<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Let's do it, Mathew.</div><div><br>Are you already coordinating with CDT to adapt best bits statement?</div><div><br></div><div>I'm between meetings but I can start a draft of the follow up on the letter to SG. Deborah, from Access, might help. Anyone who has a little time to help is more then welcome. We will start it in about 2 hours.</div><div><br></div><div>Lets try to have both drafts by the end of the day and try not to be so creative, just departuring from the points and views of previous consensus, as these letters will be just follow ups from previous "achievements", right?</div><div><br></div><div>Best</div><div><br></div><div>Joana</div><div><br>--- ~ --- ~ --- ~ <div>Joana Varon Ferraz</div><div>Researcher</div><div>Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV)</div><div><div><a href="http://www.freenetfilm.org">www.freenetfilm.org</a></div><div><br></div></div></div><div><br>On 31/01/2013, at 09:52, Gene Kimmelman <<a href="mailto:genekimmelman@gmail.com">genekimmelman@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">I agree also on this approach<br><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: matthew shears <<a href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org">mshears@cdt.org</a>> <br>Date: <br>To: <a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org">bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org</a>,Jeremy Malcolm <<a href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org">jeremy@ciroap.org</a>>,<a href="mailto:joana@varonferraz.com">joana@varonferraz.com</a> <br>Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and Responsibilities <br> <br><br>
<br>
I agree with Joana and Jeremy - there are two communications we
should do pretty quickly: <br>
<br>
1) take the Best Bits WCIT statement and adapt it - or at least the
first part on transparency and access, etc. - to the WTPF. I
personally don't see the participation challenges for civil society
being much less than they were at the WCIT - which is ironic because
the WTPF is not a treaty-making conference - and the IEG is not
adequate by any means (I am on the IEG and will be attending next
week). I'm sure CDT would be happy to take a first cut at this
text.<br>
<br>
2) follow-up on the letter to the SG and the meeting we had in Dubai
in which participation in the WTPF was discussed. <br>
<br>
If there is agreement on text on 1 above I can raise points from it
or read it in the IEG meeting next week for Best Bits. <br>
<br>
While I understand the Brazilian telecoms regulator's view there are
a number of points in the SG's 4th report that refer to
multistakeholderism in Internet governance issues and there are two
opinions submitted so far that take positions I believe are contrary
to civil society's interests in terms of stakeholder participation
and enhanced cooperation. I think civil society messaging on these
issues is as important for the WTPF as it was for the WCIT.<br>
<br>
And finally, who on this list is going to the UNESCO WSIS/IGF
meeting at the end of February? Thought it might be good to have a
gathering during that week to compare notes on WSIS+10/IGF and
discuss WTPF?<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Matthew<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 31/01/2013 09:01, Jeremy Malcolm
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:510A32DB.9020508@ciroap.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 31/01/13 05:15, Joana Varon wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:CALTAiTrZhvQx+-8iKxyWuaECfniGCA-NOYk5nRH4BKUJS_4THQ@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">Sorry for the late reply after the sympathy some
have expressed on drafting a letter highlighting the promises of
Dr Touré at the WCIT SC meeting. I was approaching the Brazilian
government for support on our demand for space and participation
of civil society organizations on ITU processes.
<div> <span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br>
Though showing solidarity with the cause, <font face="Calibri, sans-serif">Brazilian government (or our
telecom regulatory agency responsible for representing the
country at ITU) has signaled that WTPF is not the proper
sphere to submit extensive contribution regarding CS
participation, the plenipotentiary would be so. So, as far
as I know, Brazil will submit a contribution to WTPF only
generally speaking about openness and transparency, but
not presenting a particular proposal for change in the
mechanisms for civil society participation. </font></span></div>
<div><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
</span></span></div>
<div><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">In that sense, they
have also addressed the existence of Informal Experts
Group for WTPF, highlighting that: </span></span></div>
...
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Well, this is surely not satisfactory,
so, with <span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">that
in mind, I wonder if we should go for that joined CS
letter focusing on WTPF and stressing previous commitments
from the Secretary General, do we still have time? Or, for
the ones how are more aware of UN bodies internal
procedures, do we have to wait the loooong time for the
plenipot? What could we grasp right now?</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
(I'm quoting almost your whole message because I intend on
forwarding my reply to the wcit12 list too, as an almost identical
discussion is going on there.)<br>
<br>
The deadline for comments on the Secretary General's report is
tomorrow, so we may be hard pressed to do anything by then!
Having said that, we could ask for special dispensation to
contribute a belated submission, as was granted for the Best Bits
statement to WCIT.<br>
<br>
Personally I am unlikely to have time to take the lead on a letter
but I am supportive of the idea and would have comments to give on
a draft if say you or Emma from CDT were to send some draft text.
The IGC has not successfully done a statement for a while, and
Best Bits is in transition (watch this space), so probably it
would probably not be under either of those umbrellas, but rather
a generic civil society letter to which groups could sign on.<br>
<br>
I agree that the invitation to participate in the IEG is no
substitute, though for those who can, good on them. Avri said she
is on the group and there is CDT, but unless you count ISOC (I
don't), there is no other civil society that I know of. Doubtless
largely due to the lack of funding, as always (that's why I won't
be there).<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<p style="font-size:9.0pt;color:black"><b>Dr Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Senior Policy Officer<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 moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://consint.info/RightsMission">http://consint.info/RightsMission</a></p>
<p style="font-size:9.0pt;color:black">@Consumers_Int | <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org">www.consumersinternational.org</a>
| <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a></p>
<p style="font-size:8.0pt;color:#999999">Read our <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality" target="_blank">email confidentiality notice</a>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></blockquote></body></html>