From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 10:24:14 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 07:24:14 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] More... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (to do whatever it pleases and serves its business interests? Message-ID: <038c01cdd233$83cb3470$8b619d50$@gmail.com> http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/google-encourages-users-to-join -campaign-against-copyright-draft-law-a-870590.htm It is a new type of lobbying power when Google now endeavors to enlist its users in the struggle to defend its own business interests. In the language of the Internet, one could also say that the company is trying to crowdsource its own lobbying efforts. This is a widespread method in the US, where it's known as grassroots lobbying. In doing so, the company is relying on a trick that Germany's Pirate Party has also used to achieve many of its successes: It merely brands a proposal that it's targeting as a threat to the free, open and uncensored Internet. The tactic behind this move is obvious. Recently in the US and on a European Union level, a number of bills have failed due to resistance from online campaigns. With its current campaign, Google is seeking to use this to its own benefit -- and is openly playing on politicians' widespread fear of a shitstorm. Legal but Risky Business The vehemence with which Google is pursuing its campaigns is astonishing because it entails considerable risks for the company. The discrepancy between Google's lofty words and its agenda is far too evident: Of course the company is not primarily interested in the freedom of Internet users, but rather in defending its own freedom against any government regulation of its monopoly-like power over the market and public opinion. This raises the question of whether such an approach does more harm than good to its own interests. Well worth reading the whole article. M -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [ mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 2:52 AM To: 'ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net'; cracin-canada at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: FW: Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/23/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-google- tax-avoidance/ [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/d9fhmhx http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/15431664/france-says-google-would- lose-court-case-over-taxes/ [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/c43nfs8 http://en.apa.az/news_google_italy_suspected_of_tax_evasion__183392.html [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/cc4ayk2 http://www.3news.co.nz/Starbucks-Google-Amazon-accused-of-UK-tax-evasion/tab id/369/articleID/276457/Default.aspx [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/dylfaxy http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0156212/australian-govt-pledges-acti on-on-google-tax-evasion http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/8cw6tux http://tinyurl.com/choul5g -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Tue Dec 4 13:15:57 2012 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 13:15:57 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Coordination during WCIT -- who's attending, who's reporting In-Reply-To: References: <8E4639A9-E51F-4FD2-909A-CA8725CFA77C@cdt.org> Message-ID: Here's the transcript for of the FOEX debate for those interested: La discussion de le Proposition Tunisienne: Now, * in Article 1 there is the beginning of Article 1 there is one proposal which is coming from Tunisia. And I would love to take that, to start with. And I want to give the floor to Tunisia to present their proposal.DT/rev 1, page 19, you have the floor for presentation. >> TUNISIA: Thank you, Chairman. This proposal seeks to guarantee freedom of expression as recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International covenant on civil and political rights, and Article 33 of the constitution. And protect it in International telecommunications. This will protect access to all dissem means telecommunication, ICTs at at International level and the exercise of these rights and as well as other rights enshrined in the texts. And states should impose no limitations on this, other than those permitted by International law. Tunisia believes that this will allow human rights and human privacy to be protected when the ITRs are enforced. Thank you. >> CHAIR: Thank you Tunisia. And since this is the only proposal on this specific ujs senior I would ask the floor -- subject, I would ask the floor for any clarifications. Is there any objection to the Tunisian proposal? United States? And then Cyprus. Is >> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we wish to state our appreciation to Tunisia for bringing to our attention the very important precepts and principles that are contained in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We of course fully support that declaration. Mr. Chairman, our issue is more one of Claire if I indication. And perhaps preference. The clarification goes to the need to restate the Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the ITRs. The universal declaration stands on its own feet and is understood to be the foundation of the United Nations. And it may not require restatement in the ITRs as we have all, as we have oh as we are members of the United Nations have committed to the principles of the universal declaration. Secondly, Mr. Chairman, we would also note that the same sentiments expressed by Tunisia in their proposal are found in paragraph 4 of the Geneva declaration of principles of the World Summit on Information Society. We have fully supported at the head of state paragraph 4. And we believe that that may be sufficient to meet the proper references to the declaration, and that that may be sufficient that, to the extent to which we may not require, therefore, its repeating in the ITRs. Mr. Chair man, we would also obviously wish to restate our full commitment to the universal declaration with the questions of clarification and point made as it specifically references the world summit. And that may be sufficient for all of us as it was a commitment of at the head of state level and may not be required, therefore, in the ITRs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> CHAIR: Thank you you. Cyprus. >> Cyprus: I'm speaking from the you're peeb Commission on behalf the the European Union behind the Cyprus nameplate. I want to ensure the group that we of course in the European Union support fully and respect the universal declaration on human rights. And these are part also of the European core values, of course. We think also that it's not necessary, though, to repeat these basic fundamental principles, and certainly not in this particular part of the ITRs. Other International laws and provisions and charters stand on their own, and I think in discussing the preamble you have also discussed the lack of necessity to repeat various provisions in other parts of either the constitution or the Convention of ITU. So we think that although we support entirely these basic principles and these are things that we all must follow in any event, and the basic principles apply also to telecommunications. It's not necessary to include them in this particular part of the ITRs. >> CHAIR: Thank you. China and then South Africa, briefly, please. >> CHINA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. China has some similarities in our views compared with the United States and EU. We respect the principles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and also we respect the principles advocated by the declaration of WSIS. But we think the ITR is about the interconnection of International networks as well as to guide the operation of International services is more technical savvy. So it's more focused on the technical aspects. So we think it's not necessary to reiterate what we have recognized the International political principles. Therefore, we support the intervention of the previous two speakers. Thank you. >> CHAIR: Thank. South Africa? >> SOUTH AFRICA: Thank you, Chairperson. We do think it was a very good proposal, but we would also have to reserve our own position on this issue. In particular, because whilst we agree with the right of freedom of expression, in our constitution it's not an unlimited right, in the sense that it is balanced against other rights such as the right not to be the victim of hate speech. So I think from our perspective, we would need a little time to consult on this issue. Thank you, Chairperson. >> CHAIR: Thank you. Before giving the floor to the others, I don't see agreement to, while respecting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I don't see agreement to include this in the ITR. So Tunisia, before giving the floor to the rest, we do not have an agreement. SG, you wanted the floor? >> HAMADOUN TOURE': Thank you, Chairman. Yes, I did want to speak. And because I wanted to draw your attention to something, as indeed I did in my opening statement. It seems to me to be essential, fundamental for the future and the credibility of the union and to the image which the union wants to project to the outside world, and in view of all the various conspiracy theories that are floating around in respect to individual freedoms in this meet, that it would be a good idea to put some explicit recognition of this essential right, which after all is already acknowledged, the rights to the freedom of expression. That would perhaps contribute to preventing people distorting the cause and purpose of this conference. This is a universal right of course. It's one that has already been negotiated and agreed by our Members. But an explicit reference to it, I think, would be helpful at the beginning of a Treaty of this kind. It would, as I say, dissipate any potential misunderstanding about this whole question. So as far as I'm concerned, that would be the essential purpose of a proposal such as that which has just been tabled by Tunisia. Tunisia was, after all, the host country of the WSIS, where these issues were dealt with. And dealt with at a level that cannot be exceeded at the level of heads of state. Tunisia was also the cradle of the Arab Spring, where the Freedom of Expression as we know was extremely important in many respects. It was used in order to return countries to Democracy, after all. I therefore think that this would be helpful and I would create the indulgence of Member States to look at this from the point of view of the image which this organisation wants to project, particularly at this conference. For those who want this conference to be successful, I think it would be a good idea to try and reach agreements here and reach agreements such that they give the right image of the ITU outside the organisation's walls. I would like to see contribution number 25 from the Tunisian delegation looked at in this way and I urge delegations to try and do that. Thank you. >> CHAIR: Thank you. Iran? >> IRAN: Thank you you, Chairman. We are grateful to the presentation of the Tunisian Government to propose this very important issue, which has drawn our full attention to the fundamental rights that are mentioned in Article 19 of the universal declarations of human rights. Something having said that, Chairman, the nature of this proposal more fitted to perhaps a proposal to the plenipotentiary conference, to possibly, if necessary, am amendment the preamble of the constitution, which covers everything, not only ITR but also other segments and the entire ITU as was mentioned. Therefore, in our view, this proposal needs to be, if the delegation of Tunisia so wishes, submitted to the plenipotentiary conference and should not be discussed at this conference and should not be included in the ITU-R in any part of the regulations. -- ITR in any part of the regulations. Thank you. >> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm speaking on behalf of CETIL in connection with two interAmerican proposals, 21 and 23. We certainly endorse the sentiment expressed in the Tunisian proposal. However, in our view, as expressed in these interAmerican proposals, the purpose of the ITRs is to assure the interoperability of underlying telecommunications systems that enable communications, not the content of the communications that flow over them. We are concerned that we should not open this door and get into the issue of adding content issue, even Freedom of Expression be issues, which we certainly endorse, to the ITRs. Our fear is that once this door is opened, the other language could be added on this subject and this is a highly sensitive matter. We think it would be much better for all of us if we left this issue -- kept the issue of content entirely out of the ITRs. Thank you. >> CHAIR: Tunisia, I think you've heard the comments from a lot of Member States. And all of them said one thing, that there is a respect to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but there is no support to include this in the ITR. So I'll give the floor back to Tunisia, if they still insist on their proposal. And withdrawing it does not mean that there is no respect to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Tunisia? >> TUNISIA: Thank you, Chairman. Well, I would like to be able to reach a consensus agreement if that were probable possible. But before I go to maybe I do draw something to the delegates' attention. The events which we have seen taking place recently in some regions of the world, the cutting of International telecommunications things, for example, and that despite the existence and recognition of these rights in existing texts, has happened. Existing texts haven't prevented some countries cutting off International telecommunications, and that's why we in Tunisia think that this conference should give a very strong signal about the need to protect this right of the Freedom of Expression. We need, I think, to make explicit the fact that this kind of cutting off of International telecommunications is unacceptable. Perhaps I could agree with the United States who have proposed that reference be made to the summit text. That might get the idea across. And I leave it in your hands, Chairman, to find how we can actually do that and make headway on this. Thank you. >> CHAIR: Okay. There is a proposal to refer to the WSIS text. But before putting that to the floor, UAE is asking for the floor. UAE? >> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: Thank you, Chairman. And in order to be very brief, I think most of what we would like to say was already mentioned by the distinguished Secretary-General, and also by the Distinguished Delegate from Tunisia. It's also important to highlight that there has been some, under some of the media, some let's say wrong information that there are some proposals to actually neglect freedom of speech. And here we go, we have an Arab proposal, an Arab country proposal cominging to this conference that would like to emphasize this, and we can go along with whatever appear proch as has been endorsed by Tunisia, the Secretary-General as well as you, Mr. Chairman, to send a signal from Dubai that this principle and all the principles of the WSIS. So I think if we prefer, if we go and refer to the WSIS, we should refer to it as a whole. We have been active in the WSIS and we actually can go along with the idea to prefer to the WSIS and all of its principles and endorse it from -- within the conference of the WCIT. Thank you. >> CHAIR: Thank you, UAE. I think refers to WSIS as an entirety is also a very dangerous sign so I need to be careful here. I think there has been a lot of discussion on this issue. And I'm sure there has been a lot of reflection on such important and novel declarations is there, and it's already amended. I'm not sure if there is any additional thing that we can add to that. There are strong views. We have heard also the Secretary-General review on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But there are views respecting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but having an opinion that the ITRs is not the place for it. And the reflection of it in the summary record, it's important. And I don't know if you can go along with that, and sending also a message from Dubai to the rest of the world to through the summary record of the plenary respecting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but also as I see it from the Member States that there is no agreement to have it included in the ITRs itself. So I would like to thank Tunisia for their proposal. Unfortunately, we have no support. But we can reflect on the summary record of the meeting and emphasize on it and perhaps we can have a text proposed by Tunisia to look at it as well, so that we can have -- so that we can give it a proper place in the summary record. I see others asking for the floor. And then Iran Qatar: We are sitting at the back of the room and let me explain why you can't see us Chairman. I sought the floor several times but didn't obtain it. As far as the Tunisian proposal is concerned, we think that this is an extremely important proposal and an extremely important principle and we support it. It's a question of ensuring the human rights and the Freedom of Expression are respected. As the Secretary-General said in his statement, it's very important that we send out a positive signal on this one from this conference. That will be the best possibly response to some of the rather inaccurate information being put around about this conference, to the effect that we're trying precisely to limit the Freedom of Expression. I think that the content of the Tunisian proposal is crucial. As I said, I think it needs to be mentioned even if that is done via a referral back to the WSIS. The essential point is that this be mentioned, one way or the other, to make it * very clear that our conference fully respects both human rights and the liberties of expression. Thank you. irp iron we have no difficulty if Tunisia would like to have a statement in the minutes of the plenary. However, with respect to a general recognitions of the conference, it depends whether this is in the agenda of the conference or not in the agenda of the conference and also it depends on the text, what text we put. What is the language, what is the wording of that. And before saying that we could not agree to the inclusion of that text we have to see it clearly and we have to consult our Government. Thank you. (That was Iran) S Poland: Thank you very much, Chairman. Poland would like to associate itself with the Tunisian proposal and the comments of the Secretary-General. We believe that the general reference to human rights would send the positive signal, and our proposal is that the general reference to human rights and guarantees of the freedom of the Internet perhaps should be made in the preamble to the ITRs. Thank you very much. >> CHAIR: We will take Mexico first and then the Secretary-General wants to speak as well. Mexico? >> MEXICO: Thank you very much, Chairman. We have listened with very careful attention to the debate which has been taking place in respect of the issue of human rights, and particularly Article 19 of the universal declaration. We support that Article. We support the declaration. But we do agree that it is perhaps not in the ivrts where we find the most appropriate place from which to send out this message. We do, however, agree that it's a good idea for this conference and indeed for ITU in general to send out a message to the world outside about guaranteeing communication and human rights in general. Maybe this could be done in a resolution from the conference. We don't think we should be considering only the specific text of the ITR. We have a bit of more gin over to us by conference resolutions. So perhaps a conference resolution would be the right place to mention this. What we suggest is that we mention this issue in a conference resolution. Thank you. * >> CHAIR: Secretary-General? >> Secretary-General: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think there is full agreement here that Universal Declaration of Human Rights is very important to every single delegation here. That every delegation who spoke, spoke for it. But it's clear, also, that it has not its place in the ivrts, and we have said that all along. During the preparatory process of this conference. I had multiple press conferences and replies to press allegations that this conference is about Freedom of Expression and I've said no. It's not the case. And you are just proving that here. And you don't want it to be the case. You'll set a presence dense. As the President of CCITEL said it will open the doors for content issues being in the ivrts. And we have said that ivrts is not about content. If we have to make reference to this in the ITRs, we should say that even though content is not an issue for this conference, it has been, since it's been too much labeled we make it clearer. But if we decide not to, you allow me to make a press release again to clarify this issue. And of course I have my daily conference briefing, press briefing, in which I will refer to this issue and make it clear that this conference, in this conference, we all agree that human rights issues are very important, the Freedom of Expression is something that no one can -- nothing in this conference, in this Treaty, will contradict that. But we decided un nan mustly not to put it in there, but it was a gracious proposal by Tunisia to clarify the matter. On that compromise, I will be very able to handle this issue. Because as you can -- as you have seen in the press, there has been simply too much negative labels on this conference for this very issue, which has never been on the table. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> CHAIR: Thank you. Switzerland. >> SWITZERLAND: Thank you, Chairman. We feel the same way as our colleagues from Poland who spoke a little earlier. And indeed more or less for the same reasons. It seems to us to be very important, as other people have said, that given the unfounded criticism we have heard leveled at this conference, we make reference of some kind to the respect of human rights in general. The idea of putting a very brief reference to them in the pream preamble without going into detail would be for us a very simple slu, with their support. I think we would really be missing the boat in this conference, so to speak, if we did not refer to what is a very basic and fundamental principle for our society. Thank you. >> CHAIR: Let me try this and let me try this proposal, to have the Tunisian proposal or let's say a modified version of the Tunisian proposal in a resolution. Is there an agreement to do that? Or let me put it this way: Is there any objection to have a resolution attached to the ITRs that talks about Universal Declaration of Human Rights? As per Poland's proposal. tp Canada? >> CANADA: Yes, sir, thank you, Chairman. First and foremost I'll not take a lot of time. We fully recognize the principles embedded in the Tunisian proposal and we thank them for it. But as clearly stated by several people that have preceded me in the use of the floor, in particular I would quote the reference made by the Distinguished Delegate of China, as to the nature and scope of the ITRs. Secondly, the reference made by the Secretary-General to the media coverage of this conference, whether it is unfounded or founded, it is not up to Canada to qualify it. But we will certainly agree with his proposal to deal with any issues associated with the coverage, precoverage, and post coverage of this conference by means of a press statement that needs not to be part of the ivrts. ITRs. Lastly, the issue of human rights it's already clearly enshrined in the u verse sal declaration of human rights and there is no need for this this conference or WCIT or plenipotentiary or WSA to include such an important element already recognized by extremely important declarations as the declaration of human rights. Thank you, Chairman. >> CHAIR: I'll give the floor to Tunisia. I don't see, at least from the start, support for my proposal. Tunisia? >> TUNISIA: Thank you, Chairman. What I would say is that our conference should issue a clear signal in response to the severe accusations which it has faced in the recent period. And the only way that we can do that is by making mention of freedom of expression and human rights in the International telecommunication regulations. To that end, I would like to go back to the proposal made by Poland and Switzerland to make such a mention in the preamble to say that our conference attaches importance to Freedom of Expression and human rights. >> CHAIR: Thank you. But there is no -- until now, there is no support for it yet. I'll give the floor to Costa Rica and then Iran. I really need to conclude on this discussion. There is a proposal from also the Secretary-General that we -- the ITU issue a press release on this issue, recognizing what happened in the meeting. That all Administrations respecting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but not to be part of the ITRs, which is a binding Treaty and I've seen also the comment made by Canada. Costa Rica you have the floor. >> COSTA RICA: Thank you, Chairman. Costa Rica has a hundred year long Democracy and we think that the Secretary-General's comments are very important. We need to issue a message on this, particularly given the accusations which have been going around in the press. As the UAE said, we need to agree on a message, but Costa Rica believes that the ITRs aren't the best instrument for that to be achieved. And that's why we think that it would be more sensible to think about what was said by Mexico, to have the resolution by this Assembly, which takes up the spirit of what was said by Tunisia toon and supported by Poland and Switzerland. So we could have a resolution and perhaps we could also cover this using a press release as said by the Secretary-General. We think that would be a more viable course of action. >> CHAIR: Thank you. There is now some support for having a resolution. I don't want to give the floor to many people. I'll give it to two countries. >> IRAN. Briefly, please. >> IRAN: Thank you, the last speaker was quite clear saying that either a press release or resolutions. Chairman, resolutions first of all should be very carefully Crafted. It would take a lot of time on the wording. It should be within the agenda of the conference. And we fully support the wisdom of the Secretary-General that he said clearly that he would take this action in a press release, and make necessary and appropriate courses of action in order that the correct signal be given to outside people. And we are not in favor of a resolution. We are opposed to a resolution. Thank you. >> PORTUGAL: Thank you, Mr. Chair man. Like the majority of countries, we are -- we do not favor including the issue in the ITRs and I think this is already solved by now. And we also do not favor the resolution model. We think the proposal by the Secretary-General is very balanced, and very towards our aim here. And maybe a record -- including in the record of decisions as was also initially proposed would be the appropriate way to deal with this issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> CHAIR: Thank you. I will close the discussion now. I don't see an agreement included in either the resolution or part of the ITRs, so we will go along with the Secretary-General proposal to have a press release, the minutes of meeting also -- or the covering all your sentiments from all the Administrations, and I would thank everybody including Tunisia to bring this important issue. And we will have its size in a press release that we do on a daily basis, recognizing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And emphasizing that this conference is a technical conference and all Administrations here recognize it, and they do not feel that it's appropriate to include it in the ITRs. Secretary-General? >> Secretary-General: I just want to thank this conference for coming again to a good compromise on this very delicate issue. In fact, you have done half of my job by speaking out here in this meeting. Because this is webcast. And this webcast goes to the press. So I'll simply be reiterating what you said here, which satisfies me, because this is what we have been saying all along. Because we know the feeling of our membership. We know what our membership is tasking us to do in this conference, in this Treaty. And therefore I would like to thank you again and you've proven that again ITU can come together and all Member States and come to a consensus on issues. Thank you very much. >> CHAIR: Thank you. On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Ellery Biddle wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Important update about tomorrow's call -- after talking with some of our > colleagues who are in Dubai this week, we've decided that we should move > the time back a few hours, so that those in Dubai can more easily > participate. So here's the new plan: > * > * > *The call will take place at 18:00 UTC / 1:00 PM EST. A list of > international toll-free call-in numbers is attached.* > > Since new issues may arise between now and then, I'll suggest that we can > try to set a rough agenda at the start of the call, rather than setting one > now. > > Looking forward to chatting with everyone! > > cheers, > > Ellery > > > > Ellery Roberts Biddle > Center for Democracy and Technology > (415) 814-1711 > > > > On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Ellery Biddle wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > We have been talking here at CDT about various strategies for > communications and coordination during the WCIT. Lots to think about here. > Two items on this: > > First: Who is going to Dubai? We *really* want to develop a list of civil > society people who will be in Dubai for the conference. We think it would > be helpful for those attending WCIT to know what other CS people will be > there, and to develop a rough plan for coordinating once they are in > Dubai. Matthew Shears, ISOC's former policy director who has been working > on ITU issues with CDT, will be in Dubai on CDT's behalf. He will not be > affiliated with any delegation. *If you or someone from your organization > is going to be in Dubai (with or without delegate status), and you'd like > to be in touch with other civil society folks there, please send Matthew an > email letting him know. Matthew's email: mshears at cdt.org* > > Second: How can we coordinate on public communication about the WCIT? We > know that many CSOs will be blogging, tweeting, and responding to press > inquiries about the WCIT as it's happening. Given the relatively closed > nature of the event, we know that it may be difficult to get the > information we need in order to do this well, and that some coordination > between groups may help fill this gap. We also anticipate that rumors and > misinformation may become an issue, as different delegates may hear > different things, etc. In anticipation of this, we want to propose a group > call for next week. This will be open to any civil society groups planning > to report on WCIT, either from Dubai or from outside the UAE. Given the > size of these lists, I am setting an arbitrary (though early, which > generally seems best) time and date for the call. Hope that plenty of folks > can join -- we'll take and circulate good notes for those who can't make it. > > *The call will take place on Tuesday, December 4 at 16:00 UTC / 11:00 > EST. *A list of international toll-free call-in numbers is attached. I > will circulate this again, along with a reminder, on Monday. > > As always, please feel encouraged to reply to the list with additional > ideas, questions, etc. > > Thanks all! > > Ellery > > Ellery Roberts Biddle > Center for Democracy and Technology > (415) 814-1711 > > > > > > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org S. deborah.l.brown T. deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Tue Dec 4 15:47:39 2012 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 15:47:39 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Coordination during WCIT -- who's attending, who's reporting In-Reply-To: References: <8E4639A9-E51F-4FD2-909A-CA8725CFA77C@cdt.org> Message-ID: Apologies for the multiple emails, but here's the press release that came out of the FOEX debate: http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2012/90.aspx#.UL5fmJPjmE5 A few useful tidbits at the bottom of the press release: A *full English transcript* derived from the simultaneous captioning in the meeting rooms is available for *all Plenary and Committee 5 sessions* at: * www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/captioning.aspx*. (Today's doesn't appear to be posted yet) *Live and archived multilingual webcasts of the WCIT-12 *opening ceremony, opening press conference and *all meetings of the conference Plenary and Committee 5 over the coming two weeks* are available at: * www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/webcast.aspx* From today,* ITU will host a daily media briefing* with the ITU Secretary-General and other key officials recapping each day’s discussions. These briefings will take place at *18:00 local Dubai time*, accessible on any computer via the Adobe Connect platform at:* http://itu.adobeconnect.com/wcit2012/* The note to the editor might also be of interest: * * *Note to editors:* ITU is unique within the UN family in having some 700 Sector Members (mainly from the private sector) in addition to 193 Member States. All have been actively engaged in the WCIT-12 preparatory process, which has been underway for some years. In addition, *ITU set up a public consultation website open to all stakeholders in six languages (total of 31 submissions received between 15 August-7 November, of which 29 published* [and 2 rejected because of unauthorized hyperlinks]).