Dear Michael, <div><br></div><div>Thank you for raising these issues. I think there are a few misunderstandings here that I hope I can clarify. </div><div><br></div><div>This statement is not meant to act as a spokesperson for civil society or Best Bits. As I noted in my email that was forwarded to this list, the statement "is meant to be complementary to other post-WCIT civil society statements that focus on the substance of the ITRs." If renaming the document "A civil society statement..." and including "the undersigned members of" before mentions of "civil society" would clarify that, I think we can definitely make those changes. </div>
<div><br></div><div>As it happens, a number of organizations that were very involved in Best Bits have endorsed the statement, so listing those organizations should be a good indication of who within Best Bits supports the statement, and who does not.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Also, this is not an Access statement, but was drafted by some civil society representatives who were present in Dubai. As one of the people who was remaining in Dubai towards the end, I volunteered to circulate the statement for sign on. It has around 20 signatories at the moment. I am happy to circulate this list once I have had the chance to collect the names. </div>
<div><br></div>If I understand correctly, much of your criticism is related to the limited scope of issues and principles that this statement addresses. I cannot speak on behalf of the group that drafted this, but I believe that the focus was kept narrow and focused mostly on the issues raised in the letter that was presented to the ITU ahead of the 10 December meeting with Hamadoun Touré (letter accessible here: <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM">https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM</a>)<div>
<br></div><div>I will take your concerns back to the group that drafted this and see if there is appetite for revising the statement at this late date. If there is not, hopefully making the changes I mentioned at the end of the second paragraph of this email will be sufficient in clarifying that this statement only has the support of the groups/individuals whose names are listed on the public version.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I regret any miscommunications/misunderstandings here. Thank you again for your feedback and I look forward to continuing this discussion.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards, </div><div>Deborah </div>
<div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:24 PM, michael gurstein <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com" target="_blank">gurstein@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p><b><i><span style="color:#1f497d">McTim, you were asking…</span></i></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<div><p><b>Civil Society statement on the new ITRs and the future of multi-stakeholder engagement</b><u></u><u></u></p><p>December 21, 2012<u></u><u></u></p><p>Civil society is disappointed<span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><p><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">[MG>] did I go to heaven and come back to find that someone made you folks king/queen of CS?<u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p>
<div><p>that the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) could not come to consensus in revising the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs). <span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><p><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">[MG>] why should we/CS care whether the States came to a concensus or not… unless of course, our "interests" are the same as the "interests" of specific states/corporations<u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p>
<div><p>We understand, however, the serious concerns that a number of governments have expressed with regard to the potential impact of the new regulations.<u></u><u></u></p></div><p><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">[MG>] as the above, and what is our alternative norm-based response to these "new regulations"… what do want to see in their place or as an alternative…</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div><p>As civil society stated in its Best Bits statement, a key criterion for ITRs should be that “any proposed revisions are confined to the traditional scope of the ITRs” and “where international regulation is required around technical issues [it] is limited to telecommunications networks and interoperability standards.” We regret that an Internet governance-related resolution has been included in the Final Acts of WCIT, despite assertions by many that WCIT was not about Internet governance. We are also concerned by the lack of clarity around the applicability of the treaty, which as defined could have unforeseen consequences for an open internet, and the lack of specificity in key terms, such as security, which may negatively impact the public’s rights to privacy and freedom of expression.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><p><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">[MG>] there was a lot of other stuff in that statement--"net neutrality", "public interest", "human rights", "affordable access" etc. why focus only on these areas and not mention the others…</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div><p>This said, civil society would like to acknowledge and thank those governments that opened their delegations to members of civil society and other stakeholder groups. This was a very important initial step in establishing a civil society voice in the proceedings and we trust that it signals a wider commitment to multi-stakeholder approaches in public policy development and decision-making on telecommunications and Internet-related matters. We trust that this openness and inclusive approach will continue and extend to upcoming ITU-related work and beyond, and we urge other governments to welcome and engage with civil society going forward.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><p><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">[MG>] yes, but CS has other principles as well, why not mention some of those and hold governments accountable against those</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div><p>As we communicated to ITU Secretary General Touré, we also commend the ITU on first steps towards greater transparency and openness with regard to access to and webcasting of plenary sessions and Committee 5 sessions, as well as soliciting public submissions. These initial steps enabled civil society to play a constructive, albeit limited, role at the WCIT.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><p><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">[MG>] yes, see above</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div><p>However there remain serious limitations to engaging with the ITU. The substantive policy deliberations in working groups were neither webcast nor open to unaffiliated civil society. Further, while it is positive that the ITU opened the process to public comment, these comments were never part of the official record. We raised both of these challenges with the Secretary General, in writing and in person, and he committed to addressing these concerns and appealing to member states, as appropriate. Although the WCIT has concluded, we renew our request to have the public comments submitted as official ITU documents to capture these positions for the historical record.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><p><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">[MG>] yes, see above</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div><p>We also raised the issue of the lack of any institutional mechanism for civil society participation at the ITU. While the participation of civil society representatives in government delegations benefits both the delegations and the WCIT’s deliberations as a whole, it cannot substitute for engagement with independent members of civil society. We will be following up on these important matters with the Secretary General and welcome his commitment to considering institutional remedies to this challenge.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><p><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">[MG>] yes, see above</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div><p>Looking forward, civil society seeks to work with governments and other stakeholders around the globe towards an ever more inclusive and substantive multi-stakeholder engagement on telecommunications, Internet, and related matters. <span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><p><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">[MG>] surely we want something more than simply an "inclusive…multi-stakeholder engagement"--what about "net neutrality", inclusive access and use etc.etc<u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p>
<div><p>Much more needs to be done with regard to opening the ITU to greater genuine multi-stakeholder participation and in particular independent civil society participation - institutional change will need to occur and we will work with the ITU and other stakeholders to bring this about. These changes are vitally important and need to be addressed as soon as possible given the upcoming 2013 World Telecommunication Policy Forum, World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS+10) and 2014 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><p><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">[MG>] surely CS is concerned with things other than its own capacity to intervene in this particular set of discussions… why not use this as a framework to start articulating those broader values--which to my mind are framed overall in the context of a global Internet governed in the public interest and for the public good.<u></u><u></u></span></i></b></p>
<div><p><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">M</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><u></u> <u></u></p><p><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#888888">Deborah Brown</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#888888"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#888888">Policy Analyst</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#888888"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#888888">Access | AccessNow.org</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#888888"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#888888">E. <a href="mailto:deborah@accessnow.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:#1155cc">deborah@accessnow.org</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#888888"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#888888">S. deborah.l.brown</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#888888"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#888888">T. deblebrown</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#888888"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#888888">PGP 0x5EB4727D</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#888888"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal">
<u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px"><font face="garamond, serif">Deborah Brown</font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px"><font face="garamond, serif">Policy Analyst</font></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px">
<font face="garamond, serif">Access | AccessNow.org</font></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px"><font face="garamond, serif">E. <a href="mailto:deborah@accessnow.org" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">deborah@accessnow.org</a></font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px"><font face="garamond, serif">S. deborah.l.brown</font></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px">
<font face="garamond, serif">T. deblebrown</font></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px"><font face="garamond, serif">PGP 0x5EB4727D</font></div><br>
<div><br></div></div></div>