<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">I have not had the chance to go into the long
statement in detail. However, what I see as its main refrain is
bothersome. It says yes there are many very important global
Internet policy issues, and then says that the ITU should not take
them up, but tells us nothing about who should take them up. This
becomes a recipe for, or at least, towards a political governance
free world, the kind one nowadays read about frequently in the
documents of the World Economic Forum (read for instance its
Global Redesign Initiative). <br>
<br>
I am agnostic about whether ITU takes up at least some important
Internet policy issues at the global level or some other
democratic global body takes them up. However, it is not tenable
that they be just left hanging out there, which only allows those
who have the greatest default power on the Internet, mostly the </font><font
face="Verdana">US based </font><font face="Verdana">economic and
political establishment, to carry on consolidating their power.
This statement for me is simply an expression of support for the
Internet power status quo, and therefore I strongly oppose it.<br>
<br>
To take a few examples (a more detailed critique will follow);<br>
<br>
Perhaps the most disturbing part of the statement, from developing
countries viewpoint, is tha which sanctifies unregulated global
market models for global Internet inter-connectivity.... This is a
major reversal from the stand of all developing countries and all
progressive civil society at the WSIS, where unfair global
interconnection regimes was one of the main 'development issues'.
This statement seems to close that issue by declaring that such
things be best left to free markets, with no regulatory framework,
or even a normative/ principles framework. In any case, it is not
clear how even working on the interconnection issue, an express
mandate for ITU from the WSIS is a 'mission creep' for the ITU. It
appears that there is not one thing that ITU can do in 2014 which
will not be called a mission creep. In the circumstances one
thinks that the proponents of the statement should be bold and
just ask for the closing down of the ITU. <br>
<br>
Further, the statement says that the ITU should not work towards a
treaty on cyber- security, an issue that has shaken the world post
Snowden. Just today I read an interview with Snowden's colleague
Laura Poitras about how little has really changed on the ground
as far as mass surveillance by the five eyes is concerned. What
other than a treaty that reigns in the conduct of the states in
this regard can be a solution? Or have we simply given up and are
ready to allow the powerful to do what they may? Alternatively, is
there any other solution being thought of? Civil society must
answer these questions. <br>
<br>
The statement seems to suggest that the first committee of the UN
Gen Assembly should keep doing the work on cyber security. That is
quite surprising becuase by all means, the first committee’s work
is much less participative (of other stakeholders) than even of
the ITU. So, what is the rationale here, other than just to say
ITU should not do it (we will see when we have to stop even the
first committee from doing it, but right now the imperative is....
). I am fine with the first committee doing it, but remember that
any effort towards a cyber security treaty will require the
expertise of ITU which is the agency that has hitherto dealt with
this issue. Such an simply obstructionist attitude to global
governance bespeaks of a movement towards a very unequal, unfair
and unjust world. Progressive civil society must take note rather
than blindly signing on this rather dangerous statement. <br>
<br>
The statement says, we should not begin working on a cyber
security treaty because there is no consensus on basic concepts
and principles in the area.... Is there a greater consensus on the
area of climate change, and so many other areas. Do we just give
up in these areas? if not, why in the area of Internet governance?