* ITU has also held four global briefings *(supporting remote participation from anywhere around the world) open to media, analysts and *civil society*: those held using Adobe Connect are archived at:http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/media-briefings.aspx. On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Here's the transcript for of the FOEX debate for those interested: > > La discussion de le Proposition Tunisienne: > > Now, * in Article 1 there is the beginning of Article 1 there is one > proposal which is coming from Tunisia. And I would love to take that, to > start with. And I want to give the floor to Tunisia to present their > proposal.DT/rev 1, page 19, you have the floor for presentation. > >> TUNISIA: Thank you, Chairman. > > > This proposal seeks to guarantee freedom of expression as recognized by > the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International covenant on > civil and political rights, and Article 33 of the constitution. > And protect it in International telecommunications. This will protect > access to all dissem means telecommunication, ICTs at at International > level and the exercise of these rights and as well as other rights > enshrined in the texts. > And states should impose no limitations on this, other than those > permitted by International law. > Tunisia believes that this will allow human rights and human privacy to be > protected when the ITRs are enforced. > Thank you. > >> CHAIR: Thank you Tunisia. And since this is the only proposal on this > specific ujs senior I would ask the floor -- subject, I would ask the floor > for any clarifications. Is there any objection to the Tunisian proposal? > United States? And then Cyprus. Is > >> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. > Mr. Chairman, we wish to state our appreciation to Tunisia for bringing to > our attention the very important precepts and principles that are contained > in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We of course > fully support that declaration. > Mr. Chairman, our issue is more one of Claire if I indication. And > perhaps preference. > The clarification goes to the need to restate the Article 19 of the > Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the ITRs. The universal > declaration stands on its own feet and is understood to be the foundation > of the United Nations. And it may not require restatement in the ITRs as > we have all, as we have oh as we are members of the United Nations have > committed to the principles of the universal declaration. > Secondly, Mr. Chairman, we would also note that the same sentiments > expressed by Tunisia in their proposal are found in paragraph 4 of the > Geneva declaration of principles of the World Summit on Information > Society. We have fully supported at the head of state paragraph 4. And we > believe that that may be sufficient to meet the proper references to the > declaration, and that that may be sufficient that, to the extent to which > we may not require, therefore, its repeating in the ITRs. > Mr. Chair man, we would also obviously wish to restate our full commitment > to the universal declaration with the questions of clarification and point > made as it specifically references the world summit. And that may be > sufficient for all of us as it was a commitment of at the head of state > level and may not be required, therefore, in the ITRs. > Thank you, Mr. Chairman. > > > >> CHAIR: Thank you you. Cyprus. > >> Cyprus: I'm speaking from the you're peeb Commission on behalf the the > European Union behind the Cyprus nameplate. > I want to ensure the group that we of course in the European Union support > fully and respect the universal declaration on human rights. And these are > part also of the European core values, of course. We think also that it's > not necessary, though, to repeat these basic fundamental principles, and > certainly not in this particular part of the ITRs. > Other International laws and provisions and charters stand on their own, > and I think in discussing the preamble you have also discussed the lack of > necessity to repeat various provisions in other parts of either the > constitution or the Convention of ITU. > So we think that although we support entirely these basic principles and > these are things that we all must follow in any event, and the basic > principles apply also to telecommunications. It's not necessary to include > them in this particular part of the ITRs. > > > >> CHAIR: Thank you. China and then South Africa, briefly, please. > >> CHINA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. > China has some similarities in our views compared with the United States > and EU. We respect the principles in the Universal Declaration of Human > Rights and also we respect the principles advocated by the declaration of > WSIS. But we think the ITR is about the interconnection of International > networks as well as to guide the operation of International services is > more technical savvy. So it's more focused on the technical aspects. > So we think it's not necessary to reiterate what we have recognized the > International political principles. Therefore, we support the intervention > of the previous two speakers. > Thank you. > >> CHAIR: Thank. > South Africa? > >> SOUTH AFRICA: Thank you, Chairperson. > We do think it was a very good proposal, but we would also have to reserve > our own position on this issue. In particular, because whilst we agree > with the right of freedom of expression, in our constitution it's not an > unlimited right, in the sense that it is balanced against other rights such > as the right not to be the victim of hate speech. > So I think from our perspective, we would need a little time to consult on > this issue. > Thank you, Chairperson. > >> CHAIR: Thank you. Before giving the floor to the others, I don't see > agreement to, while respecting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I > don't see agreement to include this in the ITR. > So Tunisia, before giving the floor to the rest, we do not have an > agreement. > SG, you wanted the floor? > >> HAMADOUN TOURE': Thank you, Chairman. Yes, I did want to speak. And > because I wanted to draw your attention to something, as indeed I did in my > opening statement. It seems to me to be essential, fundamental for the > future and the credibility of the union and to the image which the union > wants to project to the outside world, and in view of all the various > conspiracy theories that are floating around in respect to individual > freedoms in this meet, that it would be a good idea to put some explicit > recognition of this essential right, which after all is already > acknowledged, the rights to the freedom of expression. That would perhaps > contribute to preventing people distorting the cause and purpose of this > conference. > This is a universal right of course. It's one that has already been > negotiated and agreed by our Members. But an explicit reference to it, I > think, would be helpful at the beginning of a Treaty of this kind. > It would, as I say, dissipate any potential misunderstanding about this > whole question. So as far as I'm concerned, that would be the essential > purpose of a proposal such as that which has just been tabled by Tunisia. > Tunisia was, after all, the host country of the WSIS, where these issues > were dealt with. And dealt with at a level that cannot be exceeded at the > level of heads of state. Tunisia was also the cradle of the Arab Spring, > where the Freedom of Expression as we know was extremely important in many > respects. It was used in order to return countries to Democracy, after > all. > I therefore think that this would be helpful and I would create the > indulgence of Member States to look at this from the point of view of the > image which this organisation wants to project, particularly at this > conference. For those who want this conference to be successful, I think > it would be a good idea to try and reach agreements here and reach > agreements such that they give the right image of the ITU outside the > organisation's walls. > I would like to see contribution number 25 from the Tunisian delegation > looked at in this way and I urge delegations to try and do that. > Thank you. > >> CHAIR: Thank you. Iran? > >> IRAN: Thank you you, Chairman. We are grateful to the presentation of > the Tunisian Government to propose this very important issue, which has > drawn our full attention to the fundamental rights that are mentioned in > Article 19 of the universal declarations of human rights. > Something having said that, Chairman, the nature of this proposal more > fitted to perhaps a proposal to the plenipotentiary conference, to > possibly, if necessary, am amendment the preamble of the constitution, > which covers everything, not only ITR but also other segments and the > entire ITU as was mentioned. Therefore, in our view, this proposal needs > to be, if the delegation of Tunisia so wishes, submitted to the > plenipotentiary conference and should not be discussed at this conference > and should not be included in the ITU-R in any part of the regulations. -- > ITR in any part of the regulations. Thank you. > >> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm speaking on > behalf of CETIL in connection with two interAmerican proposals, 21 and 23. > We certainly endorse the sentiment expressed in the Tunisian proposal. > However, in our view, as expressed in these interAmerican proposals, the > purpose of the ITRs is to assure the interoperability of underlying > telecommunications systems that enable communications, not the content of > the communications that flow over them. > > > We are concerned that we should not open this door and get into the issue > of adding content issue, even Freedom of Expression be issues, which we > certainly endorse, to the ITRs. Our fear is that once this door is opened, > the other language could be added on this subject and this is a highly > sensitive matter. We think it would be much better for all of us if we > left this issue -- kept the issue of content entirely out of the ITRs. > Thank you. > >> CHAIR: Tunisia, I think you've heard the comments from a lot of Member > States. And all of them said one thing, that there is a respect to the > Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but there is no support to include > this in the ITR. > So I'll give the floor back to Tunisia, if they still insist on their > proposal. > And withdrawing it does not mean that there is no respect to the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights. > Tunisia? > >> TUNISIA: Thank you, Chairman. > Well, I would like to be able to reach a consensus agreement if that were > probable possible. But before I go to maybe I do draw something to the > delegates' attention. The events which we have seen taking place recently > in some regions of the world, the cutting of International > telecommunications things, for example, and that despite the existence and > recognition of these rights in existing texts, has happened. Existing > texts haven't prevented some countries cutting off International > telecommunications, and that's why we in Tunisia think that this conference > should give a very strong signal about the need to protect this right of > the Freedom of Expression. > We need, I think, to make explicit the fact that this kind of cutting off > of International telecommunications is unacceptable. > Perhaps I could agree with the United States who have proposed that > reference be made to the summit text. That might get the idea across. And > I leave it in your hands, Chairman, to find how we can actually do that and > make headway on this. > Thank you. > >> CHAIR: Okay. There is a proposal to refer to the WSIS text. But > before putting that to the floor, UAE is asking for the floor. UAE? > >> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: Thank you, Chairman. > And in order to be very brief, I think most of what we would like to say > was already mentioned by the distinguished Secretary-General, and also by > the Distinguished Delegate from Tunisia. It's also important to highlight > that there has been some, under some of the media, some let's say wrong > information that there are some proposals to actually neglect freedom of > speech. And here we go, we have an Arab proposal, an Arab country proposal > cominging to this conference that would like to emphasize this, and we can > go along with whatever appear proch as has been endorsed by Tunisia, the > Secretary-General as well as you, Mr. Chairman, to send a signal from Dubai > that this principle and all the principles of the WSIS. So I think if we > prefer, if we go and refer to the WSIS, we should refer to it as a whole. > We have been active in the WSIS and we actually can go along with the idea > to prefer to the WSIS and all of its principles and endorse it from -- > within the conference of the WCIT. > Thank you. > >> CHAIR: Thank you, UAE. I think refers to WSIS as an entirety is also > a very dangerous sign so I need to be careful here. > I think there has been a lot of discussion on this issue. And I'm sure > there has been a lot of reflection on such important and novel declarations > is there, and it's already amended. > I'm not sure if there is any additional thing that we can add to that. > There are strong views. We have heard also the Secretary-General review on > the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But there are views respecting > the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but having an opinion that the > ITRs is not the place for it. > And the reflection of it in the summary record, it's important. And I > don't know if you can go along with that, and sending also a message from > Dubai to the rest of the world to through the summary record of the plenary > respecting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but also as I see it > from the Member States that there is no agreement to have it included in > the ITRs itself. > So I would like to thank Tunisia for their proposal. Unfortunately, we > have no support. But we can reflect on the summary record of the meeting > and emphasize on it and perhaps we can have a text proposed by Tunisia to > look at it as well, so that we can have -- so that we can give it a proper > place in the summary record. > I see others asking for the floor. And then Iran > Qatar: We are sitting at the back of the room and let me explain why you > can't see us Chairman. I sought the floor several times but didn't obtain > it. > As far as the Tunisian proposal is concerned, we think that this is an > extremely important proposal and an extremely important principle and we > support it. > It's a question of ensuring the human rights and the Freedom of Expression > are respected. As the Secretary-General said in his statement, it's very > important that we send out a positive signal on this one from this > conference. > That will be the best possibly response to some of the rather inaccurate > information being put around about this conference, to the effect that > we're trying precisely to limit the Freedom of Expression. I think that > the content of the Tunisian proposal is crucial. As I said, I think it > needs to be mentioned even if that is done via a referral back to the WSIS. > > The essential point is that this be mentioned, one way or the other, to > make it * very clear that our conference fully respects both human rights > and the liberties of expression. > Thank you. irp iron we have no difficulty if Tunisia would like to have a > statement in the minutes of the plenary. However, with respect to a > general recognitions of the conference, it depends whether this is in the > agenda of the conference or not in the agenda of the conference and also it > depends on the text, what text we put. What is the language, what is the > wording of that. And before saying that we could not agree to the > inclusion of that text we have to see it clearly and we have to consult our > Government. > Thank you. > (That was Iran) > > > S Poland: Thank you very much, Chairman. Poland would like to associate > itself with the Tunisian proposal and the comments of the > Secretary-General. We believe that the general reference to human rights > would send the positive signal, and our proposal is that the general > reference to human rights and guarantees of the freedom of the Internet > perhaps should be made in the preamble to the ITRs. > Thank you very much. > >> CHAIR: We will take Mexico first and then the Secretary-General wants > to speak as well. > Mexico? > > > >> MEXICO: Thank you very much, Chairman. > We have listened with very careful attention to the debate which has been > taking place in respect of the issue of human rights, and particularly > Article 19 of the universal declaration. We support that Article. We > support the declaration. > But we do agree that it is perhaps not in the ivrts where we find the most > appropriate place from which to send out this message. We do, however, > agree that it's a good idea for this conference and indeed for ITU in > general to send out a message to the world outside about guaranteeing > communication and human rights in general. Maybe this could be done in a > resolution from the conference. We don't think we should be considering > only the specific text of the ITR. We have a bit of more gin over to us by > conference resolutions. So perhaps a conference resolution would be the > right place to mention this. > What we suggest is that we mention this issue in a conference resolution. > Thank you. * > > > >> CHAIR: Secretary-General? > >> Secretary-General: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think there is full > agreement here that Universal Declaration of Human Rights is very important > to every single delegation here. > That every delegation who spoke, spoke for it. > But it's clear, also, that it has not its place in the ivrts, and we have > said that all along. During the preparatory process of this conference. I > had multiple press conferences and replies to press allegations that this > conference is about Freedom of Expression and I've said no. It's not the > case. And you are just proving that here. And you don't want it to be the > case. You'll set a presence dense. As the President of CCITEL said it > will open the doors for content issues being in the ivrts. And we have > said that ivrts is not about content. > If we have to make reference to this in the ITRs, we should say that even > though content is not an issue for this conference, it has been, since it's > been too much labeled we make it clearer. > But if we decide not to, you allow me to make a press release again to > clarify this issue. And of course I have my daily conference briefing, > press briefing, in which I will refer to this issue and make it clear that > this conference, in this conference, we all agree that human rights issues > are very important, the Freedom of Expression is something that no one can > -- nothing in this conference, in this Treaty, will contradict that. > But we decided un nan mustly not to put it in there, but it was a gracious > proposal by Tunisia to clarify the matter. > On that compromise, I will be very able to handle this issue. Because as > you can -- as you have seen in the press, there has been simply too much > negative labels on this conference for this very issue, which has never > been on the table. > Thank you, Mr. Chairman. > > > >> CHAIR: Thank you. > Switzerland. > >> SWITZERLAND: Thank you, Chairman. > We feel the same way as our colleagues from Poland who spoke a little > earlier. And indeed more or less for the same reasons. It seems to us to > be very important, as other people have said, that given the unfounded > criticism we have heard leveled at this conference, we make reference of > some kind to the respect of human rights in general. The idea of putting a > very brief reference to them in the pream preamble without going into > detail would be for us a very simple slu, with their support. > I think we would really be missing the boat in this conference, so to > speak, if we did not refer to what is a very basic and fundamental > principle for our society. > Thank you. > > > >> CHAIR: Let me try this and let me try this proposal, to have the > Tunisian proposal or let's say a modified version of the Tunisian proposal > in a resolution. > Is there an agreement to do that? Or let me put it this way: Is there > any objection to have a resolution attached to the ITRs that talks about > Universal Declaration of Human Rights? As per Poland's proposal. tp > Canada? > >> CANADA: Yes, sir, thank you, Chairman. > First and foremost I'll not take a lot of time. We fully recognize the > principles embedded in the Tunisian proposal and we thank them for it. But > as clearly stated by several people that have preceded me in the use of the > floor, in particular I would quote the reference made by the Distinguished > Delegate of China, as to the nature and scope of the ITRs. > Secondly, the reference made by the Secretary-General to the media > coverage of this conference, whether it is unfounded or founded, it is not > up to Canada to qualify it. But we will certainly agree with his proposal > to deal with any issues associated with the coverage, precoverage, and post > coverage of this conference by means of a press statement that needs not to > be part of the ivrts. ITRs. Lastly, the issue of human rights it's > already clearly enshrined in the u verse sal declaration of human rights > and there is no need for this this conference or WCIT or plenipotentiary or > WSA to include such an important element already recognized by extremely > important declarations as the declaration of human rights. > Thank you, Chairman. > >> CHAIR: I'll give the floor to Tunisia. I don't see, at least from the > start, support for my proposal. > Tunisia? > >> TUNISIA: Thank you, Chairman. > What I would say is that our conference should issue a clear signal in > response to the severe accusations which it has faced in the recent > period. And the only way that we can do that is by making mention of > freedom of expression and human rights in the International > telecommunication regulations. > To that end, I would like to go back to the proposal made by Poland and > Switzerland to make such a mention in the preamble to say that our > conference attaches importance to Freedom of Expression and human rights. > > > >> CHAIR: Thank you. But there is no -- until now, there is no support > for it yet. I'll give the floor to Costa Rica and then Iran. I really > need to conclude on this discussion. There is a proposal from also the > Secretary-General that we -- the ITU issue a press release on this issue, > recognizing what happened in the meeting. That all Administrations > respecting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but not to be part of > the ITRs, which is a binding Treaty and I've seen also the comment made by > Canada. > Costa Rica you have the floor. > >> COSTA RICA: Thank you, Chairman. > Costa Rica has a hundred year long Democracy and we think that the > Secretary-General's comments are very important. We need to issue a > message on this, particularly given the accusations which have been going > around in the press. > As the UAE said, we need to agree on a message, but Costa Rica believes > that the ITRs aren't the best instrument for that to be achieved. And > that's why we think that it would be more sensible to think about what was > said by Mexico, to have the resolution by this Assembly, which takes up the > spirit of what was said by Tunisia toon and supported by Poland and > Switzerland. So we could have a resolution and perhaps we could also > cover this using a press release as said by the Secretary-General. We > think that would be a more viable course of action. > > > >> CHAIR: Thank you. There is now some support for having a resolution. > I don't want to give the floor to many people. I'll give it to two > countries. > >> IRAN. Briefly, please. > >> IRAN: Thank you, the last speaker was quite clear saying that either a > press release or resolutions. Chairman, resolutions first of all should be > very carefully Crafted. It would take a lot of time on the wording. It > should be within the agenda of the conference. And we fully support the > wisdom of the Secretary-General that he said clearly that he would take > this action in a press release, and make necessary and appropriate courses > of action in order that the correct signal be given to outside people. And > we are not in favor of a resolution. We are opposed to a resolution. > Thank you. > >> PORTUGAL: Thank you, Mr. Chair man. Like the majority of countries, > we are -- we do not favor including the issue in the ITRs and I think this > is already solved by now. > And we also do not favor the resolution model. We think the proposal by > the Secretary-General is very balanced, and very towards our aim here. And > maybe a record -- including in the record of decisions as was also > initially proposed would be the appropriate way to deal with this issue. > Thank you, Mr. Chairman. > > > >> CHAIR: Thank you. I will close the discussion now. I don't see an > agreement included in either the resolution or part of the ITRs, so we will > go along with the Secretary-General proposal to have a press release, the > minutes of meeting also -- or the covering all your sentiments from all the > Administrations, and I would thank everybody including Tunisia to bring > this important issue. And we will have its size in a press release that we > do on a daily basis, recognizing the Universal Declaration of Human > Rights. And emphasizing that this conference is a technical conference and > all Administrations here recognize it, and they do not feel that it's > appropriate to include it in the ITRs. > Secretary-General? > >> Secretary-General: I just want to thank this conference for coming > again to a good compromise on this very delicate issue. In fact, you have > done half of my job by speaking out here in this meeting. Because this is > webcast. And this webcast goes to the press. So I'll simply be > reiterating what you said here, which satisfies me, because this is what we > have been saying all along. Because we know the feeling of our > membership. We know what our membership is tasking us to do in this > conference, in this Treaty. And therefore I would like to thank you again > and you've proven that again ITU can come together and all Member States > and come to a consensus on issues. > Thank you very much. > >> CHAIR: Thank you. > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Ellery Biddle wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> Important update about tomorrow's call -- after talking with some of our >> colleagues who are in Dubai this week, we've decided that we should move >> the time back a few hours, so that those in Dubai can more easily >> participate. So here's the new plan: >> * >> * >> *The call will take place at 18:00 UTC / 1:00 PM EST. A list of >> international toll-free call-in numbers is attached.* >> >> Since new issues may arise between now and then, I'll suggest that we can >> try to set a rough agenda at the start of the call, rather than setting one >> now. >> >> Looking forward to chatting with everyone! >> >> cheers, >> >> Ellery >> >> >> >> Ellery Roberts Biddle >> Center for Democracy and Technology >> (415) 814-1711 >> >> >> >> On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Ellery Biddle wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> We have been talking here at CDT about various strategies for >> communications and coordination during the WCIT. Lots to think about here. >> Two items on this: >> >> First: Who is going to Dubai? We *really* want to develop a list of >> civil society people who will be in Dubai for the conference. We think it >> would be helpful for those attending WCIT to know what other CS people will >> be there, and to develop a rough plan for coordinating once they are in >> Dubai. Matthew Shears, ISOC's former policy director who has been working >> on ITU issues with CDT, will be in Dubai on CDT's behalf. He will not be >> affiliated with any delegation. *If you or someone from your >> organization is going to be in Dubai (with or without delegate status), and >> you'd like to be in touch with other civil society folks there, please send >> Matthew an email letting him know. Matthew's email: mshears at cdt.org* >> >> Second: How can we coordinate on public communication about the WCIT? We >> know that many CSOs will be blogging, tweeting, and responding to press >> inquiries about the WCIT as it's happening. Given the relatively closed >> nature of the event, we know that it may be difficult to get the >> information we need in order to do this well, and that some coordination >> between groups may help fill this gap. We also anticipate that rumors and >> misinformation may become an issue, as different delegates may hear >> different things, etc. In anticipation of this, we want to propose a group >> call for next week. This will be open to any civil society groups planning >> to report on WCIT, either from Dubai or from outside the UAE. Given the >> size of these lists, I am setting an arbitrary (though early, which >> generally seems best) time and date for the call. Hope that plenty of folks >> can join -- we'll take and circulate good notes for those who can't make it. >> >> *The call will take place on Tuesday, December 4 at 16:00 UTC / 11:00 >> EST. *A list of international toll-free call-in numbers is attached. I >> will circulate this again, along with a reminder, on Monday. >> >> As always, please feel encouraged to reply to the list with additional >> ideas, questions, etc. >> >> Thanks all! >> >> Ellery >> >> Ellery Roberts Biddle >> Center for Democracy and Technology >> (415) 814-1711 >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > S. deborah.l.brown > T. deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org S. deborah.l.brown T. deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ellery at cdt.org Wed Dec 5 16:01:59 2012 From: ellery at cdt.org (Ellery Biddle) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 13:01:59 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] WCIT check-in call Thursday Message-ID: <9F27A8AC-548B-4F8B-AE10-DB55DFBA1C07@cdt.org> Hi everyone, We're going to hold another WCIT check-in call on Thursday 12/6 at 18:00 UTC / 1PM EST / 10PM Dubai time for any civil society folks who want to join. Hope this works for those at WCIT, time-wise. If we need to move the time back a bit, we can -- I'll email the lists again if anything changes. Call-in info is attached. Talk to you all tomorrow! e Ellery Roberts Biddle Center for Democracy and Technology (415) 814-1711 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: int'l call-in numbers071812.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 80971 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ellery at cdt.org Wed Dec 5 16:58:50 2012 From: ellery at cdt.org (Ellery Biddle) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 13:58:50 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] SCHEDULE CHANGE: WCIT check-in call FRIDAY In-Reply-To: <9F27A8AC-548B-4F8B-AE10-DB55DFBA1C07@cdt.org> References: <9F27A8AC-548B-4F8B-AE10-DB55DFBA1C07@cdt.org> Message-ID: <090CF4AC-F17D-4131-99B8-1979717462DB@cdt.org> Hi everyone, Apologies to for the mix-up. We will do a check-in call on FRIDAY at 18:00 UTC, not Thursday. Call-in info will remain the same; numbers attached. Talk to you all then, Ellery Ellery Roberts Biddle Center for Democracy and Technology (415) 814-1711 On Dec 5, 2012, at 1:01 PM, Ellery Biddle wrote: > Hi everyone, > > We're going to hold another WCIT check-in call on Thursday 12/6 at 18:00 UTC / 1PM EST / 10PM Dubai time for any civil society folks who want to join. Hope this works for those at WCIT, time-wise. If we need to move the time back a bit, we can -- I'll email the lists again if anything changes. > > Call-in info is attached. > > Talk to you all tomorrow! > > e > > > > Ellery Roberts Biddle > Center for Democracy and Technology > (415) 814-1711 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: int'l call-in numbers071812.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 80971 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Dec 6 04:45:10 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 22:45:10 +1300 Subject: [bestbits] Next steps on principles (was Re: Coordination...) In-Reply-To: <20121203120128.0f018576@quill.bollow.ch> References: <50B6DE1B.5010109@cdt.org> <50B6F1A8.5030008@itforchange.net> <50B6F360.6010804@itforchange.net> <50B715D9.6000204@apc.org> <20121203120128.0f018576@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <18978622-60EC-4E9C-8173-47110B907D9F@ciroap.org> On 04/12/2012, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> This does bring us back to our 'Best Bits' goal about developing and >> proposing principles for internet governance. Should we not begin to >> plan our next steps? > > Absolutely. > > How can things realistically be moved forward in a positive, > constructive way? I worry that the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" meme with which most are approaching WCIT will solidify into a general opposition to any global norm-setting outside of the Internet technical community's institutions, and that Internet policy development will thereby be confined to the national level. This is not helped by the US government's predisposition to avoid taking on international obligations (the Disabilities Treaty being the latest example, besides the Law of the Sea, the International Criminal Court, the Cybercrime Convention, the Treaty for the Visually Impaired, etc) - except of course through multilateral trade agreements! I think we need to work on addressing that perception, and point out that: 1. Multi-stakeholder Internet governance will be soft law, guidance rather than compulsion. 2. Even the US is promulgating global Internet norms through fora that suit it (OECD, APEC, and the "free flow of information" provisions in the TPP). 3. So we need to move this into multi-stakeholder global fora, at a higher level that does not bind anyone, and need not restrict national policy space. 4. There are various non-technical Internet policy issues that have no appropriate global home (nor should the ITU become their home). 5. For example, a potential core competency is connecting Internet governance with human rights, as a framework to guide the development of national and multilateral norms for IP enforcement. 