<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Dear all, <br>
<br>
Reading APC excellent remarks on PP and trying to understand what is
at stake in the debate of new proposals for resolution 130:
"Strengthening the role of ITU in
building confidence<font size="4"><b> </b></font>and security in
the use of information
and communication technologies<font size="4"><b><span lang="en-US">"</span></b></font>,
I've been working in this spreadsheet to compare different proposals
that have been submitted with the current text of that resolution:
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 4.1.3.2 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; direction: ltr; widows: 2; orphans: 2 }
P.western { font-family: "Calibri", serif; font-size: 12pt; so-language: en-GB }
P.cjk { font-size: 12pt; so-language: en-US }
A:link { color: #0000ff }
A.western:link { font-family: "Calibri", serif; so-language: zxx }
A.cjk:link { so-language: zxx }
A.ctl:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style><br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jihGnkCLxuXVM1c2ZkNXlfpBbWGLhTMChK1UxCh37sg/edit?usp=sharing">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jihGnkCLxuXVM1c2ZkNXlfpBbWGLhTMChK1UxCh37sg/edit?usp=sharing</a><br>
<b><br>
</b><b>Current Status of the debate:</b><br>
There has been 4 proposals with some substantial changes:<br>
- Brazil<br>
- Arab group<br>
- RCC (Russia)<br>
- Indonesia<br>
- Cuba<br>
And there is a proposal with practically no change (from CEPT) and a
NOC (No-change) from US. <br>
<br>
The resolution (and proposals) is being debated in an ad hoc group
chaired by Brazil. <br>
<br>
Based on the CEPT proposal and on the US NOC, the five eyes (US,UK,
Canada, Australia and New Zealand), sometimes using the discourse of
mission creep, have been repeatedly intervened to block any change,
even though the whole text is being negotiated under brackets. <br>
<br>
On the other hand, besides Brazil, it is not the most freedom
friendly countries that have been pushing for change. <br>
<br>
Analyzing the original current text (and other docs), we can observe
that it is within ITU's mandate to deal with some aspects of
cybersecurity and it is already doing. So, I believe that the
argument of "mission creep" has been thrown in a way a bit
misleading, I see US et all using "freedom" solely to protect their
market. And I do believe that texts like that resolution should be
updated, particularly if based on latest achievements in
negotiations at other UN foruns, like the resolution about privacy
in the digital age, and other documents from the WSIS+10 review
process, which ITU is part of. <br>
<br>
I know this is not consensus within civil society. And I know that
proposals do not come from the most exciting progressive group of
countries. Brazilian position can be seen as a middle ground. But,
yes, it could be tricky, but I'm always bored if I catch myself in
any alliance with US gov discourses, so I tend to flag a red light
when it happens. <br>
<br>
I hope the spreed sheet sheds a light in this particular issue and
we can brainstorm a bit about<b> risks and possibilities,</b>
particularly on the Brazilian position vis-a-vis current res. <br>
<br>
kind regards<br>
<br>
joana <br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Joana Varon
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73</pre>
</body>
</html>