Dear all,<br><br>Please add the signature of iNGO European Media Platform<br><br>Does any one have experience how to demand to withdraw the national signature on international document?<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2012/12/21 Koven Ronald <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kovenronald@aol.com" target="_blank">kovenronald@aol.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><font color="black" face="arial"><font>Dear All --</font>
<div><font><br>
</font></div>
<div><font>This statement strikes me as ambivalent to the point of internal contradiction over whether we want to be engaged with the ITU on Internet issues, If we think ITU does and/or should have a role in Internet governance, then it makes sense to demand better representation in its processes. If, however, we mean what we say when we say we regret adoption of a resolution in effect involving ITU with the Internet, then it hardly seems to make sense for the Internet Governance Caucus and its friends and allies to seek broader participation in ITU. </font></div>
<div><font><br>
</font></div>
<div><font>The IGC is not about the ITU's historic mandates in traditional telecommunications or world radio spectrum allocation. If we want it to stick to its last and stay away from Internet regulation, then why would we want to become more involved with it ?</font></div>
<div><font><br>
</font></div>
<div><font>Bests, Rony Koven<br>
</font><br>
<br>
<div style="font-size:10pt;font-family:helvetica,arial"><div><div class="h5">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: McTim <<a href="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com" target="_blank">dogwallah@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: governance <<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>><br>
Sent: Fri, Dec 21, 2012 4:05 am<br>
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT<br>
<br>
<div style="font-size:12px;font-family:Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Sans-Serif;margin:0px">
<pre style="font-size:9pt"><tt>Please find below a message fwded from another list.
I think this is a useful statement for IGC to sign:
-------------------------
Dear all,
As a follow up to the civil society letter to WCIT
(<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM</a>)
that a number of organizations on this list have signed on to, civil
society representatives in Dubai drafted a statement on the new ITRs
and the future of multi-stakeholder engagement. The text of the
statement is pasted below.
This statement assesses the opportunities and challenges faced by
civil society at WCIT and sets out shortcomings we would like to see
addressed to achieve meaningful civil society participation at the ITU
moving forward. It is meant to be complementary to other post-WCIT
civil society statements that focus on the substance of the ITRs.
We would very much like to secure sign on from your organization. We
feel that there is a strategic importance of having this communication
with the ITU Secretariat on record as we look to future
conversations/events. Though the timing is not ideal, we plan to
publish this statement with the list of signatories and send a copy to
the ITU on Monday. Therefore, we request that you reply to this email
by 0900 EST/1400 UTC on Monday, January 24 if you would like to sign
on. Like with the earlier letter, we will leave the statement open for
sign on and update the list of signatories regularly. I will send out
a publicly accessible link with the statement and list of signatories
on Monday for people to post and circulate, but it would also be great
to discuss ways to draw attention to this statement in the New Year.
Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for your
attention to this. Warm wishes over the holidays.
Best regards,
Deborah
Civil Society statement on the new ITRs and the future of
multi-stakeholder engagement
December 21, 2012
Civil society is disappointed that the World Conference on
International Telecommunications (WCIT) could not come to consensus in
revising the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs). We
understand, however, the serious concerns that a number of governments
have expressed with regard to the potential impact of the new
regulations.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
-----------------------
--
Cheers,
McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
</tt></pre>
</div>
</div></div><div style="font-size:12px;font-family:Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Sans-Serif;margin:0px">
<pre style="font-size:9pt"><tt>____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</tt></pre>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</font><br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>