6. Let's propose an IGF-based multi-stakeholder enhanced cooperation mechanism that would be an acceptable way to deal with such issues. We all hate hierarchy, but sometimes a little bit of structure is necessary to provide firm enough guidance to policymakers (look at the failure of IPv6 adoption). The existing loose network of Internet governance institutions, even if their "cooperation" is "enhanced", isn't structured enough to provide such guidance in a way that will satisfy the stakeholders (governmental and non-governmental) who are seeking more from the enhanced cooperation process. At Best Bits a few options were described, though we ran out of time to debate them. As I see it, there is a UN-linked option (which in turn divides into an IGF-based option or an IGF-independent option), or there is a UN-independent option (the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force, ECTF). So far, almost none of us have been serious about pursuing any of these. But the status quo is not going to hold. One way or another, Internet governance is going to evolve, and it will do so with us or without us. We've spoken loudly enough about what we don't want - the ITU. So, what do we want? -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 6 05:55:44 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 16:25:44 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Next steps on principles (was Re: Coordination...) In-Reply-To: <18978622-60EC-4E9C-8173-47110B907D9F@ciroap.org> References: <50B6DE1B.5010109@cdt.org> <50B6F1A8.5030008@itforchange.net> <50B6F360.6010804@itforchange.net> <50B715D9.6000204@apc.org> <20121203120128.0f018576@quill.bollow.ch> <18978622-60EC-4E9C-8173-47110B907D9F@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <50C079B0.1060107@itforchange.net> "We've spoken loudly enough about what we don't want - the ITU. So, what /do/ we want?" Jeremy I entirely agree that we need to proceed with a positive agenda, and developing principles for IG, or Internet policy principles, is the best way to go forward. I am sorry to take a 'we said so' position but since the very first IGF, in fact even before it, in the call to contribute to developing the agenda of the first IGF, IT for Change has been insisting that developing Internet policy principles is the best way to go, especially given the stalemate on which institution should do what. WIth this objective in view we, along with other partners, set by the IGF dynamic coalition on ' Framework of Principles for the Internet' which later merged with the dynamic coalition on bill of rights to form the DC on Internet rights and principles.... We are happy that there is now an even greater sentiment for developing principles for Internet policy making today. It is however unfortunate that a good part of this sentiment has risen as a reaction to what may be perceived to have begun happening at the UN. To that extent, it will not be entirely misplaced if some developing countries look at these 'new' - apparently reactive - initiatives with a good degree of cynicism, inviting doubts about 'whose agenda it really is'. We often are so quite careful about what US may think of an initiative; it is at least equally required that we bear in mind what developing countries may think. It is therefore always best to seize any initiative pro-actively, leveraging the moral high ground that civil society has. Though we are quite late on the Internet principles thing, it is still good time, However, if we are to be informed by the lessons learnt of not being always reactive, and always looking to what a US gov or a google will think of this or that, and if we, as global civil society, are to be taken seriously, we just must go ahead and present the best public interest Internet principles that we can pull together and present it to the world. And then we should seek to get as many as possible public interest actors behind us. Let us not get too circumspect quite early on. We should certainly be practical and pragmatic but not already negotiating too much with the key dominant actors, whether actually, or in our minds. To put it somewhat bluntly - we dont negotiate when it is inappropriate content regulation or privacy issues, why should we negotiate when it is net neutrality. The only legitimacy and 'power' that civil society has is of its taking up the interests and struggles of the less powerful - lets stick to our legitimising roots. In sum, and to repeat, what I propose is that we pull together the best public interest principles for Internet policy (or IG) that we can, keeping reasonable pragmatism in background of our work, and then take it to the world. The methodology that we adopt - and I understand that is the question my mail is trying to respond to - should be determined by this objective. parminder On Thursday 06 December 2012 03:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 04/12/2012, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Bollow > wrote: > >> Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: >> >>> This does bring us back to our 'Best Bits' goal about developing and >>> proposing principles for internet governance. Should we not begin to >>> plan our next steps? >> >> Absolutely. >> >> How can things realistically be moved forward in a positive, >> constructive way? > > I worry that the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" meme with which > most are approaching WCIT will solidify into a general opposition to > any global norm-setting outside of the Internet technical community's > institutions, and that Internet policy development will thereby be > confined to the national level. This is not helped by the US > government's predisposition to avoid taking on international > obligations (the Disabilities Treaty being the latest example, besides > the Law of the Sea, the International Criminal Court, the Cybercrime > Convention, the Treaty for the Visually Impaired, etc) - except of > course through multilateral trade agreements! I think we need to work > on addressing that perception, and point out that: > > 1. Multi-stakeholder Internet governance will be soft law, guidance > rather than compulsion. > 2. Even the US is promulgating global Internet norms through fora that > suit it (OECD, APEC, and the "free flow of information" provisions in > the TPP). > 3. So we need to move this into multi-stakeholder global fora, at a > higher level that does not bind anyone, and need not restrict national > policy space. > 4. There are various non-technical Internet policy issues that have no > appropriate global home (nor should the ITU become their home). > 5. For example, a potential core competency is connecting Internet > governance with human rights, as a framework to guide the development > of national and multilateral norms for IP enforcement. > 6. Let's propose an IGF-based multi-stakeholder enhanced cooperation > mechanism that would be an acceptable way to deal with such issues. > > We all hate hierarchy, but sometimes a little bit of structure is > necessary to provide firm enough guidance to policymakers (look at the > failure of IPv6 adoption). The existing loose network of Internet > governance institutions, even if their "cooperation" is "enhanced", > isn't structured enough to provide such guidance in a way that will > satisfy the stakeholders (governmental and non-governmental) who are > seeking more from the enhanced cooperation process. > > At Best Bits a few options were described, though we ran out of time > to debate them. As I see it, there is a UN-linked option (which in > turn divides into an IGF-based option or an IGF-independent option), > or there is a UN-independent option (the Enhanced Cooperation Task > Force, ECTF). So far, almost none of us have been serious about > pursuing any of these. But the status quo is not going to hold. One > way or another, Internet governance is going to evolve, and it will do > so with us or without us. We've spoken loudly enough about what we > don't want - the ITU. So, what /do/ we want? > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:* > http://consint.info/RightsMission > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pranesh at cis-india.org Thu Dec 6 09:58:23 2012 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 20:28:23 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Next steps on principles (was Re: Coordination...) In-Reply-To: <18978622-60EC-4E9C-8173-47110B907D9F@ciroap.org> References: <50B6DE1B.5010109@cdt.org> <50B6F1A8.5030008@itforchange.net> <50B6F360.6010804@itforchange.net> <50B715D9.6000204@apc.org> <20121203120128.0f018576@quill.bollow.ch> <18978622-60EC-4E9C-8173-47110B907D9F@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <50C0B28F.4020307@cis-india.org> Jeremy Malcolm [2012-12-06 15:15]: > On 04/12/2012, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> This does bring us back to our 'Best Bits' goal about developing and >>> proposing principles for internet governance. Should we not begin to >>> plan our next steps? >> >> Absolutely. >> >> How can things realistically be moved forward in a positive, >> constructive way? > > > I worry that the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" meme with which most are approaching WCIT will solidify into a general opposition to any global norm-setting outside of the Internet technical community's institutions, and that Internet policy development will thereby be confined to the national level. This is not helped by the US government's predisposition to avoid taking on international obligations (the Disabilities Treaty being the latest example, besides the Law of the Sea, the International Criminal Court, the Cybercrime Convention, the Treaty for the Visually Impaired, etc) - except of course through multilateral trade agreements! I think we need to work on addressing that perception, and point out that: > > 1. Multi-stakeholder Internet governance will be soft law, guidance rather than compulsion. > 2. Even the US is promulgating global Internet norms through fora that suit it (OECD, APEC, and the "free flow of information" provisions in the TPP). > 3. So we need to move this into multi-stakeholder global fora, at a higher level that does not bind anyone, and need not restrict national policy space. > 4. There are various non-technical Internet policy issues that have no appropriate global home (nor should the ITU become their home). > 5. For example, a potential core competency is connecting Internet governance with human rights, as a framework to guide the development of national and multilateral norms for IP enforcement. > 6. Let's propose an IGF-based multi-stakeholder enhanced cooperation mechanism that would be an acceptable way to deal with such issues. This is a most excellent summation and suggestions. > We all hate hierarchy, but sometimes a little bit of structure is necessary to provide firm enough guidance to policymakers (look at the failure of IPv6 adoption). The existing loose network of Internet governance institutions, even if their "cooperation" is "enhanced", isn't structured enough to provide such guidance in a way that will satisfy the stakeholders (governmental and non-governmental) who are seeking more from the enhanced cooperation process. > > At Best Bits a few options were described, though we ran out of time to debate them. As I see it, there is a UN-linked option (which in turn divides into an IGF-based option or an IGF-independent option), or there is a UN-independent option (the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force, ECTF). So far, almost none of us have been serious about pursuing any of these. But the status quo is not going to hold. One way or another, Internet governance is going to evolve, and it will do so with us or without us. We've spoken loudly enough about what we don't want - the ITU. So, what do we want? I think a stock-taking of where things have moved on the issues highlighted in the WGIG documents then would be helpful. I've some notes from conversations I was having with different people at Best Bits in terms of a 'positive agenda', that I hope to type up and elaborate on, and send to the list. -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Thu Dec 6 10:58:58 2012 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 10:58:58 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [WCIT12] Access brief on proposed revisions ITR routing provisions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Matt Friedman Date: Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:08 AM Subject: [WCIT12] Access brief on proposed revisions ITR routing provisions To: wcit12 at cdt.org Hi all, Word has it that discussion on Article 3.3 (on routing) began today at the WCIT. Access has produced a policy brief directly on this issue, to which we'd like to bring your attention. It first examines the problematic effects on routing that would flow from expanding the scope of the current ITRs to include internet policy-making. Second, it goes through the substantive changes to Article 3.3 that member states have proposed, such as the right to know the routes used, and analyzes their effects on the day-to-day operation of the internet. We hope it will give you all a stronger sense of the ramifications should these provisions make their way into the ITRs, and we encourage you to distribute more widely as you see fit. You can find the policy brief here: https://www.accessnow.org/page/-/docs/IProutingbrief.pdf?redirected. I have also attached a PDF. Thanks, Matt -- Matt Friedman Policy Fellow | Access www.accessnow.org Ph: (425) 213-3431 S: matthew.r.friedman PGP: 86B88D5F ############################################################# This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to Send administrative queries to -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org S. deborah.l.brown T. deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Access IP routing brief.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 207713 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 08:43:03 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 05:43:03 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] RE: [governance] Multi-stakeholder model, evolution and revolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03ba01cdd480$ea56ec80$bf04c580$@gmail.com> A very good framing of the issues, Jeremy and of the central challenge going forward. My overall sense is that this (email/mailing list) medium is rather more amenable to critique than to construction .. for one thing because critique as with email is something one does on one`s own, while the development of constructive suggestions/direction is something that one does best with others. My thoughts going forward is that having to some degree settled on the challenge it is now up to small groups of likeminded individuals to `gather` to develop the suggestions that you are pointing to. Norbert has one such possible focus on the table with his ECTF; there are the (extended) ICANN etc. proponents`; there is the UN and then a UN+ option; there are the ``hands off the Internet`` proponents, who, now having made their case in extremis need to do some serious backfilling if their position is to not simply become one of ``no Internet governance except that which serves my/our immediate interests`` the conceptual difficulties of which will be handled by calling it anything other than Internet governance; there are probably others and even cross-overs and overlaps among the above. Perhaps a convening of smaller (virtual) groups around various conceptual nodes with a target of reconvening at some later date--sooner rather than later, might be a way forward. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 1:48 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Multi-stakeholder model, evolution and revolution On 05/12/2012, at 11:29 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: John Curran wrote recently on this list: " I harbor a concern that incremental change may be the only type of change that open multistakeholder deliberations can actually support, as the discussions of more revolutionary changes seem to inevitably jump to more authoritarian questions such as "who is charge", "who can approve this", etc. This is a topic worth thinking about in general about MS governance processes." Cross-posting something that I just sent to the Best Bits list, that is relevant to the above: I worry that the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" meme with which most are approaching WCIT will solidify into a general opposition to any global norm-setting outside of the Internet technical community's institutions, and that Internet policy development will thereby be confined to the national level. This is not helped by the US government's predisposition to avoid taking on international obligations (the Disabilities Treaty being the latest example, besides the Law of the Sea, the International Criminal Court, the Cybercrime Convention, the Treaty for the Visually Impaired, etc) - except of course through multilateral trade agreements! I think we need to work on addressing that perception, and point out that: 1. Multi-stakeholder Internet governance will be soft law, guidance rather than compulsion. 2. Even the US is promulgating global Internet norms through fora that suit it (OECD, APEC, and the "free flow of information" provisions in the TPP). 3. So we need to move this into multi-stakeholder global fora, at a higher level that does not bind anyone, and need not restrict national policy space. 4. There are various non-technical Internet policy issues that have no appropriate global home (nor should the ITU become their home). 5. For example, a potential core competency is connecting Internet governance with human rights, as a framework to guide the development of national and multilateral norms for IP enforcement. 6. Let's propose an IGF-based multi-stakeholder enhanced cooperation mechanism that would be an acceptable way to deal with such issues. We all hate hierarchy, but sometimes a little bit of structure is necessary to provide firm enough guidance to policymakers (look at the failure of IPv6 adoption). The existing loose network of Internet governance institutions, even if their "cooperation" is "enhanced", isn't structured enough to provide such guidance in a way that will satisfy the stakeholders (governmental and non-governmental) who are seeking more from the enhanced cooperation process. At Best Bits a few options were described, though we ran out of time to debate them. As I see it, there is a UN-linked option (which in turn divides into an IGF-based option or an IGF-independent option), or there is a UN-independent option (the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force, ECTF). So far, almost none of us have been serious about pursuing any of these. But the status quo is not going to hold. One way or another, Internet governance is going to evolve, and it will do so with us or without us. We've spoken loudly enough about what we don't want - the ITU. So, what do we want? -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Your rights, our mission - download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farooq at ciroap.org Sat Dec 1 08:57:17 2012 From: farooq at ciroap.org (Farooq Ahmed Jam) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 18:57:17 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] The Necessity of an Inclusive, Transparent and Participatory Internet In-Reply-To: <50B98DC8.4010500@itforchange.net> References: <40b43.5d2dacd7.3de6d10b@aol.com> <2E8CBB32-B207-4A3E-BF34-CAD8DDB8B77B@bbn.com> <50B7CF16.4090500@netmagic.com> <32CDB1A8C6A6134DABC81F9D3CAD702215B1375193@NTIAMBX01.ntiadc.ntia.doc.gov> <38EA5CFB-488B-478E-95B2-40023720D9EB@acm.org> <50B98DC8.4010500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50BA0CBD.3080900@ciroap.org> I appreciate the weight given to multistakeholder venues, transparency and free internet as well as supporting the best bits statements. Now this is the time to remind US delegates and all other delegates who really mean to support such efforts. To date WCIT has no official consumer representation body at the platform while amending ITRs or deciding about the future of the internet. All the delegates should lend their stated support towards official civil society representation at this platform because without formal representation by CSOs and consumer representing bodies this venue can never be a multistakeholder venue. Now this is the time to show practical support towards best bits statements. Lets hope for the best. Farooq Ahmed Jam On 12/1/2012 9:55 AM, parminder wrote: > > > Yes, a rather good statement. And such a positive reference to the > 'best bits' is very encouraging. > > It also instructive that the US statement singled out the 'best bits' > statement from scores of other statements on the same issue that are > floating around .... In my judgement it is for the reason that a > forum/ meeting associated with a UN forum/ meeting, and with, even if > insufficient, global representation has much greater legitimacy than > any group/ statement which in North centric - however well resourced, > and powerful, and however well polished its campaigns may be. (Nothing > against well resourced and well polished campaigns; we as an advocacy > organisation would ourselves always try to do well resourced and well > polished campaigns) . > > The Best Bits platform should build on this special legitimacy as a > kind of a permanent pre-IGF civil society event. > > Meanwhile, to add salt to the serving, I do have some cynical comments > on the US statement as well... > > When they say that global Internet issues should be taken up at > "suitable multistakeholder venues so that these discussions are well > informed by the voices of all interested parties" > > That obvious question is that does the US consider the OECD's Internet > policy/ principles making mechanism multistakeholder, since US claims > (the democratic party's election manisfesto says so) that they > recently negotiated 'global' principles of Internet policy making at > the OECD. This has to be seen along with the fact that the US is not > pushing to 'take' these principles to other, non OECD, countries.... > > And if indeed US thinks that the OECD forum is multistakeholder, why > would a very similar forum - with exactly the same stkaeholder > participation model - and with all countries involved in an equal > measure (which is what the UN CIRP proposal essentially is) be > considered not multistakeholder - and thus presumable out of the list > of the forums implied by the below statement where different kinds of > global IG issues can/ should be taken... > > parminder > > > > > > On Saturday 01 December 2012 02:02 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Rather amazing statement. >> >> avri >> >> On 1 Dec 2012, at 00:23, Deborah Brown wrote: >> >>> FYI- Note the reference to Best Bits below. >>> >>> >>> The blog below is being posted on NTIA, State and FCC websites >>> >>> The Necessity of an Inclusive, Transparent and Participatory Internet >>> >>> On the eve of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), we believe that it is the right time to reaffirm the U.S. Government's commitment to the multistakeholder model as the appropriate process for addressing Internet policy and governance issues. The multistakeholder model has enabled the Internet to flourish. It has promoted freedom of expression, both online and off. It has ensured the Internet is a robust, open platform for innovation, investment, economic growth and the creation of wealth throughout the world, including in developing countries. >>> >>> There are those who may suggest next week in Dubai - and in future venues where Internet policy is discussed - that the United States controls the Internet. Alternatively, they may suggest that in the future governments alone should run the Internet. Our response is grounded in the reality that this is simply not the case. The Internet is a decentralized network of networks and there is no one party - government or industry - that controls the Internet today. And that's a good thing. >>> >>> The Internet's decentralized, multistakeholder processes enable us all to benefit from the engagement of all interested parties. By encouraging the participation of industry, civil society, technical and academic experts, and governments from around the globe, multistakeholder processes result in broader and more creative problem solving. This is essential when dealing with the Internet, which thrives through the cooperation of many different parties. >>> >>> The global community has many serious topics to discuss with respect to the Internet. Collectively, we need to ensure that these matters are taken up in suitable multistakeholder venues so that these discussions are well informed by the voices of all interested parties. >>> Our commitment to the multistakeholder model is based on the fact that transparency, inclusion and participation are the 21st century standards governing discussions related to modern communications. This is a view shared by many around the world and was most recently reiterated by a statement of civil society members and groups from around the world who participated in the "Best Bits" pre-Internet Governance Forum (IGF) meeting held earlier this month in Baku, Azerbaijan. The U.S. Government wishes to lend its support to the spirit of the recommendations contained in the statement. >>> >>> We have and will continue to advocate for an Internet that is not dominated by any one player or group of players, and one that is free from bureaucratic layers that cannot keep up with the pace of change. We will work with everyone to ensure that we have a global Internet that allows all voices to be heard. >>> >>> ---------------------- >>> Lawrence E. Strickling, Administrator, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) >>> >>> Julius Genachowski, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) >>> >>> Phillip L. Verveer, U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy, State Department >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Deborah Brown >>> Policy Analyst >>> Access | AccessNow.org >>> E.deborah at accessnow.org >>> S. deborah.l.brown >>> T. deblebrown >>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>> > -- *Farooq Ahmed Jam Intern Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 *Your rights, our mission -- download CI's Strategy 2015:* http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steve at openmedia.ca Sat Dec 8 19:28:46 2012 From: steve at openmedia.ca (Steve Anderson) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 13:28:46 +1300 Subject: [bestbits] ITU Packet Sniffing Proposals are Creating a Stink Message-ID: Here's our recent blog on deep packet inspection and the ITU etc... http://openmedianow.net/blog/itu-packet-sniffing-proposals-are-creating-stink -- *Steve Anderson* Executive Director, OpenMedia.ca 604-837-5730 http://openmedia.ca * *steve at openmedia.ca Follow me on Twitter Friend me on Facebook ****The TPP's Internet trap is secretive, extreme, and it could criminalize your daily use of the Internet. Take a stand: http://StopTheTrap.net * What will online spying cost you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dZILMivNgI&list=UUC-1UQ7bpqa_HpRCDfmCQUg&index=1&feature=plcp *Confidentiality Warning:** This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Thank you. Information confidentielle:** Le présent message, ainsi que tout fichier qui y est joint, est envoyé à l'intention exclusive de son ou de ses destinataires; il est de nature confidentielle et peut constituer une information privilégiée. Nous avertissons toute personne autre que le destinataire prévu que tout examen, réacheminement, impression, copie, distribution ou autre utilisation de ce message et de tout fichier qui y est joint est strictement interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, veuillez en aviser immédiatement l'expéditeur par retour de courriel et supprimer ce message et tout document joint de votre système. Merci.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farooq at ciroap.org Sun Dec 9 10:51:26 2012 From: farooq at ciroap.org (Farooq Ahmed Jam) Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2012 20:51:26 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [WCIT12] Access brief on proposed revisions ITR routing provisions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50C4B37E.4080203@ciroap.org> A nice technical commentary on ITRs impact :-) Thanks for sharing On 12/6/2012 8:58 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: > FYI > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Matt Friedman* > > Date: Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:08 AM > Subject: [WCIT12] Access brief on proposed revisions ITR routing > provisions > To: wcit12 at cdt.org > > > Hi all, > Word has it that discussion on Article 3.3 (on routing) began today at > the WCIT. > > Access has produced a policy brief directly on this issue, to which > we'd like to bring your attention. It first examines the problematic > effects on routing that would flow from expanding the scope of the > current ITRs to include internet policy-making. Second, it goes > through the substantive changes to Article 3.3 that member states have > proposed, such as the right to know the routes used, and analyzes > their effects on the day-to-day operation of the internet. We hope it > will give you all a stronger sense of the ramifications should these > provisions make their way into the ITRs, and we encourage you to > distribute more widely as you see fit. > > You can find the policy brief here: > https://www.accessnow.org/page/-/docs/IProutingbrief.pdf?redirected. I > have also attached a PDF. > > Thanks, > Matt > > -- > Matt Friedman > Policy Fellow | Access > www.accessnow.org > Ph: (425) 213-3431 > S: matthew.r.friedman > PGP: 86B88D5F > > > ############################################################# > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list >. > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > > To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to > > Send administrative queries to > > > > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > S. deborah.l.brown > T. deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > -- *Farooq Ahmed Jam Intern Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 *Your rights, our mission -- download CI's Strategy 2015:* http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbankston at cdt.org Sun Dec 9 14:06:41 2012 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 14:06:41 -0500 Subject: WSIS+10 workshop?, was Re: [bestbits] Next steps on principles (was Re: Coordination...) In-Reply-To: <50C0B28F.4020307@cis-india.org> References: <50B6DE1B.5010109@cdt.org> <50B6F1A8.5030008@itforchange.net> <50B6F360.6010804@itforchange.net> <50B715D9.6000204@apc.org> <20121203120128.0f018576@quill.bollow.ch> <18978622-60EC-4E9C-8173-47110B907D9F@ciroap.org> <50C0B28F.4020307@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <9A6935A9-E5B6-4812-AA2E-627A1013159E@cdt.org> Hello everyone: Watching this very interesting discussing, and looking at the impending deadline for workshop proposals for the WSIS+10 review meeting Feb 25-27 in Paris (www.unesco.org/wsis2013)--proposals are due tomorrow, Monday the 10th, form attached--we at CDT were wondering whether it might make sense for some of the Best Bits participants to collaborate on a workshop proposal on the positive agenda issue. Perhaps a "developing a positive civil society agenda on internet governance" type of workshop if the meeting format would tolerate a civil society-dominated workshop, or perhaps a more broadly constituted panel focusing on "If not the ITU, then what? Positive visions for the future of internet governance". (I suggest the former simply because it would be the easiest to put together on such short notice, since most if not all of the best potential panelists are already on this list, and indeed, are perhaps already on this thread). Matthew Shears will be attending the WSIS meeting for CDT; it's not clear yet whether I and/or Emma would join him, but either way, one of us would be happy to be on such a panel if folks think it's worthwhile. I'm also happy to work to get this proposal out the door tomorrow but would love to hear feedback on whether it is a good idea, and whether we need to make it a diverse panel or could focus on civil society's role. Also curious to hear what if anything others on the list are planning in terms of workshops for this meeting (speaking generally we're happy to participate and help out wherever we can). I suppose we also should start discussing whether we'd like to attempt to reconvene the Best Bits group in Paris prior to the WSIS+10 meeting and the MAG meeting. ____________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202.407.8834 direct 202.637.0968 fax kbankston at cdt.org Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech On Dec 6, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > Jeremy Malcolm [2012-12-06 15:15]: >> On 04/12/2012, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> >>>> This does bring us back to our 'Best Bits' goal about developing and >>>> proposing principles for internet governance. Should we not begin to >>>> plan our next steps? >>> >>> Absolutely. >>> >>> How can things realistically be moved forward in a positive, >>> constructive way? >> >> >> I worry that the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" meme with which most are approaching WCIT will solidify into a general opposition to any global norm-setting outside of the Internet technical community's institutions, and that Internet policy development will thereby be confined to the national level. This is not helped by the US government's predisposition to avoid taking on international obligations (the Disabilities Treaty being the latest example, besides the Law of the Sea, the International Criminal Court, the Cybercrime Convention, the Treaty for the Visually Impaired, etc) - except of course through multilateral trade agreements! I think we need to work on addressing that perception, and point out that: >> >> 1. Multi-stakeholder Internet governance will be soft law, guidance rather than compulsion. >> 2. Even the US is promulgating global Internet norms through fora that suit it (OECD, APEC, and the "free flow of information" provisions in the TPP). >> 3. So we need to move this into multi-stakeholder global fora, at a higher level that does not bind anyone, and need not restrict national policy space. >> 4. There are various non-technical Internet policy issues that have no appropriate global home (nor should the ITU become their home). >> 5. For example, a potential core competency is connecting Internet governance with human rights, as a framework to guide the development of national and multilateral norms for IP enforcement. >> 6. Let's propose an IGF-based multi-stakeholder enhanced cooperation mechanism that would be an acceptable way to deal with such issues. > > This is a most excellent summation and suggestions. > >> We all hate hierarchy, but sometimes a little bit of structure is necessary to provide firm enough guidance to policymakers (look at the failure of IPv6 adoption). The existing loose network of Internet governance institutions, even if their "cooperation" is "enhanced", isn't structured enough to provide such guidance in a way that will satisfy the stakeholders (governmental and non-governmental) who are seeking more from the enhanced cooperation process. >> >> At Best Bits a few options were described, though we ran out of time to debate them. As I see it, there is a UN-linked option (which in turn divides into an IGF-based option or an IGF-independent option), or there is a UN-independent option (the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force, ECTF). So far, almost none of us have been serious about pursuing any of these. But the status quo is not going to hold. One way or another, Internet governance is going to evolve, and it will do so with us or without us. We've spoken loudly enough about what we don't want - the ITU. So, what do we want? > > I think a stock-taking of where things have moved on the issues highlighted in the WGIG documents then would be helpful. > > I've some notes from conversations I was having with different people at Best Bits in terms of a 'positive agenda', that I hope to type up and elaborate on, and send to the list. > > > -- > Pranesh Prakash > Policy Director > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org > PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 WSIS plus 10 Event_Session_Proposal ver3.