for your attention to this. Warm wishes
over the holidays.</p>
<p>Best regards,</p>
<p>Deborah </p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Civil Society statement on the new ITRs and the
future of multi-stakeholder engagement</b></p>
<p>December 21, 2012</p>
<p>Civil society is disappointed that the World
Conference on International Telecommunications
(WCIT) could not come to consensus in revising the
International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs).
We understand, however, the serious concerns that a
number of governments have expressed with regard to
the potential impact of the new regulations.</p>
<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.</p>
<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.</p>
<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.</p>
<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.</p>
<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.</p>
<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. 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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- </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"></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"></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"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#888888">E. <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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"></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"></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"></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"></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance"
target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px"><font
face="garamond, serif">Deborah Brown</font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px">
<font face="garamond, serif">Policy Analyst</font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px"><font
face="garamond, serif">Access | AccessNow.org</font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px">
<font face="garamond, serif">E. <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:deborah@accessnow.org"
style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">deborah@accessnow.org</a></font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px">
<font face="garamond, serif">S. deborah.l.brown</font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px"><font
face="garamond, serif">T. deblebrown</font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px">
<font face="garamond, serif">PGP 0x5EB4727D</font></div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>