<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">Dear Deborah and Gene,<br>
<br>
Thanks for your clarifications. That makes the limited purpose of
the statement amply clear as refering to the WPTF and its opinions
alone. <br>
<br>
While I fully share Michael's reservations and misgivings, my
organisation will sign this with the hope that<br>
<br>
1. We will strive to at least try to develop statements together
and not present them to BB members after they are closed (like we
want ITU to not do such things with the CS)<br>
2. As Michael says, define what we mean by multistakeholderism,
something which we are always pushing for. Believe me, even within
this group a lot of people mean very different things with this
term.<br>
3. This time really begin framing a positive agenda, which
includes development, and issues of social and economic justice
centrally. <br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 12 May 2013 08:22 PM, Gene
Kimmelman wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:B65BE8E2-CB38-4E21-AC78-0561D7670D07@gmail.com"
type="cite">Having been involved in a number of the discussions
about what the language in a short letter (that everyone seemed
rushed to put together), I feel quite confident saying that the
ENTIRE conversation and focus was about the WTPF, and NOT at all
about the ultimate powers or actions of the ITU in the long run
(others, please correct me if I'm wrong on that point!). So I
believe Parminder is correct to read this as a limited set of
demands from CSOs entirely related to the issues raised in the
Secretary General's report and Opinions submitted to the WTPF. I
take comfort in the reference to the November Best Bits statement
and human rights language to preserve other fights for the future.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On the question of "development agenda," I also believe we
need more of a coordinated civil society push very soon; maybe
we should have considered something stronger in this letter, but
at this late date I don't think it would be practical to open
that up. But I, for one, would certainly commit to pushing
deeper development issues/engagement going forward<br>
<div>
<div>On May 12, 2013, at 9:45 AM, parminder wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 10 May 2013 02:56
PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:518CBD2F.4060700@ciroap.org"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/05/13 17:21,
parminder wrote:</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:518CBD2F.4060700@ciroap.org"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><snip><br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:518CBC10.1000108@itforchange.net"
type="cite"> <br>
Why should civil society recommend that ITU takes up
issues like Internet Exchanges and IPv6 adoption
(subject matter of the 'opinions') and not for
instance net neutrality, which is not among the
subjects covered in the opinions. Why this artificial
line about what Internet issues ITU may work on? <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
There is a rationale for this but I'll let one of the
others speak to it.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
There is no response of this. I would think any
clarification sought on a public statement deserve to be
responded to ....<br>
<br>
In any case, if what is meant by the statement<br>
<br>
"Rather than seeking to address additional issues, we urge
the Secretary-General to move forward in engaging all
stakeholders to implement these opinions."<br>
<br>
is that WTPF rather than address other issues.....move
forward..... to implement these opinions...... <br>
<br>
I am willing to sign.<br>
<br>
Can someone please clarify whether the limitation is
placed on WTPF and on ITU for all times to come....<br>
<br>
Thanks. parminder <br>
<br>
PS: I do completely agree with Michael though that we
should have put real development issues in. This would
also be in keeping with the mandate bestbits gave itself
going forward - to get substantive and develop a positive
agenda, rather than reacting....<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:518CBD2F.4060700@ciroap.org"
type="cite"> <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 href="http://consint.info/RightsMission">http://consint.info/RightsMission</a></p>-->
<p style="font-size:9.0pt;color:black">WCRD 2013 –
Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main">https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main</a>
| #wcrd2013</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>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>