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 299178 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Sun Dec 9 15:36:42 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2012 22:36:42 +0200 Subject: WSIS+10 workshop?, was Re: [bestbits] Next steps on principles (was Re: Coordination...) In-Reply-To: <9A6935A9-E5B6-4812-AA2E-627A1013159E@cdt.org> References: <50B6DE1B.5010109@cdt.org> <50B6F1A8.5030008@itforchange.net> <50B6F360.6010804@itforchange.net> <50B715D9.6000204@apc.org> <20121203120128.0f018576@quill.bollow.ch> <18978622-60EC-4E9C-8173-47110B907D9F@ciroap.org> <50C0B28F.4020307@cis-india.org> <9A6935A9-E5B6-4812-AA2E-627A1013159E@cdt.org> Message-ID: <50C4F65A.4010805@apc.org> Good idea to do a workshop, and we should try to have a meeting beforehand. I like the idea of "developing a positive civil society agenda on internet governance" as a theme although making it concrete could be difficult. One way of doing this would be to do a 'stock-taking of where things have moved since they were highlighted in the WGIG documents, as Pranesh suggests. I suggest that someone from Best Bits writes to Unesco to say we need a bit more time. As long as we tell them tomorrow that we want a workshop they are likely to give us more time to finalise a proposal. For everyone's information, APC is planning to submit a few workshop proposals, including one that will look at the WSIS civil society declaration from 2003. We will present initial research outcome of a survey we have been doing to get a sense of civil society perceptions on progress/lack of progress in meeting these goals. Anriette On 09/12/2012 21:06, Kevin Bankston wrote: > Hello everyone: > > Watching this very interesting discussing, and looking at the impending deadline > for workshop proposals for the WSIS+10 review meeting Feb 25-27 in Paris > (www.unesco.org/wsis2013 )--proposals are due > tomorrow, Monday the 10th, form attached--we at CDT were wondering whether it > might make sense for some of the Best Bits participants to collaborate on a > workshop proposal on the positive agenda issue. Perhaps a "developing a > positive civil society agenda on internet governance" type of workshop if the > meeting format would tolerate a civil society-dominated workshop, or perhaps a > more broadly constituted panel focusing on "If not the ITU, then what? Positive > visions for the future of internet governance". (I suggest the former simply > because it would be the easiest to put together on such short notice, since most > if not all of the best potential panelists are already on this list, and indeed, > are perhaps already on this thread). > > Matthew Shears will be attending the WSIS meeting for CDT; it's not clear yet > whether I and/or Emma would join him, but either way, one of us would be happy > to be on such a panel if folks think it's worthwhile. I'm also happy to work to > get this proposal out the door tomorrow but would love to hear feedback on > whether it is a good idea, and whether we need to make it a diverse panel or > could focus on civil society's role. Also curious to hear what if anything > others on the list are planning in terms of workshops for this meeting (speaking > generally we're happy to participate and help out wherever we can). > > I suppose we also should start discussing whether we'd like to attempt to > reconvene the Best Bits group in Paris prior to the WSIS+10 meeting and the MAG > meeting. > ____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202.407.8834 direct > 202.637.0968 fax > kbankston at cdt.org > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > > On Dec 6, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > > > Jeremy Malcolm [2012-12-06 15:15]: > >> On 04/12/2012, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Bollow >> > wrote: > >> > >>> Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > >>> > >>>> This does bring us back to our 'Best Bits' goal about developing and > >>>> proposing principles for internet governance. Should we not begin to > >>>> plan our next steps? > >>> > >>> Absolutely. > >>> > >>> How can things realistically be moved forward in a positive, > >>> constructive way? > >> > >> > >> I worry that the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" meme with which most are > >> approaching WCIT will solidify into a general opposition to any global > >> norm-setting outside of the Internet technical community's institutions, and > >> that Internet policy development will thereby be confined to the national > >> level. This is not helped by the US government's predisposition to avoid > >> taking on international obligations (the Disabilities Treaty being the latest > >> example, besides the Law of the Sea, the International Criminal Court, the > >> Cybercrime Convention, the Treaty for the Visually Impaired, etc) - except of > >> course through multilateral trade agreements! I think we need to work on > >> addressing that perception, and point out that: > >> > >> 1. Multi-stakeholder Internet governance will be soft law, guidance rather > >> than compulsion. > >> 2. Even the US is promulgating global Internet norms through fora that suit > >> it (OECD, APEC, and the "free flow of information" provisions in the TPP). > >> 3. So we need to move this into multi-stakeholder global fora, at a higher > >> level that does not bind anyone, and need not restrict national policy space. > >> 4. There are various non-technical Internet policy issues that have no > >> appropriate global home (nor should the ITU become their home). > >> 5. For example, a potential core competency is connecting Internet governance > >> with human rights, as a framework to guide the development of national and > >> multilateral norms for IP enforcement. > >> 6. Let's propose an IGF-based multi-stakeholder enhanced cooperation > >> mechanism that would be an acceptable way to deal with such issues. > > > > This is a most excellent summation and suggestions. > > > >> We all hate hierarchy, but sometimes a little bit of structure is necessary > >> to provide firm enough guidance to policymakers (look at the failure of IPv6 > >> adoption). The existing loose network of Internet governance institutions, > >> even if their "cooperation" is "enhanced", isn't structured enough to provide > >> such guidance in a way that will satisfy the stakeholders (governmental and > >> non-governmental) who are seeking more from the enhanced cooperation process. > >> > >> At Best Bits a few options were described, though we ran out of time to > >> debate them. As I see it, there is a UN-linked option (which in turn divides > >> into an IGF-based option or an IGF-independent option), or there is a > >> UN-independent option (the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force, ECTF). So far, > >> almost none of us have been serious about pursuing any of these. But the > >> status quo is not going to hold. One way or another, Internet governance is > >> going to evolve, and it will do so with us or without us. We've spoken > >> loudly enough about what we don't want - the ITU. So, what do we want? > > > > I think a stock-taking of where things have moved on the issues highlighted in > > the WGIG documents then would be helpful. > > > > I've some notes from conversations I was having with different people at Best > > Bits in terms of a 'positive agenda', that I hope to type up and elaborate on, > > and send to the list. > > > > > > -- > > Pranesh Prakash > > Policy Director > > Centre for Internet and Society > > T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org > > PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 16:47:18 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 13:47:18 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] FW: Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 In-Reply-To: <01f901cdd654$757f8220$607e8660$@gmail.com> References: <01f901cdd654$757f8220$607e8660$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <020401cdd656$d893f880$89bbe980$@gmail.com> FWIW http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/whose-hand-off-what-internet-some-r eflections-on-wcit-2012/ Tiny URL http://tinyurl.com/cmwx2fa MG From kbankston at cdt.org Sun Dec 9 16:49:50 2012 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 16:49:50 -0500 Subject: WSIS+10 workshop?, was Re: [bestbits] Next steps on principles (was Re: Coordination...) In-Reply-To: <50C4F65A.4010805@apc.org> References: <50B6DE1B.5010109@cdt.org> <50B6F1A8.5030008@itforchange.net> <50B6F360.6010804@itforchange.net> <50B715D9.6000204@apc.org> <20121203120128.0f018576@quill.bollow.ch> <18978622-60EC-4E9C-8173-47110B907D9F@ciroap.org> <50C0B28F.4020307@cis-india.org> <9A6935A9-E5B6-4812-AA2E-627A1013159E@cdt.org> <50C4F65A.4010805@apc.org> Message-ID: <347DD38D-E9B0-4323-9B64-81B8AF5313BD@cdt.org> Who might be the best person to reach out to UNESCO for the group? My few relationships there are somewhat new and tenuous. Perhaps Jeremy? Sent via mobile On Dec 9, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Good idea to do a workshop, and we should try to have a meeting beforehand. I like the idea of "developing a positive civil society agenda on internet governance" as a theme although making it concrete could be difficult. One way of doing this would be to do a 'stock-taking of where things have moved since they were highlighted in the WGIG documents, as Pranesh suggests. > > I suggest that someone from Best Bits writes to Unesco to say we need a bit more time. As long as we tell them tomorrow that we want a workshop they are likely to give us more time to finalise a proposal. > > For everyone's information, APC is planning to submit a few workshop proposals, including one that will look at the WSIS civil society declaration from 2003. We will present initial research outcome of a survey we have been doing to get a sense of civil society perceptions on progress/lack of progress in meeting these goals. > > Anriette > > > On 09/12/2012 21:06, Kevin Bankston wrote: >> Hello everyone: >> >> Watching this very interesting discussing, and looking at the impending deadline >> for workshop proposals for the WSIS+10 review meeting Feb 25-27 in Paris >> (www.unesco.org/wsis2013 )--proposals are due >> tomorrow, Monday the 10th, form attached--we at CDT were wondering whether it >> might make sense for some of the Best Bits participants to collaborate on a >> workshop proposal on the positive agenda issue. Perhaps a "developing a >> positive civil society agenda on internet governance" type of workshop if the >> meeting format would tolerate a civil society-dominated workshop, or perhaps a >> more broadly constituted panel focusing on "If not the ITU, then what? Positive >> visions for the future of internet governance". (I suggest the former simply >> because it would be the easiest to put together on such short notice, since most >> if not all of the best potential panelists are already on this list, and indeed, >> are perhaps already on this thread). >> >> Matthew Shears will be attending the WSIS meeting for CDT; it's not clear yet >> whether I and/or Emma would join him, but either way, one of us would be happy >> to be on such a panel if folks think it's worthwhile. I'm also happy to work to >> get this proposal out the door tomorrow but would love to hear feedback on >> whether it is a good idea, and whether we need to make it a diverse panel or >> could focus on civil society's role. Also curious to hear what if anything >> others on the list are planning in terms of workshops for this meeting (speaking >> generally we're happy to participate and help out wherever we can). >> >> I suppose we also should start discussing whether we'd like to attempt to >> reconvene the Best Bits group in Paris prior to the WSIS+10 meeting and the MAG >> meeting. >> ____________________________________ >> Kevin S. Bankston >> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >> Center for Democracy & Technology >> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >> Washington, DC 20006 >> 202.407.8834 direct >> 202.637.0968 fax >> kbankston at cdt.org >> >> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >> >> >> On Dec 6, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: >> >> > Jeremy Malcolm [2012-12-06 15:15]: >> >> On 04/12/2012, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Bollow > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >>> Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> This does bring us back to our 'Best Bits' goal about developing and >> >>>> proposing principles for internet governance. Should we not begin to >> >>>> plan our next steps? >> >>> >> >>> Absolutely. >> >>> >> >>> How can things realistically be moved forward in a positive, >> >>> constructive way? >> >> >> >> >> >> I worry that the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" meme with which most are >> >> approaching WCIT will solidify into a general opposition to any global >> >> norm-setting outside of the Internet technical community's institutions, and >> >> that Internet policy development will thereby be confined to the national >> >> level. This is not helped by the US government's predisposition to avoid >> >> taking on international obligations (the Disabilities Treaty being the latest >> >> example, besides the Law of the Sea, the International Criminal Court, the >> >> Cybercrime Convention, the Treaty for the Visually Impaired, etc) - except of >> >> course through multilateral trade agreements! I think we need to work on >> >> addressing that perception, and point out that: >> >> >> >> 1. Multi-stakeholder Internet governance will be soft law, guidance rather >> >> than compulsion. >> >> 2. Even the US is promulgating global Internet norms through fora that suit >> >> it (OECD, APEC, and the "free flow of information" provisions in the TPP). >> >> 3. So we need to move this into multi-stakeholder global fora, at a higher >> >> level that does not bind anyone, and need not restrict national policy space. >> >> 4. There are various non-technical Internet policy issues that have no >> >> appropriate global home (nor should the ITU become their home). >> >> 5. For example, a potential core competency is connecting Internet governance >> >> with human rights, as a framework to guide the development of national and >> >> multilateral norms for IP enforcement. >> >> 6. Let's propose an IGF-based multi-stakeholder enhanced cooperation >> >> mechanism that would be an acceptable way to deal with such issues. >> > >> > This is a most excellent summation and suggestions. >> > >> >> We all hate hierarchy, but sometimes a little bit of structure is necessary >> >> to provide firm enough guidance to policymakers (look at the failure of IPv6 >> >> adoption). The existing loose network of Internet governance institutions, >> >> even if their "cooperation" is "enhanced", isn't structured enough to provide >> >> such guidance in a way that will satisfy the stakeholders (governmental and >> >> non-governmental) who are seeking more from the enhanced cooperation process. >> >> >> >> At Best Bits a few options were described, though we ran out of time to >> >> debate them. As I see it, there is a UN-linked option (which in turn divides >> >> into an IGF-based option or an IGF-independent option), or there is a >> >> UN-independent option (the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force, ECTF). So far, >> >> almost none of us have been serious about pursuing any of these. But the >> >> status quo is not going to hold. One way or another, Internet governance is >> >> going to evolve, and it will do so with us or without us. We've spoken >> >> loudly enough about what we don't want - the ITU. So, what do we want? >> > >> > I think a stock-taking of where things have moved on the issues highlighted in >> > the WGIG documents then would be helpful. >> > >> > I've some notes from conversations I was having with different people at Best >> > Bits in terms of a 'positive agenda', that I hope to type up and elaborate on, >> > and send to the list. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Pranesh Prakash >> > Policy Director >> > Centre for Internet and Society >> > T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org >> > PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash >> > >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at global-partners.co.uk Sun Dec 9 16:53:13 2012 From: Andrew at global-partners.co.uk (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 21:53:13 +0000 Subject: WSIS+10 workshop?, was Re: [bestbits] Next steps on principles (was Re: Coordination...) In-Reply-To: <347DD38D-E9B0-4323-9B64-81B8AF5313BD@cdt.org> References: <50B6DE1B.5010109@cdt.org> <50B6F1A8.5030008@itforchange.net> <50B6F360.6010804@itforchange.net> <50B715D9.6000204@apc.org> <20121203120128.0f018576@quill.bollow.ch> <18978622-60EC-4E9C-8173-47110B907D9F@ciroap.org> <50C0B28F.4020307@cis-india.org> <9A6935A9-E5B6-4812-AA2E-627A1013159E@cdt.org> <50C4F65A.4010805@apc.org> <347DD38D-E9B0-4323-9B64-81B8AF5313BD@cdt.org> Message-ID: <53CA829E-9750-4402-9EB5-11E6C1DDB6CB@global-partners.co.uk> We know them well at GP - we'll contact them Sent from my iPhone On 9 Dec 2012, at 21:54, "Kevin Bankston" > wrote: Who might be the best person to reach out to UNESCO for the group? My few relationships there are somewhat new and tenuous. Perhaps Jeremy? Sent via mobile On Dec 9, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: Good idea to do a workshop, and we should try to have a meeting beforehand. I like the idea of "developing a positive civil society agenda on internet governance" as a theme although making it concrete could be difficult. One way of doing this would be to do a 'stock-taking of where things have moved since they were highlighted in the WGIG documents, as Pranesh suggests. I suggest that someone from Best Bits writes to Unesco to say we need a bit more time. As long as we tell them tomorrow that we want a workshop they are likely to give us more time to finalise a proposal. For everyone's information, APC is planning to submit a few workshop proposals, including one that will look at the WSIS civil society declaration from 2003. We will present initial research outcome of a survey we have been doing to get a sense of civil society perceptions on progress/lack of progress in meeting these goals. Anriette On 09/12/2012 21:06, Kevin Bankston wrote: Hello everyone: Watching this very interesting discussing, and looking at the impending deadline for workshop proposals for the WSIS+10 review meeting Feb 25-27 in Paris (www.unesco.org/wsis2013 )--proposals are due tomorrow, Monday the 10th, form attached--we at CDT were wondering whether it might make sense for some of the Best Bits participants to collaborate on a workshop proposal on the positive agenda issue. Perhaps a "developing a positive civil society agenda on internet governance" type of workshop if the meeting format would tolerate a civil society-dominated workshop, or perhaps a more broadly constituted panel focusing on "If not the ITU, then what? Positive visions for the future of internet governance". (I suggest the former simply because it would be the easiest to put together on such short notice, since most if not all of the best potential panelists are already on this list, and indeed, are perhaps already on this thread). Matthew Shears will be attending the WSIS meeting for CDT; it's not clear yet whether I and/or Emma would join him, but either way, one of us would be happy to be on such a panel if folks think it's worthwhile. I'm also happy to work to get this proposal out the door tomorrow but would love to hear feedback on whether it is a good idea, and whether we need to make it a diverse panel or could focus on civil society's role. Also curious to hear what if anything others on the list are planning in terms of workshops for this meeting (speaking generally we're happy to participate and help out wherever we can). I suppose we also should start discussing whether we'd like to attempt to reconvene the Best Bits group in Paris prior to the WSIS+10 meeting and the MAG meeting. ____________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202.407.8834 direct 202.637.0968 fax kbankston at cdt.org Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech On Dec 6, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > Jeremy Malcolm [2012-12-06 15:15]: >> On 04/12/2012, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Bollow > > wrote: >> >>> Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: >>> >>>> This does bring us back to our 'Best Bits' goal about developing and >>>> proposing principles for internet governance. Should we not begin to >>>> plan our next steps? >>> >>> Absolutely. >>> >>> How can things realistically be moved forward in a positive, >>> constructive way? >> >> >> I worry that the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" meme with which most are >> approaching WCIT will solidify into a general opposition to any global >> norm-setting outside of the Internet technical community's institutions, and >> that Internet policy development will thereby be confined to the national >> level. This is not helped by the US government's predisposition to avoid >> taking on international obligations (the Disabilities Treaty being the latest >> example, besides the Law of the Sea, the International Criminal Court, the >> Cybercrime Convention, the Treaty for the Visually Impaired, etc) - except of >> course through multilateral trade agreements! I think we need to work on >> addressing that perception, and point out that: >> >> 1. Multi-stakeholder Internet governance will be soft law, guidance rather >> than compulsion. >> 2. Even the US is promulgating global Internet norms through fora that suit >> it (OECD, APEC, and the "free flow of information" provisions in the TPP). >> 3. So we need to move this into multi-stakeholder global fora, at a higher >> level that does not bind anyone, and need not restrict national policy space. >> 4. There are various non-technical Internet policy issues that have no >> appropriate global home (nor should the ITU become their home). >> 5. For example, a potential core competency is connecting Internet governance >> with human rights, as a framework to guide the development of national and >> multilateral norms for IP enforcement. >> 6. Let's propose an IGF-based multi-stakeholder enhanced cooperation >> mechanism that would be an acceptable way to deal with such issues. > > This is a most excellent summation and suggestions. > >> We all hate hierarchy, but sometimes a little bit of structure is necessary >> to provide firm enough guidance to policymakers (look at the failure of IPv6 >> adoption). The existing loose network of Internet governance institutions, >> even if their "cooperation" is "enhanced", isn't structured enough to provide >> such guidance in a way that will satisfy the stakeholders (governmental and >> non-governmental) who are seeking more from the enhanced cooperation process. >> >> At Best Bits a few options were described, though we ran out of time to >> debate them. As I see it, there is a UN-linked option (which in turn divides >> into an IGF-based option or an IGF-independent option), or there is a >> UN-independent option (the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force, ECTF). So far, >> almost none of us have been serious about pursuing any of these. But the >> status quo is not going to hold. One way or another, Internet governance is >> going to evolve, and it will do so with us or without us. We've spoken >> loudly enough about what we don't want - the ITU. So, what do we want? > > I think a stock-taking of where things have moved on the issues highlighted in > the WGIG documents then would be helpful. > > I've some notes from conversations I was having with different people at Best > Bits in terms of a 'positive agenda', that I hope to type up and elaborate on, > and send to the list. > > > -- > Pranesh Prakash > Policy Director > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org > PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Dec 9 20:29:55 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:29:55 +0800 Subject: WSIS+10 workshop?, was Re: [bestbits] Next steps on principles (was Re: Coordination...) In-Reply-To: <9A6935A9-E5B6-4812-AA2E-627A1013159E@cdt.org> References: <50B6DE1B.5010109@cdt.org> <50B6F1A8.5030008@itforchange.net> <50B6F360.6010804@itforchange.net> <50B715D9.6000204@apc.org> <20121203120128.0f018576@quill.bollow.ch> <18978622-60EC-4E9C-8173-47110B907D9F@ciroap.org> <50C0B28F.4020307@cis-india.org> <9A6935A9-E5B6-4812-AA2E-627A1013159E@cdt.org> Message-ID: On 10/12/2012, at 3:06 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > Watching this very interesting discussing, and looking at the impending deadline for workshop proposals for the WSIS+10 review meeting Feb 25-27 in Paris (www.unesco.org/wsis2013)--proposals are due tomorrow, Monday the 10th, form attached--we at CDT were wondering whether it might make sense for some of the Best Bits participants to collaborate on a workshop proposal on the positive agenda issue. Perhaps a "developing a positive civil society agenda on internet governance" type of workshop if the meeting format would tolerate a civil society-dominated workshop, or perhaps a more broadly constituted panel focusing on "If not the ITU, then what? Positive visions for the future of internet governance". (I suggest the former simply because it would be the easiest to put together on such short notice, since most if not all of the best potential panelists are already on this list, and indeed, are perhaps already on this thread). I would strongly support this, it is a good way of picking up where we left off last time, and after WCIT the time is ripe. The only problem is that it clashes with a Consumers International meeting that is in New Delhi at the same time, so I wouldn't be able to be there in person. But I would like to be involved in the preparation and in framing the discussion. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ellery at cdt.org Sun Dec 9 20:34:04 2012 From: ellery at cdt.org (Ellery Biddle) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 17:34:04 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] WCIT check-in call Monday 12/10 Message-ID: Hi everyone, We're going to hold another WCIT check-in call tomorrow, 12/10 at 19:00 UTC / 2PM EST / 11PM Dubai time. Hope this works for those at WCIT, time-wise. If we need to move the time back a bit, we can -- I'll email the lists again if anything changes. Call-in info is attached. Talk to you all tomorrow! e Ellery Roberts Biddle Center for Democracy and Technology (415) 814-1711 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: int'l call-in numbers071812.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 80971 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at uzh.ch Sun Dec 9 22:00:52 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:00:52 +0400 Subject: WSIS+10 workshop?, was Re: [bestbits] Next steps on principles (was Re: Coordination...) In-Reply-To: <50C4F65A.4010805@apc.org> References: <50B6DE1B.5010109@cdt.org> <50B6F1A8.5030008@itforchange.net> <50B6F360.6010804@itforchange.net> <50B715D9.6000204@apc.org> <20121203120128.0f018576@quill.bollow.ch> <18978622-60EC-4E9C-8173-47110B907D9F@ciroap.org> <50C0B28F.4020307@cis-india.org> <9A6935A9-E5B6-4812-AA2E-627A1013159E@cdt.org> <50C4F65A.4010805@apc.org> Message-ID: <8ED3286F-8AEF-4CD5-AFF1-E614092D10AB@uzh.ch> Hi On Dec 10, 2012, at 12:36 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Good idea to do a workshop, and we should try to have a meeting beforehand. I like the idea of "developing a positive civil society agenda on internet governance" as a theme although making it concrete could be difficult. One way of doing this would be to do a 'stock-taking of where things have moved since they were highlighted in the WGIG documents, as Pranesh suggests. I too like the idea. But I'm unclear over morning coffee how to frame it. General stock taking is one approach. A second option would be to address the factors that drove WCIT. But many of the developing country concerns that have generated support for bad proposals concern domestic telecom revenues and operational matters for incumbent telcos rather than global Internet governance. That they seek tools through an international instrument doesn't necessarily make the issues inherently global and requiring global frameworks. And emphasizing other matters instead where such framework are really needed might look non-responsive and like an effort to redirect. I guess one could frame it broadly enough that it can be interpreted as on point and fill in later etc… Another option still would be to look forward to the WTPF and offer a CS take on what'll happen there. There's been no civil society per se representation in the planning process; ISOC's been the only sort of MS voice. In fact, it might be conceivable to do more than one workshop proposal…I tend to think saying nothing about WTPF, which explicitly covers much more global IG than does WCIT, would be a mistake. There should be an alternative vision on the table for that meeting, even if we don't have standing to formally present it. It could serve as a short of shadow agenda, one that friendly governments might well make reference to. Could do press and campaign around it... FYI below for reference are a couple efforts in this space at past WSIS forums—both of which I'd call positive agenda mapping... Best Bill ——————— WSIS Forum 2012 Workshop 9:00-10:45, Thursday 17 May 2012 Room XI, the International Labor Organization Global Internet Governance for Development Does global Internet governance promote the effective participation of developing country stakeholders in the information society? What are its implication for national development trajectories? To fully address these and related questions, it would be useful to establish an Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) agenda. Such an agenda could comprise a holistic program that mainstreams development considerations into the procedures and policy outputs of global Internet governance mechanisms. While development agendas are being pursued in the multilateral organizations dealing with issues like international trade and intellectual property, there has been no corresponding effort with respect to global Internet governance. Accordingly, since 2007 a series of workshops and main sessions exploring the idea have been held at the annual Internet Governance Forum meetings. This workshop seeks to broaden the dialogue by engaging interested attendees at the WSIS Forum. A development agenda could involve organizing and improving access to knowledge about global Internet governance issues and institutions, including best practices and lessons learned such institutions could consider within their respective work programs. In addition, it could encourage concrete actions that strengthen the fit between governance and development, such as: a) facilitating access to capacity building programs that help enable the effective participation of governmental and nongovernmental actors from developing countries in global technical and policy processes; b) enhancing institutional procedures and practices in order to promote such participation; and c) identifying issues that raise distinctive developmental considerations and possible options for improvements in related policy frameworks. Given the highly distributed institutional ecosystem of global Internet governance, a development agenda would need to be flexible enough to facilitate varying responses that are appropriate to the issues and actors involved in each case. The workshop will consider these matters in relation to relevant multistakeholder, industry self-governance, and intergovernmental institutions. Of particular interest in this regard is the governance of critical Internet resources, e.g. names, numbers, and standards; and current proposals for new Enhanced Cooperation initiatives within the United Nations, and for international treaty regulations that could be applicable to the Internet. Organizer William J. Drake International Fellow, Media Change & Innovation Division Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research University of Zurich, Switzerland Co-Sponsoring Organizations Association for Progressive Communications Ministry of Communications and Information Technology Government of Egypt Kenya Internet Governance Steering Committee, Ministry of Information and Communications Government of Kenya Federal Office of Communications Government of Switzerland Speakers Olga Cavalli Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Government of Argentina Avri Doria Researcher & former Chair of the ICANN GNSO