<div dir="ltr">Thank you, Parminder for the thoughtful criticisms. We're aware that different parts of civil society have well-founded reasons for holding different opinions on the role of the ITU, and we fully respect these. I was very pleased to see that JustNet has expressed its point of view in its own proposals for the Plenipot, which I found interesting and valuable. <div><br><div><div>In that spirit, I would like to respond to a couple of your criticisms of our statement that I think don't reflect an entirely accurate reading of its content: </div><div><br></div><div>- I think your claim that we are advocating unregulated free markets is unfair, since we state twice: "Each country should retain individual authority to regulate IP interconnection rates where necessary and advisable in order to ensure universal service and promote robust competition." The drafters include organisations that have been on the forefront of the fight for stronger net neutrality regulation at national and regional (EU) level.</div><div><br></div><div><div>- I don't agree that our statement fails to identify who should take responsibility for resolving key IG challenges; proposes the "withdrawal of all internet policy related agenda from the global governance stage"; or fails to acknowledge any important role for the ITU. We repeatedly stress the need for coordination and collaboration among UN agencies (including the ITU) and multistakeholder bodies; and refer several times to what we think are the ITU's critical roles in addressing the huge challenges ahead. </div><div><br></div></div><div>That said, we agree that the reference to "ITU mission creep" was poorly judged, and the entire para should be deleted as proposed by Jeanette. </div></div><div><br></div><div>I sincerely hope that a respectful and informed exchange of views can continue among CSOs, along with the equally important effort to find the common ground between differing positions. </div><div><br></div><div>Best</div><div>Anne</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Richard Hill <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch" target="_blank">rhill@hill-a.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">I
fully agree with Parminder's analysis and strongly support his
comments.</font></span></div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span> </div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">Best,</font></span></div>
<div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">Richard</font></span></div><div><div class="h5">
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#0000ff 2px solid;PADDING-LEFT:5px;MARGIN-LEFT:5px">
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font face="Tahoma">-----Original Message-----<br><b>From:</b> Forum
[mailto:<a href="mailto:forum-bounces@justnetcoalition.org" target="_blank">forum-bounces@justnetcoalition.org</a>]<b>On Behalf Of
</b>parminder<br><b>Sent:</b> mardi, 21. octobre 2014 12:47<br><b>To:</b>
<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>; <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>;
<a href="mailto:forum@justnetcoalition.org" target="_blank">forum@justnetcoalition.org</a>; IRP<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [JNC - Forum]
[bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint
recommendations<br><br></font></div><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 href="http://infojustice.org/archives/33428" target="_blank">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>On Tuesday 21 October 2014 02:08 AM, Anne Jellema
wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Dear colleagues
<div><br></div>
<div>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY:arial,sans-serif;FONT-SIZE:13px">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:13px"><br></div>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY:arial,sans-serif;FONT-SIZE:13px"><span><span style="BACKGROUND-COLOR:transparent;FONT-FAMILY:Calibri;WHITE-SPACE:pre-wrap;COLOR:rgb(255,0,0);FONT-SIZE:13px;VERTICAL-ALIGN:baseline;FONT-WEIGHT:bold"><a href="http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes" target="_blank">http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes</a></span></span><br></div>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY:arial,sans-serif;FONT-SIZE:13px"><br></div>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY:arial,sans-serif;FONT-SIZE:13px">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:13px"><span style="FONT-SIZE:13px"><br></span></div>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY:arial,sans-serif;FONT-SIZE:13px"><span style="FONT-SIZE:13px">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:13px"><br></div>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY:arial,sans-serif;FONT-SIZE:13px">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:13px"><br></div>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY:arial,sans-serif;FONT-SIZE:13px">If you would
like your organisation to be listed, please send your logo to Carolina
Rossini (<a href="mailto:crossini@publicknowledge.org" target="_blank">crossini@publicknowledge.org</a>) by 22:30 CET (16:30
EST) tomorrow, 21 Oct.</div>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY:arial,sans-serif;FONT-SIZE:13px"><br></div>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY:arial,sans-serif;FONT-SIZE:13px">Best
wishes</div>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY:arial,sans-serif;FONT-SIZE:13px">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><span style="FONT-SIZE:11px"><br></span></span></b></div>
<div style="WORD-WRAP:break-word"><b><span><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 style="COLOR:rgb(17,85,204)" href="http://www.webfoundation.org/" 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 size="1" face="verdana, sans-serif"> </font></div></div><font size="1" face="verdana, sans-serif"> </font>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY:Helvetica;WORD-WRAP:break-word;FONT-SIZE:medium">
<div><br></div></div></div></div></div><br>
<fieldset></fieldset> <br><pre>____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre></blockquote><br></blockquote></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Forum mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Forum@justnetcoalition.org">Forum@justnetcoalition.org</a><br>
<a href="http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org" target="_blank">http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small"><font face="'Lucida Grande'" style="font-size:11px">Anne Jellema </font></div><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small"><font face="'Lucida Grande'" style="font-size:11px">CEO <font color="#b8265c"> </font></font></div><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small"><font face="'Lucida Grande'" style="font-size:11px" color="#000000">+27 061 36 9352 (ZA) <br></font><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><font face="'Lucida Grande'" style="font-size:11px"><font color="#000000">+1 202 684 6885 (</font>US)</font></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><font face="'Lucida Grande'" style="font-size:11px">@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 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>