<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi Jeremy, all<br>
<br>
Great job of combining diverse perspectives. A couple of thoughts
for your consideration. I like the overall submission but believe
that for the BestBits response to be as effective as possible it
needs to be concise as possible. I am concerned that it is overly
long in parts. <br>
<br>
In particular, the response to <b>question 8</b> is very long and
seems contradictory in places. <br>
<br>
For example, the submission generally notes that the binary view of
"we need some UN-associated structure" versus the "everything is
just fine the way it is" has been talked to exhaustion and is not
reflective of the needs of all stakeholders nor the public
interest. I think we all recognize that existing structures do not
adequately address our overall concerns. However, for Q8 the
paragraph that starts with the "In such fields of public policy..."
seems to suggest that there will inevitably be some association with
the UN:<span class=""> "Therefore, if the mechanism that we begin
through the CSTD Working Group does lead towards a new framework
or process, we accept the likelihood that such framework or
process would likely have to be at least loosely linked with the
UN." This seems to contradict other points in the text and I am
not sure that we have discussed whether or not we accept that this
is the case. My preference would be for this para to be removed
(particularly as the first sentence in the para also seems to
suggest that the only way forward is a structure that is UN based
or built from scratch.) </span>I do not think we should be
limiting the possible mechanisms that may come out of this process,
rather we should be ensuring how we want to process to be
undertaken.<br>
<br>
In this regard, perhaps we could also emphasize in Q 8 that w/r/t <u>mechanisms</u>
for achieving enhanced cooperation: 1) all stakeholders need to be
fully involved (as equals) in any process that could lead to new
frameworks, mechanisms or structures for discussing international
public policy issues in the future (this is not a given), 2) that
whatever the result(s) of that process all stakeholders should be
involved in the discussion of international public policy issues as
per paras 68 and 71 TA (nor is this a given), and 3) that we should
not prescribe or pre-determine any particular model (except that it
must be consistent with the above, transparent, open, etc.) for the
result of that process - the model may differ based on the issue
being discussed, for example, or we may develop entirely new
proposed models (perhaps something for us to think about going
forward) or it could be some morphed version of the IGF, or a
combination of efforts, etc. <br>
<br>
I also believe that<b> question 11</b> needs a rethink. The
response paints a very negative view of multi-stakeholderism and
reads more like an editorial than a consultation response. <br>
<br>
We could start by noting that the question itself is poorly phrased
as we do not accept that the roles of stakeholders are limited to
the definitions of the Tunis Agreement per comments in response to
question 5. As to what barriers remain, there are many: 1) basic
divergence of views as to what enhanced cooperation means; 2)
inability to agree how international public policy issues should be
addressed and in what fora; 3) inability to agree which
international public policy issues should be the focus of enhanced
cooperation and which are adequately addressed already/elsewhere; 4)
lack of support (particularly among governments) for full
stakeholder involvement in the process towards enhanced cooperation
let alone enhanced cooperation itself, etc., etc. <br>
<br>
And how are these challenges overcome? One very modest approach
might be to suggest identifying/agreeing 2 to 3 discrete
international public policy issues areas that are not at all
adequately addressed and of general concern to all stakeholders. If
we can find some points of common interest we can then perhaps
discuss how, when and where such points should be discussed. This
is just one very simplistic way forward - it would be good to be
able to suggest others. Another might be to restate the excellent
"way forward" suggestion in the second para of the response to
question 8 where it says:<br>
<br>
<i>This should lead into an intermediate phase of more formalised
transparency and reporting and collaboration among all
institutions or processes dealing with Internet governance. The
IGF (with its mandate to "promote and assess, on an ongoing
basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance
processes") could be the home for this role. </i><i><br>
</i><i> </i><i><br>
</i>I think the more concise we can be and the more recommendations
we can make the better.<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
Matthew<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Matthew Shears
Director and Representative
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org">mshears@cdt.org</a>
+44 (0) 771 247 2987
Skype: mshears
</pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23/08/2013 00:55, Jeremy Malcolm
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6C79E61E-0649-44C3-8C2E-8C2CC6C82F58@ciroap.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div>A reminder that any remaining comments on this draft
submission are due over the weekend, so that can post it to the
Best BIts site and begin collecting endorsements in time to
submit it to the CSTD on 31 August.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would like to reiterate the importance of us delivering a
strong joint civil society submission to this questionnaire.
Other groups such as ICC-BASIS are supporting the status quo,
and even <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PGwE66q1mrYJ:www.iccwbo.org/Advocacy-Codes-and-Rules/Document-centre/2013/ICC-BASIS-responses-to-CSTD-enh-coop-questionnaire/+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a">putting
forward the idea</a> that things like the (much-criticised by
civil society) APEC Cross-Border Privacy Regulation system is a
good example of enhanced cooperation in practice! So it is very
important for us to put forward a strong submission that points
out the shortcomings of the status quo, and advances a public
interest perspective on this topic.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks.</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On 19/08/2013, at 4:16 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org">jeremy@ciroap.org</a>>
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"> All Best Bits
participants are now invited to finalise a joint submission
to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which we
are to submit by the end of August. This will be a very
important submission in its own right, and also a key
preparatory document to three upcoming Best Bits meetings -
our <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://2013.rigf.asia/workshop-proposal-7/">APrIGF
workshop in Seoul</a>, Day 1 of our Best <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://bestbits.net/bestbits2013/">Bits meeting in
Bali</a>, and one of our two <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_accomplish_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=36">workshops
at the global IGF</a>.<br>
<br>
Its importance is that it addresses a question, unresolved
for the last eight years, about how global Internet
governance (in the broad sense that goes beyond technical
issues) should evolve in response to states claims of
sovereignty over public policy issues relating to the
Internet. I wrote a <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_background_paper/64_1367863304.pdf">background
paper</a> about this general question (and <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.unesco-ci.org/cmscore/sites/default/files/2013wsis10/internet_freedom_in_a_world_of_states.pdf">slides</a>)
for our WSIS+10 workshop in Paris. Post-PRISM, the question
has only assumed greater importance.<br>
<br>
For the past few weeks, a civil society-only <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/ec">Best Bits
working group</a> (which also includes, though not in an
official capacity, civil society members of the CSTD working
group) has been working hard on this, to hone in on the core
issues and to state them clearly and fairly, taking into
account the wide divergence in views that exists even within
civil society. The result of our work is open for your
comment for one week, at which time we will close for
endorsements:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ec">http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ec</a><br>
<br>
The current text is also pasted below. We aim for this
submission to be as broadly inclusive of the views of Best
Bits participants as possible, so after reading and
considering the existing text carefully, if you have any
changes to suggest, please speak up. If the changes are
minor, you can just make them on the Etherpad. If major, we
would ask that you raise them on the list first. The more
groups that can endorse the submission, the more influence
it will have.<br>
<br>
Just to reiterate, we are not taking endorsements yet. This
will occur after one week of final comments from this list.
(There is no point in taking endorsements when there might
still be changes to the text.) For the same reason, we ask
that you don't forward the draft text widely yet. If you
want to bring other groups into the discussion that is
welcome, but (for now) the best way to do so would be to ask
them to join the Best Bits list.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>