Council United States of America William J. Drake [moderator] International Fellow, Media Change & Innovation Division Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research University of Zurich, Switzerland Anriette Esterhuysen Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications South Africa Wolfgang Kleinwächter Professor of Internet Policy and Regulation, Department for Media and Information Sciences, University of Aarhus, Denmark Germany Markus Kummer Vice President of Public Policy, The Internet Society Switzerland Alice Munyua Convener, East Africa IGF, Kenya ICT Action Network; and Chair, Kenya Internet Governance Steering Committee, and Kenya Network Information Center Government of Kenya Nermine El Saadany Director of International Relations Division, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology Government of Egypt Thomas Schneider Deputy Head of International Relations Service, Federal Office of Communications Government of Switzerland ——————— WSIS Forum 2011 Workshop The International Labor Organization, Governing Body Room 9:00-10:30 Tuesday 17 May 2011 Institutional Choice in Global Communications Governance The contemporary global communications order is characterized by a significant increase in the number and variety of governance arrangements. Traditional multilateralism has been supplemented by plurilateral, regional, and bilateral intergovernmentalism; and by unilateralism, co-regulation, industry self-governance, multistakeholder governance, and the coordinated convergence of independent practices. These ordering mechanisms vary greatly in terms of the collective action problems they address and the institutional attributes they possess. How do we conduct a principled evaluation of alternative models’ relative merits and potential “fit” with current and emerging governance challenges? What are their respective strengths and weaknesses in terms of cross-cutting objectives like equity, efficiency, transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, development-friendliness, and public interest orientation? Are there any generalizable lessons that they could learn from one another? How well do today’s mechanisms cohere into an strong and effective global governance architecture? This workshop will seek to advance the holistic assessment of these and related questions and to assess them in relation to key cases of contemporary ICT global governance. Speakers Dr. William J. Drake [organizer & moderator] International Fellow, Media Change & Innovation Division Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research University of Zurich, Switzerland Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications South Africa Mr. Alvaro Galvani Head, Division of Information Society, Ministry of External Relations Government of Brazil Mr. Markus Kummer Vice President of Public Policy, The Internet Society Switzerland Prof. Michael Latzer Chair, Media Change & Innovation Division Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research University of Zurich, Switzerland Ms. Nermine El Saadany Director of International Relations Division, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology Government of Egypt Mr. Thomas Schneider Deputy Head of International Relations Service, Federal Office of Communications Government of Switzerland > From nb at bollow.ch Mon Dec 3 05:13:24 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:13:24 +0100 Subject: Seth Johnson article (was Re: [bestbits] Coordination during WCIT...) In-Reply-To: <50B6F360.6010804@itforchange.net> References: <50B6DE1B.5010109@cdt.org> <50B6F1A8.5030008@itforchange.net> <50B6F360.6010804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20121203111324.3793a8da@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/hyping-one-threat-to-hide-another/article4140922.ece Here's a perspective from an activist in the US who highlights similar concerns on the basis of the text of the WCIT contributions from the US delegation: Seth Johnson: Assessing the Prospects the WCIT Holds for the Open Internet: What the US Delegation's Contributions Reveal http://telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49699&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 Greetings, Norbert From genekimmelman at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 22:24:09 2012 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2012 22:24:09 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] WCIT check-in call Monday 12/10 Message-ID: Good timing!Ellery Biddle wrote:Hi everyone, We're going to hold another WCIT check-in call tomorrow, 12/10 at 19:00 UTC / 2PM EST / 11PM Dubai time. Hope this works for those at WCIT, time-wise. If we need to move the time back a bit, we can -- I'll email the lists again if anything changes. Call-in info is attached. Talk to you all tomorrow! e Ellery Roberts Biddle Center for Democracy and Technology (415) 814-1711 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Mon Dec 10 03:39:01 2012 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 03:39:01 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Your sign on requested- CS letter to the WCIT Message-ID: Hi everyone, As you might know, civil society representatives in Dubai for the WCIT have a meeting with ITU Secretary General Touré at 1500 local time/1100 UTC today, Monday, 10 December. In preparation for the meeting, civil society reps here have drafted an open letter (text below) to WCIT and are welcoming further sign on. The letter is posted online at https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM If your organization would like to sign on, please email WCIT12civilsociety at gmail.com and your signature will be added. The letter as linked above will be updated as signatures are received. We encourage you to post the letter on your organization's website and include this link with the most updated list of signatures. Please feel free to circulate this to your networks. Apologies for cross posting and thanks to those who have already expressed their support. Best regards, Deborah 9 December 2012 Open letter to the WCIT Dear Secretary General Touré and WCIT-12 Chairman Al-Ghanim: We, the undersigned members of civil society, are attending the ongoing World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12), both physically and remotely. We appreciate your efforts to engage with global civil society and trust that you will take this letter in the same spirit of constructive engagement. We believe that openness and transparency should be the hallmark of any effort to formulate public policy. In the months approaching the conference, and in our experience at the WCIT so far, we have discovered that certain institutional structures continue to hamper our ability to contribute to the WCIT process in a meaningful and constructive manner. Now that the conference is in session, we wish to call your attention to three immediate and pressing matters: the lack of any official standing to the public comments solicited prior to WCIT at the ITU’s invitation; the lack of access to and transparency of working groups, particularly the working groups of Committee 5; and the absence of mechanisms to encourage independent civil society participation. We address these in detail below. *Public Comment Solicited By ITU Effectively Excluded. *Prior to the WCIT, the ITU assured civil society that it would provide an opportunity for meaningful input through public comment. As many organizations explained at the time, the inability to see specific country proposals compromised the ability to offer a detailed response. Nevertheless, primarily based on documents leaked to the public, 22 organizations from four regions expended considerable resources and effort to make the most of this single, albeit highly limited, opportunity to engage on the substance of the proposals as they existed at that time. Unfortunately, the ITU has provided no mechanism for inclusion of the public comments in the WCIT working papers. They are not made accessible through the document management system (TIES) in the same manner as proposals submitted by members, nor are any of the comments reflected in the numerous working drafts reviewed by WCIT delegates. As a consequence, delegates appear entirely unaware of these comments, and the diligent work of civil society organizations that accepted the ITU’s invitation to participate through the public comment process is in danger of being lost. From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Mon Dec 10 05:41:12 2012 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:41:12 +0100 Subject: WSIS+10 workshop?, was Re: [bestbits] Next steps on principles (was Re: Coordination...) In-Reply-To: <50C4F65A.4010805@apc.org> References: <50B6DE1B.5010109@cdt.org> <50B6F1A8.5030008@itforchange.net> <50B6F360.6010804@itforchange.net> <50B715D9.6000204@apc.org> <20121203120128.0f018576@quill.bollow.ch> <18978622-60EC-4E9C-8173-47110B907D9F@ciroap.org> <50C0B28F.4020307@cis-india.org> <9A6935A9-E5B6-4812-AA2E-627A1013159E@cdt.org> <50C4F65A.4010805@apc.org> Message-ID: <50C5BC48.6080905@gold.ac.uk> Dear all This is a great idea, particularly the positive angle. Speaking for myself, and for a number of IRP Coalition members, this upcoming event is definitely one where we would like to offer input and support. Let's hope the deadline can be extended a bit. I'll see what we can do in more concrete terms and coordination strikes me as key to create positive synergies (versus negative overlaps!) :-) best Marianne F On 09/12/2012 21:36, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Good idea to do a workshop, and we should try to have a meeting > beforehand. I like the idea of "developing a positive civil society > agenda on internet governance" as a theme although making it concrete > could be difficult. One way of doing this would be to do a > 'stock-taking of where things have moved since they were highlighted > in the WGIG documents, as Pranesh suggests. > > I suggest that someone from Best Bits writes to Unesco to say we need > a bit more time. As long as we tell them tomorrow that we want a > workshop they are likely to give us more time to finalise a proposal. > > For everyone's information, APC is planning to submit a few workshop > proposals, including one that will look at the WSIS civil society > declaration from 2003. We will present initial research outcome of a > survey we have been doing to get a sense of civil society perceptions > on progress/lack of progress in meeting these goals. > > Anriette > > > On 09/12/2012 21:06, Kevin Bankston wrote: >> Hello everyone: >> >> Watching this very interesting discussing, and looking at the impending deadline >> for workshop proposals for the WSIS+10 review meeting Feb 25-27 in Paris >> (www.unesco.org/wsis2013 )--proposals are due >> tomorrow, Monday the 10th, form attached--we at CDT were wondering whether it >> might make sense for some of the Best Bits participants to collaborate on a >> workshop proposal on the positive agenda issue. Perhaps a "developing a >> positive civil society agenda on internet governance" type of workshop if the >> meeting format would tolerate a civil society-dominated workshop, or perhaps a >> more broadly constituted panel focusing on "If not the ITU, then what? Positive >> visions for the future of internet governance". (I suggest the former simply >> because it would be the easiest to put together on such short notice, since most >> if not all of the best potential panelists are already on this list, and indeed, >> are perhaps already on this thread). >> >> Matthew Shears will be attending the WSIS meeting for CDT; it's not clear yet >> whether I and/or Emma would join him, but either way, one of us would be happy >> to be on such a panel if folks think it's worthwhile. I'm also happy to work to >> get this proposal out the door tomorrow but would love to hear feedback on >> whether it is a good idea, and whether we need to make it a diverse panel or >> could focus on civil society's role. Also curious to hear what if anything >> others on the list are planning in terms of workshops for this meeting (speaking >> generally we're happy to participate and help out wherever we can). >> >> I suppose we also should start discussing whether we'd like to attempt to >> reconvene the Best Bits group in Paris prior to the WSIS+10 meeting and the MAG >> meeting. >> ____________________________________ >> Kevin S. Bankston >> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >> Center for Democracy & Technology >> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >> Washington, DC 20006 >> 202.407.8834 direct >> 202.637.0968 fax >> kbankston at cdt.org >> >> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >> >> >> On Dec 6, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: >> >> > Jeremy Malcolm [2012-12-06 15:15]: >> >> On 04/12/2012, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Bollow> >>> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> This does bring us back to our 'Best Bits' goal about developing and >> >>>> proposing principles for internet governance. Should we not begin to >> >>>> plan our next steps? >> >>> >> >>> Absolutely. >> >>> >> >>> How can things realistically be moved forward in a positive, >> >>> constructive way? >> >> >> >> >> >> I worry that the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" meme with which most are >> >> approaching WCIT will solidify into a general opposition to any global >> >> norm-setting outside of the Internet technical community's institutions, and >> >> that Internet policy development will thereby be confined to the national >> >> level. This is not helped by the US government's predisposition to avoid >> >> taking on international obligations (the Disabilities Treaty being the latest >> >> example, besides the Law of the Sea, the International Criminal Court, the >> >> Cybercrime Convention, the Treaty for the Visually Impaired, etc) - except of >> >> course through multilateral trade agreements! I think we need to work on >> >> addressing that perception, and point out that: >> >> >> >> 1. Multi-stakeholder Internet governance will be soft law, guidance rather >> >> than compulsion. >> >> 2. Even the US is promulgating global Internet norms through fora that suit >> >> it (OECD, APEC, and the "free flow of information" provisions in the TPP). >> >> 3. So we need to move this into multi-stakeholder global fora, at a higher >> >> level that does not bind anyone, and need not restrict national policy space. >> >> 4. There are various non-technical Internet policy issues that have no >> >> appropriate global home (nor should the ITU become their home). >> >> 5. For example, a potential core competency is connecting Internet governance >> >> with human rights, as a framework to guide the development of national and >> >> multilateral norms for IP enforcement. >> >> 6. Let's propose an IGF-based multi-stakeholder enhanced cooperation >> >> mechanism that would be an acceptable way to deal with such issues. >> > >> > This is a most excellent summation and suggestions. >> > >> >> We all hate hierarchy, but sometimes a little bit of structure is necessary >> >> to provide firm enough guidance to policymakers (look at the failure of IPv6 >> >> adoption). The existing loose network of Internet governance institutions, >> >> even if their "cooperation" is "enhanced", isn't structured enough to provide >> >> such guidance in a way that will satisfy the stakeholders (governmental and >> >> non-governmental) who are seeking more from the enhanced cooperation process. >> >> >> >> At Best Bits a few options were described, though we ran out of time to >> >> debate them. As I see it, there is a UN-linked option (which in turn divides >> >> into an IGF-based option or an IGF-independent option), or there is a >> >> UN-independent option (the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force, ECTF). So far, >> >> almost none of us have been serious about pursuing any of these. But the >> >> status quo is not going to hold. One way or another, Internet governance is >> >> going to evolve, and it will do so with us or without us. We've spoken >> >> loudly enough about what we don't want - the ITU. So, what do we want? >> > >> > I think a stock-taking of where things have moved on the issues highlighted in >> > the WGIG documents then would be helpful. >> > >> > I've some notes from conversations I was having with different people at Best >> > Bits in terms of a 'positive agenda', that I hope to type up and elaborate on, >> > and send to the list. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Pranesh Prakash >> > Policy Director >> > Centre for Internet and Society >> > T: +91 80 40926283 | W:http://cis-india.org >> > PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash >> > >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -- Dr Marianne Franklin Reader Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Goldsmiths, University of London Dept. of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14 6NW Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 @GloComm https://twitter.com/GloComm http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbankston at cdt.org Mon Dec 10 08:13:34 2012 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 08:13:34 -0500 Subject: WSIS+10 workshop?, was Re: [bestbits] Next steps on principles (was Re: Coordination...) In-Reply-To: References: <50B6DE1B.5010109@cdt.org> <50B6F1A8.5030008@itforchange.net> <50B6F360.6010804@itforchange.net> <50B715D9.6000204@apc.org> <20121203120128.0f018576@quill.bollow.ch> <18978622-60EC-4E9C-8173-47110B907D9F@ciroap.org> <50C0B28F.4020307@cis-india.org> <9A6935A9-E5B6-4812-AA2E-627A1013159E@cdt.org> Message-ID: <3AB7A275-DB2E-4C3E-9EE3-D10935BDF9CF@cdt.org> Jeremy--thanks so much for the offer of help--would you perhaps be up for trying to draft a first cut at a submission based on the dialogue on the list thus far? --Sent via mobile, apologies for typos or abruptness-- On Dec 9, 2012, at 8:29 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 10/12/2012, at 3:06 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > >> Watching this very interesting discussing, and looking at the impending deadline for workshop proposals for the WSIS+10 review meeting Feb 25-27 in Paris (www.unesco.org/wsis2013)--proposals are due tomorrow, Monday the 10th, form attached--we at CDT were wondering whether it might make sense for some of the Best Bits participants to collaborate on a workshop proposal on the positive agenda issue. Perhaps a "developing a positive civil society agenda on internet governance" type of workshop if the meeting format would tolerate a civil society-dominated workshop, or perhaps a more broadly constituted panel focusing on "If not the ITU, then what? Positive visions for the future of internet governance". (I suggest the former simply because it would be the easiest to put together on such short notice, since most if not all of the best potential panelists are already on this list, and indeed, are perhaps already on this thread). > > > I would strongly support this, it is a good way of picking up where we left off last time, and after WCIT the time is ripe. The only problem is that it clashes with a Consumers International meeting that is in New Delhi at the same time, so I wouldn't be able to be there in person. But I would like to be involved in the preparation and in framing the discussion. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbankston at cdt.org Mon Dec 10 08:18:32 2012 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 08:18:32 -0500 Subject: WSIS+10 workshop?, was Re: [bestbits] Next steps on principles (was Re: Coordination...) In-Reply-To: <50C5BC48.6080905@gold.ac.uk> References: <50B6DE1B.5010109@cdt.org> <50B6F1A8.5030008@itforchange.net> <50B6F360.6010804@itforchange.net> <50B715D9.6000204@apc.org> <20121203120128.0f018576@quill.bollow.ch> <18978622-60EC-4E9C-8173-47110B907D9F@ciroap.org> <50C0B28F.4020307@cis-india.org> <9A6935A9-E5B6-4812-AA2E-627A1013159E@cdt.org> <50C4F65A.4010805@apc.org> <50C5BC48.6080905@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: <3BFA6CDB-45F9-4398-B68F-06919E2BC46E@cdt.org> Thanks Marianne! A word on opportunity and also of caution--the organizers have made clear they're interested in a workshop discussing how to arrive at or combine existing statements of principles, and although I'd hate for that discussion to overshadow the broader positive agenda discussion (not least because we already have a great set of principles from the IRP), it might help us get selected if we have a bullet point about principles in the workshop proposal. --Sent via mobile, apologies for typos or abruptness-- On Dec 10, 2012, at 5:41 AM, Marianne Franklin wrote: > Dear all > > This is a great idea, particularly the positive angle. Speaking for myself, and for a number of IRP Coalition members, this upcoming event is definitely one where we would like to offer input and support. > > Let's hope the deadline can be extended a bit. I'll see what we can do in more concrete terms and coordination strikes me as key to create positive synergies (versus negative overlaps!) :-) > > best > Marianne F > > On 09/12/2012 21:36, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Good idea to do a workshop, and we should try to have a meeting beforehand. I like the idea of "developing a positive civil society agenda on internet governance" as a theme although making it concrete could be difficult. One way of doing this would be to do a 'stock-taking of where things have moved since they were highlighted in the WGIG documents, as Pranesh suggests. >> >> I suggest that someone from Best Bits writes to Unesco to say we need a bit more time. As long as we tell them tomorrow that we want a workshop they are likely to give us more time to finalise a proposal. >> >> For everyone's information, APC is planning to submit a few workshop proposals, including one that will look at the WSIS civil society declaration from 2003. We will present initial research outcome of a survey we have been doing to get a sense of civil society perceptions on progress/lack of progress in meeting these goals. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 09/12/2012 21:06, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>> Hello everyone: >>> >>> Watching this very interesting discussing, and looking at the impending deadline >>> for workshop proposals for the WSIS+10 review meeting Feb 25-27 in Paris >>> (www.unesco.org/wsis2013 )--proposals are due >>> tomorrow, Monday the 10th, form attached--we at CDT were wondering whether it >>> might make sense for some of the Best Bits participants to collaborate on a >>> workshop proposal on the positive agenda issue. Perhaps a "developing a >>> positive civil society agenda on internet governance" type of workshop if the >>> meeting format would tolerate a civil society-dominated workshop, or perhaps a >>> more broadly constituted panel focusing on "If not the ITU, then what? Positive >>> visions for the future of internet governance". (I suggest the former simply >>> because it would be the easiest to put together on such short notice, since most >>> if not all of the best potential panelists are already on this list, and indeed, >>> are perhaps already on this thread). >>> >>> Matthew Shears will be attending the WSIS meeting for CDT; it's not clear yet >>> whether I and/or Emma would join him, but either way, one of us would be happy >>> to be on such a panel if folks think it's worthwhile. I'm also happy to work to >>> get this proposal out the door tomorrow but would love to hear feedback on >>> whether it is a good idea, and whether we need to make it a diverse panel or >>> could focus on civil society's role. Also curious to hear what if anything >>> others on the list are planning in terms of workshops for this meeting (speaking >>> generally we're happy to participate and help out wherever we can). >>> >>> I suppose we also should start discussing whether we'd like to attempt to >>> reconvene the Best Bits group in Paris prior to the WSIS+10 meeting and the MAG >>> meeting. >>> ____________________________________ >>> Kevin S. Bankston >>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>> Washington, DC 20006 >>> 202.407.8834 direct >>> 202.637.0968 fax >>> kbankston at cdt.org >>> >>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>> >>> >>> On Dec 6, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: >>> >>> > Jeremy Malcolm [2012-12-06 15:15]: >>> >> On 04/12/2012, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Bollow >> >> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> This does bring us back to our 'Best Bits' goal about developing and >>> >>>> proposing principles for internet governance. Should we not begin to >>> >>>> plan our next steps? >>> >>> >>> >>> Absolutely. >>> >>> >>> >>> How can things realistically be moved forward in a positive, >>> >>> constructive way? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I worry that the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" meme with which most are >>> >> approaching WCIT will solidify into a general opposition to any global >>> >> norm-setting outside of the Internet technical community's institutions, and >>> >> that Internet policy development will thereby be confined to the national >>> >> level. This is not helped by the US government's predisposition to avoid >>> >> taking on international obligations (the Disabilities Treaty being the latest >>> >> example, besides the Law of the Sea, the International Criminal Court, the >>> >> Cybercrime Convention, the Treaty for the Visually Impaired, etc) - except of >>> >> course through multilateral trade agreements! I think we need to work on >>> >> addressing that perception, and point out that: >>> >> >>> >> 1. Multi-stakeholder Internet governance will be soft law, guidance rather >>> >> than compulsion. >>> >> 2. Even the US is promulgating global Internet norms through fora that suit >>> >> it (OECD, APEC, and the "free flow of information" provisions in the TPP). >>> >> 3. So we need to move this into multi-stakeholder global fora, at a higher >>> >> level that does not bind anyone, and need not restrict national policy space. >>> >> 4. There are various non-technical Internet policy issues that have no >>> >> appropriate global home (nor should the ITU become their home). >>> >> 5. For example, a potential core competency is connecting Internet governance >>> >> with human rights, as a framework to guide the development of national and >>> >> multilateral norms for IP enforcement. >>> >> 6. Let's propose an IGF-based multi-stakeholder enhanced cooperation >>> >> mechanism that would be an acceptable way to deal with such issues. >>> > >>> > This is a most excellent summation and suggestions. >>> > >>> >> We all hate hierarchy, but sometimes a little bit of structure is necessary >>> >> to provide firm enough guidance to policymakers (look at the failure of IPv6 >>> >> adoption). The existing loose network of Internet governance institutions, >>> >> even if their "cooperation" is "enhanced", isn't structured enough to provide >>> >> such guidance in a way that will satisfy the stakeholders (governmental and >>> >> non-governmental) who are seeking more from the enhanced cooperation process. >>> >> >>> >> At Best Bits a few options were described, though we ran out of time to >>> >> debate them. As I see it, there is a UN-linked option (which in turn divides >>> >> into an IGF-based option or an IGF-independent option), or there is a >>> >> UN-independent option (the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force, ECTF). So far, >>> >> almost none of us have been serious about pursuing any of these. But the >>> >> status quo is not going to hold. One way or another, Internet governance is >>> >> going to evolve, and it will do so with us or without us. We've spoken >>> >> loudly enough about what we don't want - the ITU. So, what do we want? >>> > >>> > I think a stock-taking of where things have moved on the issues highlighted in >>> > the WGIG documents then would be helpful. >>> > >>> > I've some notes from conversations I was having with different people at Best >>> > Bits in terms of a 'positive agenda', that I hope to type up and elaborate on, >>> > and send to the list. >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Pranesh Prakash >>> > Policy Director >>> > Centre for Internet and Society >>> > T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org >>> > PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash >>> > >>> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > -- > Dr Marianne Franklin > Reader > Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program > Goldsmiths, University of London > Dept. of Media & Communications > New Cross, London SE14 6NW > Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 > > @GloComm > https://twitter.com/GloComm > http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ > https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at global-partners.co.uk Mon Dec 10 08:29:10 2012 From: Andrew at global-partners.co.uk (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:29:10 +0000 Subject: WSIS+10 workshop?, was Re: [bestbits] Next steps on principles (was Re: Coordination...) In-Reply-To: <3AB7A275-DB2E-4C3E-9EE3-D10935BDF9CF@cdt.org> References: <50B6DE1B.5010109@cdt.org> <50B6F1A8.5030008@itforchange.net> <50B6F360.6010804@itforchange.net> <50B715D9.6000204@apc.org> <20121203120128.0f018576@quill.bollow.ch> <18978622-60EC-4E9C-8173-47110B907D9F@ciroap.org> <50C0B28F.4020307@cis-india.org> <9A6935A9-E5B6-4812-AA2E-627A1013159E@cdt.org> <3AB7A275-DB2E-4C3E-9EE3-D10935BDF9CF@cdt.org> Message-ID: <6E9511B5-11E1-4A75-945E-1F00C3348040@global-partners.co.uk> I've been in touch with Guy Berger at UNESCO and they're happy to give us a couple more days. At this stage we can keep it broad. I'll put something together for Wednesday if you like if you send me ideas Sent from my iPhone On 10 Dec 2012, at 13:17, "Kevin Bankston" > wrote: Jeremy--thanks so much for the offer of help--would you perhaps be up for trying to draft a first cut at a submission based on the dialogue on the list thus far? --Sent via mobile, apologies for typos or abruptness-- On Dec 9, 2012, at 8:29 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: On 10/12/2012, at 3:06 AM, Kevin Bankston > wrote: Watching this very interesting discussing, and looking at the impending deadline for workshop proposals for the WSIS+10 review meeting Feb 25-27 in Paris (www.unesco.org/wsis2013)--proposals are due tomorrow, Monday the 10th, form attached--we at CDT were wondering whether it might make sense for some of the Best Bits participants to collaborate on a workshop proposal on the positive agenda issue. Perhaps a "developing a positive civil society agenda on internet governance" type of workshop if the meeting format would tolerate a civil society-dominated workshop, or perhaps a more broadly constituted panel focusing on "If not the ITU, then what? Positive visions for the future of internet governance". (I suggest the former simply because it would be the easiest to put together on such short notice, since most if not all of the best potential panelists are already on this list, and indeed, are perhaps already on this thread). I would strongly support this, it is a good way of picking up where we left off last time, and after WCIT the time is ripe. The only problem is that it clashes with a Consumers International meeting that is in New Delhi at the same time, so I wouldn't be able to be there in person. But I would like to be involved in the preparation and in framing the discussion. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Dec 10 09:26:15 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 22:26:15 +0800 Subject: WSIS+10 workshop?, was Re: [bestbits] Next steps on principles (was Re: Coordination...) In-Reply-To: <3AB7A275-DB2E-4C3E-9EE3-D10935BDF9CF@cdt.org> References: <50B6DE1B.5010109@cdt.org> <50B6F1A8.5030008@itforchange.net> <50B6F360.6010804@itforchange.net> <50B715D9.6000204@apc.org> <20121203120128.0f018576@quill.bollow.ch> <18978622-60EC-4E9C-8173-47110B907D9F@ciroap.org> <50C0B28F.4020307@cis-india.org> <9A6935A9-E5B6-4812-AA2E-627A1013159E@cdt.org> <3AB7A275-DB2E-4C3E-9EE3-D10935BDF9CF@cdt.org> Message-ID: <0D75A777-187D-4DEC-B3E5-94B582E54B9B@ciroap.org> On 10 Dec, 2012, at 9:13 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > Jeremy--thanks so much for the offer of help--would you perhaps be up for trying to draft a first cut at a submission based on the dialogue on the list thus far? Meanwhile Andrew has offered to do so - for which I'm grateful as I'm travelling these few days - but I'll send my thoughts to him and hope others will too. :-) From rrangnath at publicknowledge.org Tue Dec 11 02:33:38 2012 From: rrangnath at publicknowledge.org (Rashmi Rangnath) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 02:33:38 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Call with USG Message-ID: All: Please hold 11 AM UTC, 3 PM Dubai Time, tomorrow December 12th for a phone call with Ambassador Kramer. Please let me know if you can join the call. Call details will follow. Best, Rashmi -- Rashmi Rangnath Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney Public Knowledge 1818 N Street NW Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20036 202 861 0020 rrangnath at publicknowledge.