<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Deborah<br>
<br>
I find the new ITRs largely in keeping with the BestBits pre WCIT
statement. So, I dont see why we should decry it. The ITRs speaks
everywhere only about telecommunication networks (if you dont think
so, pl do point out the relevant part). In Baku we actually did
agree that the physical layer of the Internet - implied by general
terms like access to broadband etc - can be covered by the ITRs.
This understanding was the basis of the agreement on the language
that IP layer and above must not be regulated. However, developed
countires did not even agree to terms concerned with the physical
layer of the Internet - like access to broadband - to be included in
the ITRs. This I understand was against what we wanted. So probably
we should speak about it.<br>
<br>
As for the Internet resolution which is not a part of the ITRs but
appended to it, this compromise actually appears very symmetric to
the the compromise that we reached at the BestBits meeting, whereby
the last sentence of our statement read....<br>
<br>
"More generally we call upon the ITU to
promote principles of net neutrality, open standards, affordable
access and universal service, and effective competition.
"<br>
<br>
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>All/ most of these issues are Internet issues. In fact,
although the BestBit statement was open to it, the physical layer of
the Internet was no included in the ITRs, how we can now criticise
its inclusion even in an appended resolution. Why is your proposed
statement speaking against the 'Internet resolution' that is not
even part of the ITRs. We should welcome it since it correspond to
the manner in which we structured our own statement. Quoting from
your proposed statement "We regret that an Internet
governance-related resolution has been included in the Final Acts of
WCIT"<br>
<br>
When the proposed statement says<br>
<br>
"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."<br>
<br>
Can you specify what clarity would we have wanted to be included.
The preamble says 'content is not included', it says, the ITRs will
be implemented in a manner that respects and upholds human rights.
What else could have been written in the form of clarifying text.
Can you please state some specifics in this regard. <br>
<br>
It is extremely rare that civil society makes a statement of
expectations from an global meeting/ treaty and than the meeting/
treaty actually meets those expectations to the extent that the new
ITRs meet the expectations of the BestBits statement. This is how I
look at it but I am ready to hear the views of others and discuss
the matter further.<br>
<br>
The proposed statement uses selectively text from the BestBits
statement and in this respect seem to take forward the same
initiative, which is quite misleading. As I said, I disagree with
the assessment presented in the proposed statement of the
correlation of the BEstBits statement with the new ITRs. I see the
correlation as largely positive.<br>
<br>
Therefore it would not be right for the proposed statement to
selectively quote in the manner it does from the BestBits statement
and make its case based on that quotation . The BestBits statement
is the common ownership of those who signed it, and as one of
signatories I object to the manner in which the proposed statement
selectively quotes the BestBits statement, without giving the full
picture. If you indeed want to go ahead with the statement please
remove those quotes from the besbits statement. <br>
<br>
In the end, It is disappointing that while a civil society group got
together to draft a pre WCIT statement, a post WCIT statement is
being presented by a good number of participants of that group as a
fait accompli, and was not developed together in this group. On the
other hand, of course any group has a right to issue its own
statement. However, I do appeal to those managing the Bestbits group
at present to see if we can draft a BestBits statement on WCIT
outcomes. <br>
<br>
Also, agreeing with Micheal, the proposed statement cannot use the
term 'civil society in a generic manner, as if it represents 'the'
civil society. <br>
<br>
Willing to talk further on the above issues. <br>
<br>
Thanks and best regards, parminder <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div class="WordSection1"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.igcaucus.org">bestbits-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:bestbits-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Deborah
Brown<br>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><b>Sent:</b>
Thursday, December 20, 2012 2:09 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wcit12@cdt.org">wcit12@cdt.org</a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org"><bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org></a>; AfriCS-IG<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil
society statement post-WCIT<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear all, <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">As a follow up to the civil society
letter to WCIT (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p>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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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,<u> we request that you reply to this email
by 0900 EST/1400 UTC on Monday, January 24 if you would like
to sign on</u>. 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you
for your attention to this. Warm wishes over the holidays.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Deborah <o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><b>Civil Society statement on the new ITRs and the future of
multi-stakeholder engagement</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>December 21, 2012<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<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. 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <o:p></o:p></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"><o:p></o:p></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"><o:p></o:p></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"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#888888">E. <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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"><o:p></o:p></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"><o:p></o:p></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"><o:p></o:p></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"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>