Consensus on concepts and principles emerge as a part of a process
towards development of global principles and agreements and not a
as a pre condition of them. This is universally known. One can
understand why US wants to protect the status quo, but why civil
society? <br>
<br>
Again, this is simply a statement for maintaining the Internet
power status quo... Dont do it at the ITU, but we wont tell you
where to do either.... Supporting this statement in my view will
simply be to support the global Internet status quo....<br>
<br>
Yes, we need to reform the ITU, but seeking simple withdrawal of
all Internet policy related agenda from global governance stage is
very problematic. As this agenda is withdrawn from the global
stage, the dominant political and economic forces get a free
reign, and the little policy that needs to be made is made at
plurilateral forums like the OECD, or the Trans-Pacific
Partnership or TPP (see</font><font face="Verdana"> for instance</font><font
face="Verdana">, just the day before's news,
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://infojustice.org/archives/33428">http://infojustice.org/archives/33428</a>, on how TPP seeks to
regulate global IP TV transmissions). <br>
<br>
Such statements as this one simply clear the way for such rule of
the economically and politically powerful...<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 21 October 2014 02:08 AM,
Anne Jellema wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFwCmbGye0uz86edkpTzCw_dFm3FbcovCnv4QTj6JzgV0T1XzA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Dear colleagues
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333339691162px">As
you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to
try to come up with joint recommendations for the ITU
Plenipot. We produced the open letter on transparency and
participation in the Plenipot process itself, which many of
you signed (thank you!). Our second and harder task was to
develop positions on some of the most important substantive
issues before the conference. The output of this second
phase of our work is a 7 page lobby document that is now
available for endorsement for the next 24 hours at:</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333339691162px"><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333339691162px"><span
id="docs-internal-guid-18397614-2f3d-e750-d6aa-91ac3522066b"><span
style="font-size:13px;font-family:Calibri;color:rgb(255,0,0);font-weight:bold;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:transparent"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes">http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes</a></span></span><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333339691162px"><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333339691162px">The
fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference
proposals on which to base our analysis and recommendations,
both because of the ITU's restrictions on document access
and because many Member States submitted their proposals
quite late in the day. As a result, our drafting process has
taken us hard up against the start of the Plenipot itself. </div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333339691162px"><span
style="font-size:13.3333339691162px"><br>
</span></div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333339691162px"><span
style="font-size:13.3333339691162px">It is now very urgent
to get this text in front of delegations, so we are
opening it for endorsements rather than comment. If
however someone has a red flag, "absolutely can't live
with it" issue that prevents them from signing on, they
should email me personally in the next 24 hours to propose
an edit(s) to resolve this issue, and I will consult the
other members of the ITU fluid working group on whether to
accept this edit. </span></div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333339691162px"><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333339691162px">Due
to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not
presenting these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or
on behalf of civil society in general but only on behalf of
the specific organisations endorsing. </div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333339691162px"><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333339691162px">If
you would like your organisation to be listed, please send
your logo to Carolina Rossini (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:crossini@publicknowledge.org">crossini@publicknowledge.org</a>)
by 22:30 CET (16:30 EST) tomorrow, 21 Oct.</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333339691162px"><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333339691162px">Best
wishes</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.3333339691162px">Anne</div>
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small"><font
style="font-size:11px" face="'Lucida Grande'">Anne
Jellema </font></div>
<div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small"><font
style="font-size:11px" face="'Lucida Grande'">CEO <font
color="#b8265c"> </font></font></div>
<div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small"><font
style="font-size:11px" color="#000000" face="'Lucida
Grande'">+27 061 36 9352 (ZA) <br>
</font>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><font
style="font-size:11px" face="'Lucida Grande'"><font
color="#000000">+1 202 684 6885 (</font>US)</font></div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><font
style="font-size:11px" face="'Lucida Grande'">@afjellema </font></div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><b><span
style="font-family:'Lucida
Grande';color:rgb(81,144,50)"><span
style="font-size:11px"><br>
</span></span></b></div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><b><span
style="font-family:'Lucida
Grande';color:rgb(81,144,50)"><span
style="font-size:11px">World Wide Web Foundation
| 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC,
20005, USA | </span><span style="font-size:11px"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.webfoundation.org/"
style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank"><span
style="color:rgb(81,144,50);text-decoration:none">www.webfoundation.org</span></a></span><span
style="font-size:11px"> | Twitter: @webfoundation</span></span></b><font
face="verdana, sans-serif" size="1"> </font></div>
</div>
<font face="verdana, sans-serif" size="1"> </font>
<div
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;text-align:-webkit-auto;word-wrap:break-word">
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>