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 04:59:47 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:59:47 -0800 Subject: WSIS+10 workshop?, was Re: [bestbits] Next steps on principles (was Re: Coordination...) In-Reply-To: <8ED3286F-8AEF-4CD5-AFF1-E614092D10AB@uzh.ch> References: <50B6DE1B.5010109@cdt.org> <50B6F1A8.5030008@itforchange.net> <50B6F360.6010804@itforchange.net> <50B715D9.6000204@apc.org> <20121203120128.0f018576@quill.bollow.ch> <18978622-60EC-4E9C-8173-47110B907D9F@ciroap.org> <50C0B28F.4020307@cis-india.org> <9A6935A9-E5B6-4812-AA2E-627A1013159E@cdt.org> <50C4F65A.4010805@apc.org> <8ED3286F-8AEF-4CD5-AFF1-E614092D10AB@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <079501cdd786$46cd46a0$d467d3e0$@gmail.com> I'm very unlikely to get funding to be in Geneva but I would like to comment on the idea of a BestBits workshop at WSIS+10. First, I think it is a great idea and we should be building on the limited concensus that we achieved in Baku to move forward beyond some of the impasses of the past and towards some positive statements as folks have been mentioning in this thread. I do want to take exception to Bill's comments below however and suggest that issues of finanicial disequilibria resulting from an Internet based global economy is something that we should be addressing (if not us, then who... The issue here is to my mind, is as I discussed it in my earlier blogpost http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ is how to provide revenue streams to LDC's in the area of ICTs to support the extension of ICTs into underserved areas/populations and to overall support local infrastructure maintenance and development as well at some point making a contribution to general revenues for other public services. I think/realize there is a lot of conceptual work that needs to be done in this area especially if we move towards a model of the Internet as a global public resource/public good as I think we should be suggesting. In that instance some financial mechanism for supporting development at the edges (as the Internet folks are always arguing for and indicating is currently being done) would begin I think to come into focus. BTW, I think we should also at some point discuss the issue of whether or not there is an actual or potential conflict of interest in having members of a Civil Society caucus either at or in preparatory discussions for an event who are also members of national delegations or paid employees of companies with interests in the matters under discussion. Mike -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 7:01 PM To: anriette at apc.org Cc: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: WSIS+10 workshop?, was Re: [bestbits] Next steps on principles (was Re: Coordination...) Hi On Dec 10, 2012, at 12:36 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Good idea to do a workshop, and we should try to have a meeting beforehand. I like the idea of "developing a positive civil society agenda on internet governance" as a theme although making it concrete could be difficult. One way of doing this would be to do a 'stock-taking of where things have moved since they were highlighted in the WGIG documents, as Pranesh suggests. I too like the idea. But I'm unclear over morning coffee how to frame it. General stock taking is one approach. A second option would be to address the factors that drove WCIT. But many of the developing country concerns that have generated support for bad proposals concern domestic telecom revenues and operational matters for incumbent telcos rather than global Internet governance. That they seek tools through an international instrument doesn't necessarily make the issues inherently global and requiring global frameworks. And emphasizing other matters instead where such framework are really needed might look non-responsive and like an effort to redirect. I guess one could frame it broadly enough that it can be interpreted as on point and fill in later etc Another option still would be to look forward to the WTPF and offer a CS take on what'll happen there. There's been no civil society per se representation in the planning process; ISOC's been the only sort of MS voice. In fact, it might be conceivable to do more than one workshop proposal I tend to think saying nothing about WTPF, which explicitly covers much more global IG than does WCIT, would be a mistake. There should be an alternative vision on the table for that meeting, even if we don't have standing to formally present it. It could serve as a short of shadow agenda, one that friendly governments might well make reference to. Could do press and campaign around it... FYI below for reference are a couple efforts in this space at past WSIS forums—both of which I'd call positive agenda mapping... Best Bill ——————— WSIS Forum 2012 Workshop 9:00-10:45, Thursday 17 May 2012 Room XI, the International Labor Organization Global Internet Governance for Development Does global Internet governance promote the effective participation of developing country stakeholders in the information society? What are its implication for national development trajectories? To fully address these and related questions, it would be useful to establish an Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) agenda. Such an agenda could comprise a holistic program that mainstreams development considerations into the procedures and policy outputs of global Internet governance mechanisms. While development agendas are being pursued in the multilateral organizations dealing with issues like international trade and intellectual property, there has been no corresponding effort with respect to global Internet governance. Accordingly, since 2007 a series of workshops and main sessions exploring the idea have been held at the annual Internet Governance Forum meetings. This workshop seeks to broaden the dialogue by engaging interested attendees at the WSIS Forum. A development agenda could involve organizing and improving access to knowledge about global Internet governance issues and institutions, including best practices and lessons learned such institutions could consider within their respective work programs. In addition, it could encourage concrete actions that strengthen the fit between governance and development, such as: a) facilitating access to capacity building programs that help enable the effective participation of governmental and nongovernmental actors from developing countries in global technical and policy processes; b) enhancing institutional procedures and practices in order to promote such participation; and c) identifying issues that raise distinctive developmental considerations and possible options for improvements in related policy frameworks. Given the highly distributed institutional ecosystem of global Internet governance, a development agenda would need to be flexible enough to facilitate varying responses that are appropriate to the issues and actors involved in each case. The workshop will consider these matters in relation to relevant multistakeholder, industry self-governance, and intergovernmental institutions. Of particular interest in this regard is the governance of critical Internet resources, e.g. names, numbers, and standards; and current proposals for new Enhanced Cooperation initiatives within the United Nations, and for international treaty regulations that could be applicable to the Internet. Organizer William J. Drake International Fellow, Media Change & Innovation Division Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research University of Zurich, Switzerland Co-Sponsoring Organizations Association for Progressive Communications Ministry of Communications and Information Technology Government of Egypt Kenya Internet Governance Steering Committee, Ministry of Information and Communications Government of Kenya Federal Office of Communications Government of Switzerland Speakers Olga Cavalli Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Government of Argentina Avri Doria Researcher & former Chair of the ICANN GNSO Council United States of America William J. Drake [moderator] International Fellow, Media Change & Innovation Division Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research University of Zurich, Switzerland Anriette Esterhuysen Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications South Africa Wolfgang Kleinwächter Professor of Internet Policy and Regulation, Department for Media and Information Sciences, University of Aarhus, Denmark Germany Markus Kummer Vice President of Public Policy, The Internet Society Switzerland Alice Munyua Convener, East Africa IGF, Kenya ICT Action Network; and Chair, Kenya Internet Governance Steering Committee, and Kenya Network Information Center Government of Kenya Nermine El Saadany Director of International Relations Division, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology Government of Egypt Thomas Schneider Deputy Head of International Relations Service, Federal Office of Communications Government of Switzerland ——————— WSIS Forum 2011 Workshop The International Labor Organization, Governing Body Room 9:00-10:30 Tuesday 17 May 2011 Institutional Choice in Global Communications Governance The contemporary global communications order is characterized by a significant increase in the number and variety of governance arrangements. Traditional multilateralism has been supplemented by plurilateral, regional, and bilateral intergovernmentalism; and by unilateralism, co-regulation, industry self-governance, multistakeholder governance, and the coordinated convergence of independent practices. These ordering mechanisms vary greatly in terms of the collective action problems they address and the institutional attributes they possess. How do we conduct a principled evaluation of alternative models’ relative merits and potential “fit” with current and emerging governance challenges? What are their respective strengths and weaknesses in terms of cross-cutting objectives like equity, efficiency, transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, development-friendliness, and public interest orientation? Are there any generalizable lessons that they could learn from one another? How well do today’s mechanisms cohere into an strong and effective global governance architecture? This workshop will seek to advance the holistic assessment of these and related questions and to assess them in relation to key cases of contemporary ICT global governance. Speakers Dr. William J. Drake [organizer & moderator] International Fellow, Media Change & Innovation Division Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research University of Zurich, Switzerland Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications South Africa Mr. Alvaro Galvani Head, Division of Information Society, Ministry of External Relations Government of Brazil Mr. Markus Kummer Vice President of Public Policy, The Internet Society Switzerland Prof. Michael Latzer Chair, Media Change & Innovation Division Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research University of Zurich, Switzerland Ms. Nermine El Saadany Director of International Relations Division, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology Government of Egypt Mr. Thomas Schneider Deputy Head of International Relations Service, Federal Office of Communications Government of Switzerland > From nb at bollow.ch Tue Dec 11 06:08:22 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:08:22 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Conflicts of interest (was: WSIS+10 workshop?...) In-Reply-To: <079501cdd786$46cd46a0$d467d3e0$@gmail.com> References: <50B6DE1B.5010109@cdt.org> <50B6F1A8.5030008@itforchange.net> <50B6F360.6010804@itforchange.net> <50B715D9.6000204@apc.org> <20121203120128.0f018576@quill.bollow.ch> <18978622-60EC-4E9C-8173-47110B907D9F@ciroap.org> <50C0B28F.4020307@cis-india.org> <9A6935A9-E5B6-4812-AA2E-627A1013159E@cdt.org> <50C4F65A.4010805@apc.org> <8ED3286F-8AEF-4CD5-AFF1-E614092D10AB@uzh.ch> <079501cdd786$46cd46a0$d467d3e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121211120822.2cb7be2c@quill.bollow.ch> Michael Gurstein wrote: > BTW, I think we should also at some point discuss the issue of > whether or not there is an actual or potential conflict of interest > in having members of a Civil Society caucus either at or in > preparatory discussions for an event who are also members of national > delegations or paid employees of companies with interests in the > matters under discussion. As I'm personally active in the private sector and also engaging as part of civil society in public interest advocacy, I'm also interested in some guidelines in this area. So far my strategy has been to avoid situations in which I or my customers would have business interests directly related to the substantive issues that I'm engaging on. Going forward, I don't see any concrete risk of running into conflicts of interest with regard to any human rights or other substantive Internet governance issues. However, in view of recent unsatisfactory developments in regard to lack of effective climate protection, I'm starting to think that I'll probably want to engage at least to some extent in that area, even though the strict strategy for avoiding any situation that might come close to potential conflicts of interest won't be feasible for me in that area. Also I'm making plans to start offering business consulting services related to the Theory of Constraints which I'm suggesting also in the context of strategic analysis of complex systemic governance challenges. So maybe one reasonable way forward for me personally will be to say that with regard to human rights and other substantive Internet governance issues, I'm engaging in public interest advocacy as a civil society person, while in regard to the topic areas where I have some related business interests, I'm not qualified to engage as a civil society person, but I'll be able to engage as a private sector person in regard to those topic areas? Greetings, Norbert From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 05:40:02 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 02:40:02 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? Message-ID: <014301cdd142$8d675aa0$a8360fe0$@gmail.com> http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/23/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-google- tax-avoidance/ http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/15431664/france-says-google-would- lose-court-case-over-taxes/ http://en.apa.az/news_google_italy_suspected_of_tax_evasion__183392.html http://www.3news.co.nz/Starbucks-Google-Amazon-accused-of-UK-tax-evasion/tab id/369/articleID/276457/Default.aspx http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0156212/australian-govt-pledges-acti on-on-google-tax-evasion http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ From nb at bollow.ch Tue Dec 11 06:09:35 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:09:35 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] WSIS+10 clocation (was Re: WSIS+10 workshop?...) In-Reply-To: <079501cdd786$46cd46a0$d467d3e0$@gmail.com> References: <50B6DE1B.5010109@cdt.org> <50B6F1A8.5030008@itforchange.net> <50B6F360.6010804@itforchange.net> <50B715D9.6000204@apc.org> <20121203120128.0f018576@quill.bollow.ch> <18978622-60EC-4E9C-8173-47110B907D9F@ciroap.org> <50C0B28F.4020307@cis-india.org> <9A6935A9-E5B6-4812-AA2E-627A1013159E@cdt.org> <50C4F65A.4010805@apc.org> <8ED3286F-8AEF-4CD5-AFF1-E614092D10AB@uzh.ch> <079501cdd786$46cd46a0$d467d3e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121211120935.14169fc8@quill.bollow.ch> Michael Gurstein wrote: > I'm very unlikely to get funding to be in Geneva but I would like to > comment on the idea of a BestBits workshop at WSIS+10. I thought it was in Paris. (The difference may not matter for you, but it matters for myself and others who live within reasonably close range of Geneva but much further from Paris.) Greetings, Norbert From Andrew at global-partners.co.uk Tue Dec 11 07:40:35 2012 From: Andrew at global-partners.co.uk (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:40:35 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] WSIS+10 clocation (was Re: WSIS+10 workshop?...) In-Reply-To: <20121211120935.14169fc8@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In putting together a Best Bits panel proposal for the UNESCO WSIS proposal I need to indicate a topic and potential panellists. I'm going to suggest a topic that builds upon the consensus we reached to date on what we don't want, moving forward to what we do want - I suggest we invite different participants to define the public interest internet they envisage with lots of opportunity for carefully moderated interactive discussion. The tricky thing is specifying panelists at this stage. If you are definitely plannng to come to Paris and/or are willing for your name to go forward as a panellist at this stage (even if you're not sure you can make it)? We can reconfigure it later but I should flag up a speaker from each continent ideally... Andrew Puddephatt, Director Global Partners and Associates Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 andrew at global-partners.co.uk www.global-partners.co.uk On 11/12/2012 11:09, "Norbert Bollow" wrote: >Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> I'm very unlikely to get funding to be in Geneva but I would like to >> comment on the idea of a BestBits workshop at WSIS+10. > >I thought it was in Paris. (The difference may not matter for you, but >it matters for myself and others who live within reasonably close range >of Geneva but much further from Paris.) > >Greetings, >Norbert > From kbankston at cdt.org Tue Dec 11 09:50:09 2012 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:50:09 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] urgent warning re: apparent phishing attack References: <20121211120506.E4BC1680B8E@snt-web771.sjc.dropbox.com> Message-ID: <16564885-7154-4977-A6F9-961D49ECD39E@cdt.org> Hi everyone-- In an excess of caution, I wanted to let everyone know of an apparent phishing attack: a bunch of people at CDT received the below message falsely claiming to be from one of our staff, inviting us to open a WCIT-related ZIP file from Dropbox. I wanted to warn the people on those email lists that CDT is participating in and that regularly discuss the WCIT not to click on the link if you receive a similar email, whether it claims to be from CDT staff or from anyone else. Sorry for the bother, but as they say, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".... Thanks, Kevin ____________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202.407.8834 direct 202.637.0968 fax kbankston at cdt.org Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech Begin forwarded message: > From: Dropbox > Subject: Meredith Whipple shared "WCIT Analysis Dec 12.zip" with you > Date: December 11, 2012 7:05:06 AM EST > To: kbankston at cdt.org > Reply-To: mwhipplle at cdt.org > > > Meredith used Dropbox to share a file with you! > > Message from Meredith: "A major plot twist" > > Click here to view. > © 2012 Dropbox > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rrangnath at publicknowledge.org Tue Dec 11 11:35:18 2012 From: rrangnath at publicknowledge.org (Rashmi Rangnath) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 11:35:18 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call with USG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: All: A friendly reminder to let me know if you can join the call with Ambassador Kramer tomorrow. It would be good to gauge the level of interest. Thanks to those who have already responded. Call in information will follow. Best, Rashmi On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Rashmi Rangnath < rrangnath at publicknowledge.org> wrote: > All: > > Please hold 11 AM UTC, 3 PM Dubai Time, tomorrow December 12th for a phone > call with Ambassador Kramer. Please let me know if you can join the call. > > Call details will follow. > > Best, > > Rashmi > > -- > Rashmi Rangnath > Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney > Public Knowledge > 1818 N Street NW > Suite 410 > Washington, D.C. 20036 > 202 861 0020 > rrangnath at publicknowledge.org > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > -- Rashmi Rangnath Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney Public Knowledge 1818 N Street NW Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20036 202 861 0020 rrangnath at publicknowledge.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jochai at accessnow.org Tue Dec 11 12:19:43 2012 From: jochai at accessnow.org (Jochai Ben-Avie) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:19:43 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] WSIS+10 clocation (was Re: WSIS+10 workshop?...) In-Reply-To: References: <20121211120935.14169fc8@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Hey Andrew, Someone from Access will be at the WSIS+10 meeting and we'd be very interested in participating on the panel. Feel free to put my name down for now, if you'd like. Thanks, Jochai -- Jochai Ben-Avie Policy Director Access | AccessNow.org P: +1-347-806-9531 | S: jochaiben-avie | PGP: 0x9E6D805F On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Andrew Puddephatt < Andrew at global-partners.co.uk> wrote: > In putting together a Best Bits panel proposal for the UNESCO WSIS > proposal I need to indicate a topic and potential panellists. > > I'm going to suggest a topic that builds upon the consensus we reached to > date on what we don't want, moving forward to what we do want - I suggest > we invite different participants to define the public interest internet > they envisage with lots of opportunity for carefully moderated interactive > discussion. > > The tricky thing is specifying panelists at this stage. If you are > definitely plannng to come to Paris and/or are willing for your name to go > forward as a panellist at this stage (even if you're not sure you can make > it)? We can reconfigure it later but I should flag up a speaker from each > continent ideally... > > > Andrew Puddephatt, Director > Global Partners and Associates > Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK > Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 > Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 > andrew at global-partners.co.uk www.global-partners.co.uk > > > > > > > On 11/12/2012 11:09, "Norbert Bollow" wrote: > > >Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > >> I'm very unlikely to get funding to be in Geneva but I would like to > >> comment on the idea of a BestBits workshop at WSIS+10. > > > >I thought it was in Paris. (The difference may not matter for you, but > >it matters for myself and others who live within reasonably close range > >of Geneva but much further from Paris.) > > > >Greetings, > >Norbert > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Tue Dec 11 12:39:59 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:39:59 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] WSIS+10 clocation (was Re: WSIS+10 workshop?...) In-Reply-To: References: <20121211120935.14169fc8@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20121211183959.6223681f@quill.bollow.ch> Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > In putting together a Best Bits panel proposal for the UNESCO WSIS > proposal I need to indicate a topic and potential panellists. > > I'm going to suggest a topic that builds upon the consensus we > reached to date on what we don't want, moving forward to what we do > want - I suggest we invite different participants to define the > public interest internet they envisage with lots of opportunity for > carefully moderated interactive discussion. Great topic. Ok, if you want me as a panelist for this, and the proposal is accepted, I'll make sure to be in Paris for that. Greetings, Norbert From william.drake at uzh.ch Tue Dec 11 14:40:34 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 23:40:34 +0400 Subject: [bestbits] WSIS+10 clocation (was Re: WSIS+10 workshop?...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9B3FF459-94EE-48EB-822C-93731357BD65@uzh.ch> Hi I and I imagine some other civil society MAG members will in Paris as we have the IGF meetings right after WSIS+10. WCIT is looking a bit grim, will be a long and difficult day tomorrow... Best, Bill On Dec 11, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > In putting together a Best Bits panel proposal for the UNESCO WSIS > proposal I need to indicate a topic and potential panellists. > > I'm going to suggest a topic that builds upon the consensus we reached to > date on what we don't want, moving forward to what we do want - I suggest > we invite different participants to define the public interest internet > they envisage with lots of opportunity for carefully moderated interactive > discussion. > > The tricky thing is specifying panelists at this stage. If you are > definitely plannng to come to Paris and/or are willing for your name to go > forward as a panellist at this stage (even if you're not sure you can make > it)? We can reconfigure it later but I should flag up a speaker from each > continent ideally... > > > Andrew Puddephatt, Director > Global Partners and Associates > Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK > Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 > Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 > andrew at global-partners.co.uk www.global-partners.co.uk > > > > > > > On 11/12/2012 11:09, "Norbert Bollow" wrote: > >> Michael Gurstein wrote: >> >>> I'm very unlikely to get funding to be in Geneva but I would like to >>> comment on the idea of a BestBits workshop at WSIS+10. >> >> I thought it was in Paris. (The difference may not matter for you, but >> it matters for myself and others who live within reasonably close range >> of Geneva but much further from Paris.) >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> > > From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 20:15:32 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 02:15:32 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] WSIS+10 clocation (was Re: WSIS+10 workshop?...) In-Reply-To: References: <20121211120935.14169fc8@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <0e1e01cdd806$2f4e33b0$8dea9b10$@gmail.com> Andrew, I think this is excellent... and I might even try to figure out a way to make it back to Paris (where I happen to be right now) just for this :) M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Puddephatt Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:41 PM To: Norbert Bollow; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] WSIS+10 clocation (was Re: WSIS+10 workshop?...) In putting together a Best Bits panel proposal for the UNESCO WSIS proposal I need to indicate a topic and potential panellists. I'm going to suggest a topic that builds upon the consensus we reached to date on what we don't want, moving forward to what we do want - I suggest we invite different participants to define the public interest internet they envisage with lots of opportunity for carefully moderated interactive discussion. The tricky thing is specifying panelists at this stage. If you are definitely plannng to come to Paris and/or are willing for your name to go forward as a panellist at this stage (even if you're not sure you can make it)? We can reconfigure it later but I should flag up a speaker from each continent ideally... Andrew Puddephatt, Director Global Partners and Associates Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 andrew at global-partners.co.uk www.global-partners.co.uk On 11/12/2012 11:09, "Norbert Bollow" wrote: >Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> I'm very unlikely to get funding to be in Geneva but I would like to >> comment on the idea of a BestBits workshop at WSIS+10. > >I thought it was in Paris. (The difference may not matter for you, but >it matters for myself and others who live within reasonably close range >of Geneva but much further from Paris.) > >Greetings, >Norbert > From kbankston at cdt.org Tue Dec 11 21:45:35 2012 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:45:35 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [WCIT12] urgent warning re: apparent phishing attack In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello everyone: FYI, this is the malware that was in the zip file: http://www.sophos.com/en-us/threat-center/threat-analyses/viruses-and-spyware/Mal~Agent-AJI/detailed-analysis.aspx Sent via mobile On Dec 11, 2012, at 9:50 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > Hi everyone-- > > In an excess of caution, I wanted to let everyone know of an apparent phishing attack: a bunch of people at CDT received the below message falsely claiming to be from one of our staff, inviting us to open a WCIT-related ZIP file from Dropbox. I wanted to warn the people on those email lists that CDT is participating in and that regularly discuss the WCIT not to click on the link if you receive a similar email, whether it claims to be from CDT staff or from anyone else. Sorry for the bother, but as they say, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".... > > Thanks, > Kevin > ____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202.407.8834 direct > 202.637.0968 fax > kbankston at cdt.org > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Dropbox >> Subject: Meredith Whipple shared "WCIT Analysis Dec 12.zip" with you >> Date: December 11, 2012 7:05:06 AM EST >> To: kbankston at cdt.org >> Reply-To: mwhipplle at cdt.org >> >> >> Meredith used Dropbox to share a file with you! >> >> Message from Meredith: "A major plot twist" >> >> Click here to view. >> © 2012 Dropbox >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 22:01:50 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 04:01:50 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] RE: Conflicts of interest (was: WSIS+10 workshop?... Message-ID: <0e8c01cdd815$091e5cb0$1b5b1610$@gmail.com> That's good Norbert, disclosure and recusal is I believe, a central element in processes of dealing with conflicts of interest... In the context of CS as well, I think we need to take into account a broader definition of what might constitute an "interest" i.e. one that goes beyond immediate financial return but also includes issues of "national interest" or "corporate interest" where a close association might mean that there is at least a potential for being in conflict with what might be understood as either the "public interest" (as opposed to "private interests") or in our case the "global public interest" (as opposed to for example a specific "national public interest"). M -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 12:08 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Conflicts of interest (was: WSIS+10 workshop?...) Michael Gurstein wrote: > BTW, I think we should also at some point discuss the issue of whether > or not there is an actual or potential conflict of interest in having > members of a Civil Society caucus either at or in preparatory > discussions for an event who are also members of national delegations > or paid employees of companies with interests in the matters under > discussion. As I'm personally active in the private sector and also engaging as part of civil society in public interest advocacy, I'm also interested in some guidelines in this area. So far my strategy has been to avoid situations in which I or my customers would have business interests directly related to the substantive issues that I'm engaging on. Going forward, I don't see any concrete risk of running into conflicts of interest with regard to any human rights or other substantive Internet governance issues. However, in view of recent unsatisfactory developments in regard to lack of effective climate protection, I'm starting to think that I'll probably want to engage at least to some extent in that area, even though the strict strategy for avoiding any situation that might come close to potential conflicts of interest won't be feasible for me in that area. Also I'm making plans to start offering business consulting services related to the Theory of Constraints which I'm suggesting also in the context of strategic analysis of complex systemic governance challenges. So maybe one reasonable way forward for me personally will be to say that with regard to human rights and other substantive Internet governance issues, I'm engaging in public interest advocacy as a civil society person, while in regard to the topic areas where I have some related business interests, I'm not qualified to engage as a civil society person, but I'll be able to engage as a private sector person in regard to those topic areas? Greetings, Norbert From nb at bollow.ch Mon Dec 3 06:01:28 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 12:01:28 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Next steps on principles (was Re: Coordination...) In-Reply-To: <50B715D9.6000204@apc.org> References: <50B6DE1B.5010109@cdt.org> <50B6F1A8.5030008@itforchange.net> <50B6F360.6010804@itforchange.net> <50B715D9.6000204@apc.org> Message-ID: <20121203120128.0f018576@quill.bollow.ch> Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > And leading on from this, there needs to be recourse and remedy for > people whose rights are being violated. Can this be achieved without > any regulatory intervention? I would say it cannot. Is the ITU the > right place to lead the development such an intervention? Definitely > not, but that does not mean that telecoms regulation is irrelevant to > securing a fair and open internet and it is really good that so many > new people are engaging ITU processes. > > This does bring us back to our 'Best Bits' goal about developing and > proposing principles for internet governance. Should we not begin to > plan our next steps? Absolutely. How can things realistically be moved forward in a positive, constructive way? Greetings, Norbert From avri at acm.org Wed Dec 12 00:40:42 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:40:42 +0400 Subject: [bestbits] WSIS+10 clocation (was Re: WSIS+10 workshop?...) In-Reply-To: <9B3FF459-94EE-48EB-822C-93731357BD65@uzh.ch> References: <9B3FF459-94EE-48EB-822C-93731357BD65@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <31214BE7-6946-4585-BD47-F9E307A5EF4D@acm.org> I expect to be at WSIS+10/WTPF/ IGF On 11 Dec 2012, at 23:40, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > I and I imagine some other civil society MAG members will in Paris as we have the IGF meetings right after WSIS+10. > > WCIT is looking a bit grim, will be a long and difficult day tomorrow... > > Best, > > Bill > > On Dec 11, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > >> In putting together a Best Bits panel proposal for the UNESCO WSIS >> proposal I need to indicate a topic and potential panellists. >> >> I'm going to suggest a topic that builds upon the consensus we reached to >> date on what we don't want, moving forward to what we do want - I suggest >> we invite different participants to define the public interest internet >> they envisage with lots of opportunity for carefully moderated interactive >> discussion. >> >> The tricky thing is specifying panelists at this stage. If you are >> definitely plannng to come to Paris and/or are willing for your name to go >> forward as a panellist at this stage (even if you're not sure you can make >> it)? We can reconfigure it later but I should flag up a speaker from each >> continent ideally... >> >> >> Andrew Puddephatt, Director >> Global Partners and Associates >> Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK >> Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 >> Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 >> andrew at global-partners.co.uk www.global-partners.co.uk >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 11/12/2012 11:09, "Norbert Bollow" wrote: >> >>> Michael Gurstein wrote: >>> >>>> I'm very unlikely to get funding to be in Geneva but I would like to >>>> comment on the idea of a BestBits workshop at WSIS+10. >>> >>> I thought it was in Paris. (The difference may not matter for you, but >>> it matters for myself and others who live within reasonably close range >>> of Geneva but much further from Paris.) >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >> >> > > > From rrangnath at publicknowledge.org Wed Dec 12 02:21:46 2012 From: rrangnath at publicknowledge.org (Rashmi Rangnath) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 02:21:46 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call with USG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: All: Below is the call in information for today's conversation with Ambassador Kramer. Hope to have many of you on the call. Best, Rashmi *USA Toll-Free:***** 888-273-3658**** *USA Caller Paid/International Toll:***** 213-270-2124**** *ACCESS CODE:***** 9240927**** *HOST PASSWORD:***** 6433 On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Rashmi Rangnath < rrangnath at publicknowledge.org> wrote: > All: > > Please hold 11 AM UTC, 3 PM Dubai Time, tomorrow December 12th for a phone > call with Ambassador Kramer. Please let me know if you can join the call. > > Call details will follow. > > Best, > > Rashmi > > -- > Rashmi Rangnath > Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney > Public Knowledge > 1818 N Street NW > Suite 410 > Washington, D.C. 20036 > 202 861 0020 > rrangnath at publicknowledge.org > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > -- Rashmi Rangnath Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney Public Knowledge 1818 N Street NW Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20036 202 861 0020 rrangnath at publicknowledge.