<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 21 October 2014 09:28 PM,
Anne Jellema wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFwCmbGfgmSut71hC9YUYqDn=7mB86_25=-9BMRFungVGkQxTQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No rational is offered why such work should be stopped at national
and regional level, when almost in all major sectors, climate
change, health, education, trade, IP and so on, we have global
norms, principles and even treaties... If anything, the Internet is
perhaps simply more 'inherently' global than these sectoral issues.
Leaving it to national level simply allows the US to enforce its
norms and law on the global Internet, leaving the developing
countries on a take it or leave it position, and the regional aspect
allows plurilateral bodies of the rich OECD, EU, CoE and others
controlled by the rich, like the Trans Pacific Partnership, to add a
bit of their governance priorities to the global Internet, leaving
the rest of the world high and dry. In my understanding, it is this
'rest of the world' whose interests we should be representing most.
Therefore I really did not get the rational of the above statement
- why also not do some global governance of the Internet, in
addition to the required national and regional one (Do ask a Kenya
or Philippines what leverage they really have today on the global
Internet to which they are subject relentlessly. What basis exists
for excepting developing countries to simply accept the status quo
-- even more unthinkable being that civil society, in effect,
proposes that they simply accept the status quo ) . <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFwCmbGfgmSut71hC9YUYqDn=7mB86_25=-9BMRFungVGkQxTQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<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. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Which are these mechanisms of coordination... And specifically,
where would discussions and resolutions on issues like net
neutrality frameworks (remember that the cross border aspect of NN
was identified as a key global IG issue by a Council of Europe
expert group), generally regulatory principles for IP based
communication, or even basic discussions of the nature of personal
data in the emerging economy (resource versus right) .... If you
want to find a big series of Internet related issues that *have no
current home* at any globally democratic forum, simply pick up the
agenda over the last several years of the OECD's Committee on
Information, computers and communication policy (CICCP) and you
will be astonished by the number of Internet specific policy issues.
Where should they be resolved. And an appropriate resolution of
these issues underlie the very basic paradigm of how the emerging
Internet mediated society will be (1) structured, and (2)
governance. You say "I don't agree that our statement fails to
identify who should take responsibility for resolving key IG
challenges". Please let me know who do you propose takes
responsibility for all the very impotant issues listed above - I
mean, (2) at the global level, (2) in a democratic way.<br>
<br>
It is this long term structural impact of your proposal that is what
I find extremely dangerous. <br>
<br>
BTW, as I mentioned above, so much of 'global' Internet issues get
taken up today by the OECD's CICCP.... You proposal call for making
ITU CWG-PP multistakeholder. Interesting, and I have asked this
question often, I have never seen the civil society groups involved
with OECD's CICCP work - which included a lot of those who have
signed on this present ITU related statement - seek making the CICCP
multistakeholder.... Would this not count as hypocrisy. I cannot
understand why and how the agenda of this civil society group -
proposing the present statement- is almost completely aligned with
what the status quo forces on the Internet want from the ITU PP or
do not want.... How can we simply have no agenda to do something
about say cyber security that the world, especially post Snowden, is
so worried about, and just have one agenda, ITU, step back, dont do
anything... That is what this statement is really about, a little
ornamental language here or there not withstanding.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFwCmbGfgmSut71hC9YUYqDn=7mB86_25=-9BMRFungVGkQxTQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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">
<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></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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net"
target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>;
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>;
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
face="verdana, sans-serif" size="1"> </font></div>
</div>
<font face="verdana, sans-serif" size="1"> </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 moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Forum@justnetcoalition.org">Forum@justnetcoalition.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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
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
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:IRP@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org">IRP@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp">https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>