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rrangnath at publicknowledge.org Wed Dec 12 05:48:23 2012 From: rrangnath at publicknowledge.org (Rashmi Rangnath) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:48:23 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Call with USG delayed by 15 minutes Message-ID: All: Apologies for the inconvenience. the call with the ambassador has been delayed by 15 minutes. Rashmi -- Rashmi Rangnath Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney Public Knowledge 1818 N Street NW Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20036 202 861 0020 rrangnath at publicknowledge.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Wed Dec 12 08:48:43 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:48:43 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] RE: Conflicts of interest (was: WSIS+10 workshop?... In-Reply-To: <0e8c01cdd815$091e5cb0$1b5b1610$@gmail.com> References: <0e8c01cdd815$091e5cb0$1b5b1610$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121212144843.446e4f9f@quill.bollow.ch> Michael Gurstein wrote: > In the context of CS as well, I think we need to take into account a > broader definition of what might constitute an "interest" i.e. one > that goes beyond immediate financial return but also includes issues > of "national interest" or "corporate interest" where a close > association might mean that there is at least a potential for being > in conflict with what might be understood as either the "public > interest" (as opposed to "private interests") or in our case the > "global public interest" (as opposed to for example a specific > "national public interest"). Good point. What would be an appropriate forum for developing some kind of guidance document for civil society for appriately dealing with this kind of concerns in regard to topics where it is important to truly pursue the goal public interest? Greetings, Norbert From steve at openmedia.ca Thu Dec 13 07:04:16 2012 From: steve at openmedia.ca (Steve Anderson) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 01:04:16 +1300 Subject: [bestbits] Respond to resolution to enhance the ITU's role in Internet governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: WCIT Chairman Al Ghanim recently declared that the ITRs would include a Resolution to enhance the ITU's role in Internet governance not by a vote or by true consensus, but by informally asking about the "temperature in the room" regarding the Resolution. After estimating the "feel of the room", which included some countries in opposition, the Chairman declared that a majority favored the measure, and thus the Resolution was adopted. The session quickly adjourned before some countries could even determine whether an official decision had been made. This was not a legitimate decision-making process by ITU standards. Please urge countries that oppose the resolution to take a stand at the start of tomorrow’s first plenary session and demand that the issue be re-opened for an official vote that can be documented and recorded for public review. We have put up a new action in our tool where organizations and citizens can send a meessage to their delegates here: http://www.protectinternetfreedom.net/stand Please share it far and wide. -- *Steve Anderson* Executive Director, OpenMedia.ca 604-837-5730 http://openmedia.ca * *steve at openmedia.ca Follow me on Twitter Friend me on Facebook ****The TPP's Internet trap is secretive, extreme, and it could criminalize your daily use of the Internet. Take a stand: http://StopTheTrap.net * What will online spying cost you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dZILMivNgI&list=UUC-1UQ7bpqa_HpRCDfmCQUg&index=1&feature=plcp *Confidentiality Warning:** This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Thank you. Information confidentielle:** Le présent message, ainsi que tout fichier qui y est joint, est envoyé à l'intention exclusive de son ou de ses destinataires; il est de nature confidentielle et peut constituer une information privilégiée. Nous avertissons toute personne autre que le destinataire prévu que tout examen, réacheminement, impression, copie, distribution ou autre utilisation de ce message et de tout fichier qui y est joint est strictement interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, veuillez en aviser immédiatement l'expéditeur par retour de courriel et supprimer ce message et tout document joint de votre système. Merci.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at global-partners.co.uk Thu Dec 13 08:17:19 2012 From: Andrew at global-partners.co.uk (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:17:19 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Final note Message-ID: Hi everyone As you may know a group of Latin American organisations met in Rio recently and agreed to issue the attached statement at the conclusion of the ITU conference tomorrow. Currently the list of signatories is from the region but if other groups on the Best Bits list want to add their names to day, do let me know by the end of the day. I'm aware that there is a separate letter being put together by groups at the WCIT but the main focus of that is on the ITU itself and processes so the two are complementary Andrew Puddephatt, Director       Global Partners & Associates Direct: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 Office: +44 (0)20 7549 0350 Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 Email: andrew at global-partners.co.uk Address: Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, London EC2A 4LT, UK www.global-partners.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FINAL Statement post ITU.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 17158 bytes Desc: FINAL Statement post ITU.docx URL: From Andrew at global-partners.co.uk Fri Dec 14 05:10:50 2012 From: Andrew at global-partners.co.uk (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:10:50 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] RE: Post WCIT statement - a way forward Message-ID: Post-WCIT civil society statement: A way forward December 14, 2012 At the World Conference on International Telecommunication (WCIT) conference in Dubai, ITU member states tried to negotiate new International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs). We as civil society organizations want to express our concern at the lack of transparency, openness, and public consultations that marked the national preparatory processes and the WCIT discussion in Dubai, despite some efforts to open the process to civil society. Mindful of the upcoming review of the World Summit on the Information Society process we call upon states to recognize the importance of upholding human rights in all spheres, including the Internet We further call upon governments to recognize the importance of ensuring meaningful and sustainable civil society participation in all internet governance and policy-making processes which should be both transparent and accountable. – We urge governments to promote universal, affordable, high quality and equitable access to the internet – Recognizing the necessity of net neutrality for protection of human rights and for innovation we call for the promotion of network equality so that access is free from discrimination, filtering or control on commercial, political or other grounds. – Noting that the internet is a medium for both public and private exchange of views and information across boundaries, we call on governments and non-state actors to respect and protect freedom of expression online. – Taking into account that privacy is a fundamental human right, we urge the governments and service providers to take all legal, procedural and technical steps necessary to guarantee the right to protection of personal data, including traffic and indirectly identifiable data; the right to secure private communications, including the right to online anonymity and pseudonimity; and the right to be free from unwarranted surveillance and all forms of eavesdropping – Realizing that the cultural and linguistic diversity should be protected as legitimate speech, but also as common cultural heritage that enriches humankind as a whole, exhort governments and service providers to foster and promote the expressions of such diversity without constraints based on cultural, religious or gender bias. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Endorsed by: • Fundação Getulio Vargas, Brazil • Nupef, Brazil • Intervozes, Brazil • Instituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor, Brazil • Asociacion por los Derechos Civiles, Argentina • Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (CELE), University of Palermo, Argentina • Via Libre Foundation, Argentina • Centro de Estudios Legales Y Sociales, Argentina • ONG Derechos Digitales, Chile • Colnodo, Colombia • Fundación para la Libertad de Prensa, Colombia • Fundación Karisma, Colombia • Association for Progressive Communications, Global • Cooperativa Sulá Batsú, Costa Rica • Fundación Social TIC, Mexico • Creative Commons Guatemala, Guatemala • Global Partners & Associates, U.K. • Open Society Foundation, Global • KICTANet, Kenya • Consumers International, Global • Center for Democracy and Technology, U.S.A. • Internet Democracy Project, India • CELS, Argentina • IT for Change, India • Open Technology Institute USA Andrew Puddephatt, Director       Global Partners & Associates Direct: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 Office: +44 (0)20 7549 0350 Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 Email: andrew at global-partners.co.uk Address: Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, London EC2A 4LT, UK www.global-partners.co.uk From avri at acm.org Sat Dec 15 02:33:12 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 08:33:12 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> Message-ID: Sent this message to another list, but it is something I wanted to say on these list. Begin forwarded message: > From: Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty > Date: 15 December 2012 08:30:15 GMT+01:00 > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Hi, I can't speak to why the US and other democracies did not sign not the other treaties and the fact the US republicans filibustered its own laws made treaty in the Treaty on the Disabled. But since I was in Dubai and immersed in this process, I will try to speak to this situation somewhat. In this case, the ITR treaty, was seen as threatening the Internet and Internet governance in some ways, especially with regard to Internet content and the scope of Member State and ITU control over the Internet. I know that Milton and Fadí beleive this is not the case, and I will admit that the attacks are not as blatant as was expected, but I agree with the decision by many governments, including my own governments decision to not sign, and thus disagree with the analysis of these august gentlemen. For me one the major issues related to the security and robustness of the Internet being a Member State responsibility. " ARTICLE 5A Security and robustness of networks 41B Member States shall individually and collectively endeavour to ensure the security and robustness of international telecommunication networks in order to achieve effective use thereof and avoidance of technical harm thereto, as well as the harmonious development of international telecommunication services offered to the public. " First what is security at the telecommunication layer other that robustness? And what does it mean to apply this security not only to the physical network but also to harmonious development... The worst power of the ITRs is what they allow Member States to do inside their countries with permission of international law. Also what is envisioned in the collective endeavor. To what extent does this empower one country to impose on the legal system of another country to support its laws concerning the security, i.e harmony, of its network development? It does not take much imagination to see the future actions of repressive states with regard to their power to protect the security of the network from disharmony. Yes, it is less than these governments wanted, but it is yet another step forward toward government control of the network - especially since for most of those nations Internet is infrastructure and the ITRs are about infrastructure. It is only a small abstraction that, while not made in the ITRs, has been made by them and can be seen in their reservations. I also see threat in the article on spam, even though they have named it euphemistically: Unsolicited bulk electronic communications " ARTICLE 5B Unsolicited bulk electronic communications 41C Member States should endeavour to take necessary measures to prevent the propagation of unsolicited bulk electronic communications and minimize its impact on international telecommunication services. Member States are encouraged to cooperate in that sense. " True this is not as bad as unwanted Spam, which could mean anything, since Spam cannot be defined without reference to content. But even this: has this criminalized political statements sent to mailing lists? Will a sender potentially need to prove that every recipient solicited the mailing. Or will this feed into new crimes being defined in Russia and elsewhere that all email on LGBTQIA.+ event criminal propaganda. Remember we can't even prove that every email sent on this list is solicited. And will the general reference bulk electronic communication extend this to beyond just the consideration of email? What about SMS and other tools used in events such as the Arab spring - what can potentially be deemed illegal based on this article. remains to be sen, but it is a dangerous open door on repression of communications. I also have a problem with the preeminent place they have created for ITU-T protocols. True they did not go as far as initially proposed and state that only UTU-T protocols could be used, but they went far enough making the use of ITU-T recommendations something that must be taken into account. Specifically: "taking due account of the relevant ITU-T Recommendations." A step too far in my estimation especially if you take into account the recommendations that came out of WTSA, including the approval of DPI standards. We have to take WTSA and WCIT, and in fact the upcoming WTPF as a progression of events and look at the effects with a comppound perspective. Some will argue that these are not binding on member States, and that is true. My issues, and the issue of many governments, is not that all states will be bound by these (except [perhaps those that require collective endeavor), but that many States will use these as their legal bulwark for repressive acts that threaten the freedom of the Internet. I am also concerned with its scope, While Authorized Operating Agencies (AOA), a new term that is as of yet untested, and is not as broad as Operating Agency (OA) that would have allowed regulation of every infrastructure company, it is not as restricted as the Recognized Operating Agency (ROA). Some have argued that AOA is as restricted as ROA, yet logic demands the question that if AOA is the same as ROA, why did it need to be changed. There is extra scope in AOA which remains to be discovered in practice. Beyond that, while not binding on governments, "RESOLUTION PLEN/3 (DUBAI, 2012) To foster an enabling environment for the greater growth of the Internet " Gives the iTU marching orders on Internet governance. While the ITRs themselves did not mention the Internet, this resolution did, in a big way. With a statements like: " instructs the Secretary-General 1 to continue to take the necessary steps for ITU to play an active and constructive role in the development of broadband and the multistakeholder model of the Internet as expressed in § 35 of the Tunis Agenda; " We can expect to see a much stronger presence of the ITU everywhere. I even would bet that Fadí will be seeing a lot more of his good friend Hamadoun. And I expect the encroachment of the ITU on the IGF and all things Internet governance to continue unabated. ICANN may be safe for the moment, but the rest of the Internet ecosystem is certainly not. So not this wasn't the horror we expected. The governments did a fine job of negotiating this back, and I think without the attached resolution might have taken their chances on the other stuff, no matter how nervous it makes me and some of them. But the resolution that gives the ITU extra responsibilities for governance of the Internet broke the sense of an acceptable agreement. There is a lot of good stuff in this treaty for roaming, for emergency services, for landlocked countries and for accessibility, and I expect that these will be adhered to de-facto by most of the non-signatories (though some like Chile may not adhere to new regulation on landlocked countries and the US may not adhere to the new rules on roaming). And I expect (purely a personal prediction) that if something can be done about the Internet resolution in the Plenipot in 2014, more countries will sign on to the treaty before 2015 when if goes into effect. the story is not over by a long shot, just this episode. avri From wongc at hrw.org Wed Dec 19 15:15:17 2012 From: wongc at hrw.org (Cynthia Wong) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 20:15:17 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] FW: NEWS RELEASE - Civil society participation in Internet debate is key, says UN expert In-Reply-To: <5DFABBB703CBE645B5BD7031DE4717EB60213642@exmbx7.local.hrw.org> References: <5DFABBB703CBE645B5BD7031DE4717EB60213642@exmbx7.local.hrw.org> Message-ID: FYI, from Frank la Rue: From: Press Info [mailto:press-info at ohchr.org] Sent: 19 December 2012 16:39 To: OHCHR-Geneva at ohchr.org; OHCHR-New York Office; Field Presences; Special Procedures Mandate Holders Subject: NEWS RELEASE - Civil society participation in Internet debate is key, says UN expert [cid:_1_07FCC5E807FCC37C0055EFBFC1257AD9] Civil society participation in Internet debate is key, says UN expert GENEVA (19 December 2012) - “Civil society participation is essential to ensure legitimacy of global discussions on the future of internet. The only consensus reached so far on this matter, is that the future of the internet has to be determined in a multi-stakeholder dialogue, where no positions can be imposed unilaterally,” commented the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, after the conclusion of the World Conference on International Telecommunications, last week in Dubai. The aim of the conference was to update the International Telecommunications Regulations, governed by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the UN body responsible for global communication technologies. For the Special Rapporteur, any future discussions on internet governance by the World Conference on International Telecommunications must ensure the meaningful participation of multiple stakeholders, including representatives of other international organizations, human rights entities, private sector representatives, including internet providers and NGOs. “The internet vastly expands the capacity of individuals to enjoy their right to freedom expression, as well as other rights. Discussion on any form of regulation or governance of this crucial tool must be firmly grounded in human rights standards,” continued Mr. La Rue. For the Special Rapporteur ensuring freedom of expression and access to information on the internet is central for the promotion and protection of human rights, and the strengthening of democracy across the globe today. “Over the last two decades the internet has greatly contributed to expanding access to information on serious human rights violations, giving voice to millions who would be silent and invisible without the access to this powerful tool.” “Global attention is required to ensure that no international or national regulations on the internet pave the way for hampering freedom of opinion and expression through the internet,” warned the Rapporteur. “Unfortunately, legitimate expression on the internet is already criminalized in various countries today, as discussed in my 2011 reports* on this matter. International efforts must reverse this trend, not reinforce it.” (*) For more information check the 2011 Report of the Special Rapporteur on key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G11/132/01/PDF/G1113201.pdf?OpenElement and the 2011 Report of the Special Rapporteur to the General Assembly on the right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Opinion/A.66.290.pdf ENDS Frank La Rue was appointed as Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in August 2008 by the United Nations Human Rights Council. As Special Rapporteur, he is independent from any Government or organization and serves in his individual capacity. Learn more, log on to: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/opinion/index.htm For more information and media requests please contact: In Geneva: Marcelo Daher (+41 22 917 9431 / mdaher at ohchr.org) or write to freedex at ohchr.org For media inquiries related to other UN independent experts: Cécile Pouilly, UN Human Rights – Media Unit (+ 41 22 917 93 10 / cpouilly at ohchr.org) UN Human Rights, follow us on social media: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/unitednationshumanrights Twitter: http://twitter.com/UNrightswire Google+ gplus.to/unitednationshumanrights YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/UNOHCHR Storify: http://storify.com/UNrightswire Check the Universal Human Rights Index: http://uhri.ohchr.org/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 5854 bytes Desc: ATT00001.gif URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Thu Dec 20 17:08:35 2012 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:08:35 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT Message-ID: Dear all, As a follow up to the civil society letter to WCIT ( https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM) 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. ** ** -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org S. deborah.l.brown T. deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 11:24:59 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:24:59 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] RE: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> Thanks Milton and I couldn't agree more. If governments, companies and (g at d preserve us) certain elements of civil society want to pursue (project) a libertarian political agenda globally that of course, is their g at d given right… But as you are very clear, let's drop the hypocrasy and call a bit a bit and stop confusing a bunch of well intentioned people that this is some sort of holy crusade to "save the Internet". I would be the first one to argue for a transparent, net neutral, open access, free speech Internet but I'm also for an inclusive Internet in a decent socially equitable environment with proper schools, and healthcare, and an adequate physical and social infrastructure for all, not just for the rich (or those in rich countries) and that means that companies, like everyone else has to pay their fair share. Greed is greed and the best way to keep from paying taxes as you have pointed out, is to make sure that there are no laws/regulations in place to require you to pay taxes. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 6:36 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Dominique Lacroix' Subject: RE: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? Suresh, I think the debates are related. Now it is not just ETNO and the old telecom incumbents who want to grab a share of the new wealth being generated by over the top internet services, it's national governments as well. So what is new here? Governments want to tax whatever they can for their own (political) self-interest, while businesses (and most citizens) want to reduce their taxes as much as possible. What's interesting is how un-selfconsciously the Dominiques and Gursteins of the world assume that more taxation = always better for society. Not a shred of critical perspective on the governments' demands for more revenue. And as usual, Gurstein approaches the debate by attaching labels ("Reaganomics") rather than mounting a serious argument. Do governments have some kind of right to these revenues? If so, what is the basis? If so, what is a reasonable rate of taxation? How are these revenues used? How do they benefit the internet users who generated them? Might be good for you all to contemplate the answers to some of those questions. The implication of your statement is that more taxation is always better. You don’t have to be a supply-side economist to understand that taxation can reach a point of diminishing returns and that it can destroy economic activity as well as help sustain social services. Please, a more intelligent perspective on this… Some Internet companies can escape taxes because their activities aren't linked to territories. Others are linked to countries and pay full taxes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Dec 21 04:48:25 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:18:25 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] A false consensus is broken Message-ID: <50D43069.6000003@itforchange.net> Hi All My analysis of WCIT outcome, as an op-ed for 'The Hindu'..... parminder http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/a-false-consensus-is-broken/article4222688.ece Return to frontpage Opinion » Lead December 21, 2012 A false consensus is broken Parminder Jeet Singh Share · Comment · print · T+ */The U.S. rejection of new global telecom regulations should not overshadow the need for an Internet-powered social agenda for the world/* The United States’s decision to walk out of the International Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai along with some of its allies last week could represent a turning point in global Internet governance. These countries refused to sign the new International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) that contain some basic principles governing the technical architecture of the global communication system. They said they could not agree to the ITRs, and the ITU’s remit, extending to the Internet. However, the new ITRs contain no reference to the Internet, all such language having been assiduously weeded out over the two weeks of intense negotiations. Also, the ITU has been undertaking Internet-related activities for more than a decade, with the U.S. participating in them. In a full-blown Internet age, the new ITRs make no reference to naming and addressing the system of the Internet or its routing structures, make no effort to make ITU ‘the’ Internet standards making body, and make a clear statement that ‘content is not included’ in their remit. This could, in fact, have been taken to be a significant acknowledgement of the existing naming and addressing regime (ICANN) and Internet standards making processes (IETF or Internet Engineering Task Force). However, the U.S. remained adamant. *Diplomatic blunder * Both the U.S. and the ITU will take a hit from this meltdown of what was in any case a make-believe consensus. The U.S. seems to have said, well, the kid gloves are off and we are done with making polite noises about ITU. The old order is dead and the new has taken over. What if it is U.S.-centric; most people the U.S. likes to talk to seem to be happy with it. The walkout by the U.S. and its allies can also considerably damage the ITU. It has practically been told by these countries that they see no role for the ITU in an age when all communication systems will soon be Internet-protocol based. This suddenly leaves developing countries without any existing global forum to turn to for an appropriate role in global governance of the Internet. It is expected that this will lead to a hardening of their position on the existing U.S.-centric global Internet governance regime, something most of them have been lazily going along with. With the walkout on the ITRs, the U.S.’s diplomatic ability to defend the substantial control it has over the existing privatised Internet governance regime will go down considerably. It is unclear whether the U.S. had come expecting a deadlock but hoping it would happen in such a way that the blame could be pinned on authoritarian countries with an extreme agenda of statist control over the Internet. These countries did bring in highly problematic drafts which were all rejected or withdrawn. By the end of two weeks of negotiations, as noted by Eric Pfanner in the /New York Times/, “the United States got most of what it wanted, but then it refused to sign the document and left in a huff.” It may turn out to be a diplomatic blunder. Despite valiant statements from the U.S. about having defiantly stood for freedom of expression, the blame for the failure of the treaty process, and the consequent breakdown of the ‘false consensus’ on global Internet governance, will have to be borne by the U.S. *Sequence of events* The real reasons for this sudden shattering of the uneasy calm over ‘who governs the global Internet’ lie in the larger, long-standing structural issues, the kind which often come to a head when a definitive text has to be signed, as happened at the WCIT. With less than two days to go before the end of the conference, the more active developing country actors began to get restive. The draft had gone bare-bone with hardly anything new in it compared to the existing ITRs. They felt that they had made all the concessions; included text that ‘content is not covered,’ agreed to human rights language in the preamble, and had withdrawn all proposals with explicit mention of the Internet, and also the more radical ones that would have taken the ITU into ICANN and IETF territory. As a delegate said in exasperation, “It is unacceptable that one party to the conference gets everything they want and everybody else must make concessions, and after having made many concessions we are then asked to suppress the language which was agreed to.” Rather than seeking to give the ITU a new role with regard to the Internet, many countries legitimately feared that if the ITRs contained nothing at all about the Internet, this would be taken as the basis for pulling the ITU back from even its existing Internet-related activities. All along, the refrain from the U.S. side had been that it is fine for the ITU to keep doing what it already does with respect to the Internet, but it would not accept any mention of the Internet in a binding treaty like the ITRs. In this background, it was a rather legitimate compromise that the Internet be kept out of the ITRs but be mentioned in an appended resolution which does not have the force of a treaty. The resolution was merely a set of instructions to member states and the ITU’s Secretary General for a continuation of existing Internet-related activities and role by the ITU. This resolution mostly repeated agreed language from the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). It was adopted by a show of hands past midnight of December 12, the second-last day of substantive negotiations. Its purpose seemed to be to make clear that the absence of the Internet from the ITRs should not be seen as taking away the kind of role that the ITU already plays in the Internet area, and/or as compromising the WSIS mandate in this regard. But the U.S. and its allies were very unhappy with the resolution, and the first indication of an impending breakdown emerged. *Right of access* The real flash point, however, came on December 13, on a proposal to include text in the preamble seeking the “right of access of Member States to international telecommunication services”. It is difficult to see what a global telecommunication treaty would mean without such a basic high-level principle. The U.S. took it to be aimed at the unilateral trade sanctions that it applies against some countries. Since this text had been hotly debated many times during the preceding days, and was in and out of the draft, Iran sought a vote on it. A gentleman’s agreement at the meeting had indeed been to not go for a vote and seek consensus. But an equally important point to note is that the U.S. was standing against a simple statement asserting a collective right of people. As the proposal to insert this text in the preamble was carried 77 votes to 33, the U.S. declared it would not sign the treaty. The U.S. was immediately followed by the U.K., and the process broke down. The U.S. does claim in its post-WCIT statements that, apart from the above two reasons, it was the inclusion of some language on security of networks and spam that made it walk out. However, this language does not seek anything that could be taken as getting into content regulation, which the U.S. says it is afraid of, especially if read along with the clear text in the preamble that excludes content regulation. The WSIS had associated security and spam issues with the ITU and the ITU already works in these areas. Even if somewhat contingent, the point of actual breakdown makes a telling statement. The U.S. will have to explain why it walked out on what was a simple assertion of the right of all countries to access global telecommunication services. If it cannot agree to even such a basic statement of principle, it has lost all legitimacy for overlordship of the global Internet, which it claims as its ‘historic role.’ Its legitimacy will now be more easily and openly questioned by other countries. The fallout from Dubai may also significantly compromise the ITU’s role in the foreseeable future. The appended ‘Internet resolution,’ which was one of the main reasons for the walkout, contains many areas that the ITU is working on substantially at present. A very important ITU meeting — the World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum — to be held in May 2013 is mostly about the Internet. It remains to be seen how the U.S. and its allies will interact with the ITU from now on, especially regarding the latter’s Internet related activities. *Positive agenda* The real problem with the WCIT was that there was no real positive agenda on the table, which is surprising given that we are on the cusp of an ICT triggered social revolution. It finally became just a battle between two sides, both with a largely negative agenda. One side wanted to prevent the U.S. from making a historical point that the Internet is to remain an entirely unregulated space — whereby its new global domination strategy leveraging its ‘control’ over the Internet remains unchecked. The other side was trying to prevent China, Russia /et al/ from changing the basic nature of the global Internet into a tightly state-controlled space. There was no constituency oriented to any positive agenda in the global public interest. The fact that the clash ended the way it did was perhaps expected. It can be taken as an opportunity for progressive actors — from among civil society and many countries from both the South and the North — to begin shaping a positive agenda for the global communications realm. /(Parminder Jeet Singh is Executive Director, IT for Change)/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14000 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 12:24:35 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 09:24:35 -0800 Subject: FW: [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12f801cddfa0$0ced4490$26c7cdb0$@gmail.com> McTim, you were asking Civil Society statement on the new ITRs and the future of multi-stakeholder engagement December 21, 2012 Civil society is disappointed [MG>] did I go to heaven and come back to find that someone made you folks king/queen of CS? that the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) could not come to consensus in revising the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs). [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 We understand, however, the serious concerns that a number of governments have expressed with regard to the potential impact of the new regulations. [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 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. [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 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. [MG>] yes, but CS has other principles as well, why not mention some of those and hold governments accountable against those 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. [MG>] yes, see above 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. [MG>] yes, see above 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. [MG>] yes, see above 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. [MG>] surely we want something more than simply an "inclusive multi-stakeholder engagement"--what about "net neutrality", inclusive access and use etc.etc 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. [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. M -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org S. deborah.l.brown T. deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Fri Dec 21 13:01:11 2012 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:01:11 -0500 Subject: FW: [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: <12f801cddfa0$0ced4490$26c7cdb0$@gmail.com> References: <12f801cddfa0$0ced4490$26c7cdb0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Michael, Thank you for raising these issues. I think there are a few misunderstandings here that I hope I can clarify. 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. 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. 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. 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: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM ) 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. I regret any miscommunications/misunderstandings here. Thank you again for your feedback and I look forward to continuing this discussion. Best regards, Deborah On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:24 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > *McTim, you were asking…***** > > *Civil Society statement on the new ITRs and the future of > multi-stakeholder engagement***** > > December 21, 2012**** > > Civil society is disappointed**** > > *[MG>] did I go to heaven and come back to find that someone made you > folks king/queen of CS?* > > that the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) could > not come to consensus in revising the International Telecommunications > Regulations (ITRs). **** > > *[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* > > We understand, however, the serious concerns that a number of governments > have expressed with regard to the potential impact of the new regulations. > **** > > *[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…***** > > 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.**** > > *[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…***** > > 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.**** > > *[MG>] yes, but CS has other principles as well, why not mention some of > those and hold governments accountable against those***** > > 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.**** > > *[MG>] yes, see above***** > > 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.**** > > *[MG>] yes, see above***** > > 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.**** > > *[MG>] yes, see above***** > > 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. **** > > *[MG>] surely we want something more than simply an > "inclusive…multi-stakeholder engagement"--what about "net neutrality", > inclusive access and use etc.etc* > > 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.**** > > *[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.* > > *M***** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > -- **** > > Deborah Brown**** > > Policy Analyst**** > > Access | AccessNow.org**** > > E. deborah at accessnow.org**** > > S. deborah.l.brown**** > > T. deblebrown**** > > PGP 0x5EB4727D**** > > ** ** > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org S. deborah.l.brown T. deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 13:48:06 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:48:06 -0800 Subject: FW: [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: References: <12f801cddfa0$0ced4490$26c7cdb0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <133901cddfab$b7ba3d50$272eb7f0$@gmail.com> Thanks for your comments Deborah and I'll reply to them inline From: Deborah Brown [mailto:deborah at accessnow.org] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 10:01 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: FW: [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT Dear Michael, Thank you for raising these issues. I think there are a few misunderstandings here that I hope I can clarify. [MG>] okay 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. [MG>] I think that would be preferable although I guess I would like to see how it was phrased I would like to think that there was a normative agreement within CS and that to some degree that this was articulated in the statement from BestBits but that statement was I think carefully crafted so as to not attempt to be definitive on the part of CS nor should it have been, nor should this one be so presented I'ld have to look at the other statements from various CS folks in the context of Dubai but given the peculiarity of the arrangements governing CS participation (including acting as representatives/spokespersons for certain "national interests"/delegations and certain funding arrangements for attendance) at the WCIT one can hardly see anything that was said/articulated from there as being representative of anything much beyond the opinions of a particular sub-set of people who managed by some means or other to make it to Dubai. 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. [MG>] I'll look forward to seeing this 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. [MG>] okay but see my comments above concerning the issue of statements coming out of CS Dubai 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: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ9 3YTbqLSM [MG>] of course I have no idea of this, but one of my observations/concerns about CS in Dubai is that nowhere/no one seemed to be raising the issues that are the usual fare of CS i.e. inclusion, net neutrality, human rights, the public interest--which BTW and perhaps not incidentally were issues that were being raised by many of those countries who did sign the WCIT agreement That the folks who got in to see M. Toure said something or other is neither here nor there If I (and I would expect many others) had been there I/we would most certainly have raised some additional issues. I think the issues articulated are dramatically skewed to those issues primarily of interest to the "North" and even within that to a sub-set of CS in the North, and thus I think in no senses should represent or be presented as representing CS position overall. 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. [MG>] Okay, but again I have significant concerns that this statement is narrowing the focus of CS and turning away from the potential leadership position which (if only by default) I think was accorded to CS as an outcome of Dubai. I think an explanation has to be given as to why even a component of CS should be univocally accepting the framework of criticism that was articulated by certain national and corporate interests (and by implication rejecting those normal CS positions e.g. digital inclusion, human rights, etc. being articulated by at least certain of the "signers"); and further I would be very interested in the reasons behind the failure of this statement to present a position for the positive values and vision for an Internet in the public interest that CS presumably should be articulating. I regret any miscommunications/misunderstandings here. Thank you again for your feedback and I look forward to continuing this discussion. [MG>] Best, Mike Best regards, Deborah On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:24 PM, michael gurstein wrote: McTim, you were asking Civil Society statement on the new ITRs and the future of multi-stakeholder engagement December 21, 2012 Civil society is disappointed [MG>] did I go to heaven and come back to find that someone made you folks king/queen of CS? that the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) could not come to consensus in revising the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs). [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 We understand, however, the serious concerns that a number of governments have expressed with regard to the potential impact of the new regulations. [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 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. [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 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. [MG>] yes, but CS has other principles as well, why not mention some of those and hold governments accountable against those 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. [MG>] yes, see above 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. [MG>] yes, see above 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. [MG>] yes, see above 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. [MG>] surely we want something more than simply an "inclusive multi-stakeholder engagement"--what about "net neutrality", inclusive access and use etc.etc 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. [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. M -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org S. deborah.l.brown T. deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org S. deborah.l.brown T. deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 22 08:28:19 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 18:58:19 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: <113f01cddf4d$f9bb9b30$ed32d190$@gmail.com> References: <113f01cddf4d$f9bb9b30$ed32d190$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50D5B573.9010903@itforchange.net> Hi Deborah 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. 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.... "More generally we call upon the ITU to promote principles of net neutrality, open standards, affordable access and universal service, and effective competition. " 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" When the proposed statement says "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." 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Also, agreeing with Micheal, the proposed statement cannot use the term 'civil society in a generic manner, as if it represents 'the' civil society. Willing to talk further on the above issues. Thanks and best regards, parminder *From:* bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Deborah Brown *Sent:* Thursday, December 20, 2012 2:09 PM *To:* wcit12 at cdt.org; ; AfriCS-IG *Subject:* [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT Dear all, As a follow up to the civil society letter to WCIT (https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM) 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. -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org S. deborah.l.brown T. deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vikszabados at gmail.com Sat Dec 22 16:10:08 2012 From: vikszabados at gmail.com (Viktor Szabados) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:10:08 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Internet blocking for Christmas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Friends, I just wrote an article as we have unfortunately for X-mas the Internet blocking law (Criminal Code) in Hungary. Internet blocking for Christmas or is Internet blocking really the most efficient protection? (article in Hungarian) http://elnoksegtudositoi.eu/rovatok/internet/internet-blokkolast-karacsonyra/ http://elnoksegtudositoi.eu/ I am keen in organising a forum in Jan or Feb with partners to discuss such issues in Hungary. I hope you have nice holidays ahead! thanks,your viktor -- tag - Új Média Fiatal Szakértői Csoport - Európai Ifjúsági Fórum elnök - Ifjúsági Strukturált Párbeszéd Nemzeti Munkacsoport www.facebook.com/szoljbele alapító, főszerkesztő - Elnökség Tudósítói www.elnoksegtudositoi.eu alapító - Elnökség Emberei www.elnoksegemberei.eu egykori magyar EU-elnökségi összekötő - Európai Ifjúsági Fórum www.youthforum.org -- SZABADOS Viktor vikszabados at gmail.com +36 30 8535388 Budapest, HU -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Sat Dec 22 22:20:02 2012 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:20:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: <50D5B573.9010903@itforchange.net> References: <113f01cddf4d$f9bb9b30$ed32d190$@gmail.com> <50D5B573.9010903@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, Thank you very much for this detailed response. As I wrote to Michael, and I would like to reiterate here, this statement was neither meant to speak on behalf of "civil society" as a whole, nor the BestBits group in full. I see how it might be read this way, and I have proposed to go back to the group that drafted it with edits that would clarify exactly who this statement is on behalf of. I think it might also help here to give a bit more information on the origin and intended purpose of this statement. As you are aware, a number of civil society representatives in Dubai met with SG Touré during WCIT and had presented him with concerns regarding limitations civil society participation (both in person and remotely). They presented him with a letter, which around 70 civil society orgs/individuals, including IT for Change, signed onto. After the meeting, there was a general sense that it was of strategic importance to follow up with the ITU post-WCIT to hold the SG to the commitments that he made. That is the primary purpose of the letter. Most of your criticism seems focused on the first two paragraphs of the statement, which relate to the content of the ITRs and BestBits, not the following five paragraphs, which deal with civil society participation. Is that correct? In the immediate post-WCIT environment, it seemed necessary to take into account the new treaty in this statement. Referring to the BestBits statement in reacting to the new ITRs seemed like the natural and right thing to do, but it was most certainly not meant to speak on behalf of the BestBits group. There are of course a variety of different views on WCIT, so it is understandable that there may be disagreement among BestBits signatories on how the new treaty measures against the BestBits statement. But as you suggest, initiating that conversation within the BestBits group may be valuable. Since as you note, the BestBits statement is the common ownership of those who signed it, and as a signatory you object to the use of selective quotations, I will go back to the group of signatories of this post-WCIT statement with two options: one essentially removing the first two paragraphs, and mentions of BestBits so that it is a statement on civil society participation only; and the second with the current text with the minor, but critical change of adding "the undersigned members of" before any mention of civil society. If everyone who has signed the current version is equally satisfied with the new version (first option) then we can go with the narrower statement. I hope you appreciate that with around 20 signatories, I'm not in a position to make substantive edits to the text unilaterally. But I am happy to go back to the signatories and offer an option that would seem to satisfy your criticism. I also hope that the intention behind this statement is more clear now. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this approach and to continuing the discussion. Kind regards, Deborah On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:28 AM, parminder wrote: > Hi Deborah > > 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. > > 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.... > > "More generally we call upon the ITU to promote principles of net > neutrality, open standards, affordable access and universal service, and > effective competition. " > > 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" > > When the proposed statement says > > "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." > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > Also, agreeing with Micheal, the proposed statement cannot use the term > 'civil society in a generic manner, as if it represents 'the' civil > society. > > Willing to talk further on the above issues. > > Thanks and best regards, parminder > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] > *On Behalf Of *Deborah Brown > > *Sent:* Thursday, December 20, 2012 2:09 PM > *To:* wcit12 at cdt.org; ; > AfriCS-IG > *Subject:* [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement > post-WCIT**** > > ** ** > > Dear all, **** > > ** ** > > As a follow up to the civil society letter to WCIT ( > https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM) > 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.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > -- **** > > Deborah Brown**** > > Policy Analyst**** > > Access | AccessNow.org**** > > E. deborah at accessnow.org**** > > S. deborah.l.brown**** > > T. deblebrown**** > > PGP 0x5EB4727D**** > > ** ** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org S. deborah.l.brown T. deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 22 23:06:50 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 09:36:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: References: <113f01cddf4d$f9bb9b30$ed32d190$@gmail.com> <50D5B573.9010903@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50D6835A.1070308@itforchange.net> Dear Deborah, Thanks for your response and the very genuine attempts at accommodating my concerns. Any set of civil society actors are of course welcome to make any statement on WCIT on their own behalf, and also seek wider endorsements for it. Further comments in-line. On Sunday 23 December 2012 08:50 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > Thank you very much for this detailed response. As I wrote to Michael, > and I would like to reiterate here, this statement was neither meant > to speak on behalf of "civil society" as a whole, nor the BestBits > group in full. I see how it might be read this way, and I have > proposed to go back to the group that drafted it with edits that would > clarify exactly who this statement is on behalf of. Thanks. > > I think it might also help here to give a bit more information on the > origin and intended purpose of this statement. As you are aware, a > number of civil society representatives in Dubai met with SG Touré > during WCIT and had presented him with concerns regarding limitations > civil society participation (both in person and remotely). They > presented him with a letter > , > which around 70 civil society orgs/individuals, including IT for > Change, signed onto. Yes, IT for Change stands with that statement, and is happy to sign on any follow-on statement on procedural issues. > After the meeting, there was a general sense that it was of strategic > importance to follow up with the ITU post-WCIT to hold the SG to the > commitments that he made. That is the primary purpose of the letter. > Most of your criticism seems focused on the first two paragraphs of > the statement, which relate to the content of the ITRs and BestBits, > not the following five paragraphs, which deal with civil society > participation. Is that correct? You are right. My concern is only about para 1 (second line), para 2 and para 3. I agree with the rest of the statement. > > In the immediate post-WCIT environment, it seemed necessary to take > into account the new treaty in this statement. I do understand that. > Referring to the BestBits statement in reacting to the new ITRs seemed > like the natural and right thing to do, but it was most certainly not > meant to speak on behalf of the BestBits group. There are of course a > variety of different views on WCIT, so it is understandable that there > may be disagreement among BestBits signatories on how the new treaty > measures against the BestBits statement. But as you suggest, > initiating that conversation within the BestBits group may be valuable. I propose that Jeremy and Andrew attempt that exercise, whether or not it culminates into an agreement on a single text. > > Since as you note, the BestBits statement is the common ownership of > those who signed it, and as a signatory you object to the use of > selective quotations, I will go back to the group of signatories of > this post-WCIT statement with two options: one essentially removing > the first two paragraphs, and mentions of BestBits so that it is a > statement on civil society participation only; and the second with the > current text with the minor, but critical change of adding "the > undersigned members of" before any mention of civil society. If > everyone who has signed the current version is equally satisfied with > the new version (first option) then we can go with the narrower > statement. Thanks. Although, even a narrower statement (without para 1,2 and 3) has be claimed only to be on the behalf of those who sign it, as all civil society statements should be. IT for Change would sign that statement, and it is possible that BestBits as a group may agree to do so too. > > I hope you appreciate that with around 20 signatories, I'm not in a > position to make substantive edits to the text unilaterally. Of course. Through you I address all the present signatories to the inappropriateness-es that I mentioned in my last email, and this. I am sure that all will understand the concerns that I have raised. To repeat, of course any set of actors are welcome to frame any statement whatsoever on their own behalf, which however should not appear to have umbilical linkages with any statement of another group that might or might not be in agreement with the new statement. Best regards parminder > But I am happy to go back to the signatories and offer an option that > would seem to satisfy your criticism. I also hope that the intention > behind this statement is more clear now. I look forward to hearing > your thoughts on this approach and to continuing the discussion. > > Kind regards, > Deborah > > > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:28 AM, parminder > wrote: > > Hi Deborah > > 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. > > 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.... > > "More generally we call upon the ITU to promote principles of net > neutrality, open standards, affordable access and universal > service, and effective competition. " > > 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" > > When the proposed statement says > > "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." > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > Also, agreeing with Micheal, the proposed statement cannot use the > term 'civil society in a generic manner, as if it represents 'the' > civil society. > > Willing to talk further on the above issues. > > Thanks and best regards, parminder > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of > *Deborah Brown > > *Sent:* Thursday, December 20, 2012 2:09 PM > *To:* wcit12 at cdt.org ; > > ; AfriCS-IG > *Subject:* [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society > statement post-WCIT > > Dear all, > > As a follow up to the civil society letter to WCIT > (https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM) > 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. > > -- > > Deborah Brown > > Policy Analyst > > Access | AccessNow.org > > E. deborah at accessnow.org > > S. deborah.l.brown > > T. deblebrown > > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > S. deborah.l.brown > T. deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Dec 23 05:11:28 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:11:28 +0800 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: <50D6835A.1070308@itforchange.net> References: <113f01cddf4d$f9bb9b30$ed32d190$@gmail.com> <50D5B573.9010903@itforchange.net> <50D6835A.1070308@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6D4F39FA-80F3-4E4E-A5CE-402C259D6156@ciroap.org> On 23/12/2012, at 12:06 PM, parminder wrote: >> Referring to the BestBits statement in reacting to the new ITRs seemed like the natural and right thing to do, but it was most certainly not meant to speak on behalf of the BestBits group. There are of course a variety of different views on WCIT, so it is understandable that there may be disagreement among BestBits signatories on how the new treaty measures against the BestBits statement. But as you suggest, initiating that conversation within the BestBits group may be valuable. > > I propose that Jeremy and Andrew attempt that exercise, whether or not it culminates into an agreement on a single text. First dealing with whether there should be another statement, many of you (including IT for Change) have already signed on to a post-WCIT statement developed at a workshop ‘Governing the Internet’ held in Rio last month. For lack of a decent alternative place for it on our current website, when Andrew asked me to add the statement to the Best BIts site I just stuck it on the front page underneath our main pre-WCIT Best Bits statement (though since it's not an output of our Best Bits meeting maybe I should move it to the "links" section at the bottom?). There is some overlap between this and the statement developed in Dubai, though the latter is longer and pushes more strongly for the reform of the ITU. There's no reason why I couldn't link to that too. But if we want to highlight only one of them, it should be one that has the support of the whole group if possible. Do we want to collectively support one or the other? Or just link to them both? Whilst I have supported both statements, I do have reservations about how the longer one presupposes that we want the ITU to remain in this space as an institution that we would have a strong interest in more deeply engaging with. The alternative, and what Andrew and I (and others) had proposed that the Best Bits group should move onto in the new year, would be trying to map out a future for Internet governance that doesn't revolve around the ITU, and indeed would probably to some extent sideline the ITU, as WGIG did with its four recommendations in 2005. This would be our input into the new CSTD working group on Enhanced Cooperation. We (at least those who can make it) will have the opportunity for a face-to-face on this at a workshop on 25 February in Paris that has been reserved already. Personally I think this is a better way forward than getting hung up on the ITU and thereby investing it with more importance than it deserves. So whilst you have proposed that Andrew and I attempt to assess how the new treaty measures against the (first) Best Bits statement, I would also note that this kind of analysis is something that the Internet Governance Caucus is planning to do, and so it might be more efficient for those who want to do an in-depth analysis of the ITRs to join that effort, rather than duplicating it. There is a little working group mailing list for that (http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/wcit), which you can join. Trying to do both as Best Bits is possible, but I would favour a division of labour between us and the IGC whereby their working group can analyse the ITRs, and we can focus on "if not the ITU, then what". Anyway, these are just my thoughts and I welcome alternative views. Meanwhile Andrew and I are planning to talk early in the new year and come back with some suggestions about the way forward. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Dec 23 06:42:05 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:12:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: <6D4F39FA-80F3-4E4E-A5CE-402C259D6156@ciroap.org> References: <113f01cddf4d$f9bb9b30$ed32d190$@gmail.com> <50D5B573.9010903@itforchange.net> <50D6835A.1070308@itforchange.net> <6D4F39FA-80F3-4E4E-A5CE-402C259D6156@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <50D6EE0D.3010404@itforchange.net> Jeremy/ Andrew I am fine with your vision and strategy on how to go ahead. regards, parminder On Sunday 23 December 2012 03:41 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 23/12/2012, at 12:06 PM, parminder > wrote: > >>> Referring to the BestBits statement in reacting to the new ITRs >>> seemed like the natural and right thing to do, but it was most >>> certainly not meant to speak on behalf of the BestBits group. There >>> are of course a variety of different views on WCIT, so it is >>> understandable that there may be disagreement among BestBits >>> signatories on how the new treaty measures against the BestBits >>> statement. But as you suggest, initiating that conversation within >>> the BestBits group may be valuable. >> >> I propose that Jeremy and Andrew attempt that exercise, whether or >> not it culminates into an agreement on a single text. > > First dealing with whether there should be another statement, many of > you (including IT for Change) have already signed on to a post-WCIT > statement developed at a workshop ‘Governing the Internet’ held in Rio > last month. For lack of a decent alternative place for it on our > current website, when Andrew asked me to add the statement to the Best > BIts site I just stuck it on the front page underneath our main > pre-WCIT Best Bits statement (though since it's not an output of our > Best Bits meeting maybe I should move it to the "links" section at the > bottom?). > > There is some overlap between this and the statement developed in > Dubai, though the latter is longer and pushes more strongly for the > reform of the ITU. There's no reason why I couldn't link to that too. > But if we want to highlight only one of them, it should be one that > has the support of the whole group if possible. Do we want to > collectively support one or the other? Or just link to them both? > Whilst I have supported both statements, I do have reservations about > how the longer one presupposes that we want the ITU to remain in this > space as an institution that we would have a strong interest in more > deeply engaging with. > > The alternative, and what Andrew and I (and others) had proposed that > the Best Bits group should move onto in the new year, would be trying > to map out a future for Internet governance that doesn't revolve > around the ITU, and indeed would probably to some extent sideline the > ITU, as WGIG did with its four recommendations in 2005. This would be > our input into the new CSTD working group on Enhanced Cooperation. We > (at least those who can make it) will have the opportunity for a > face-to-face on this at a workshop on 25 February in Paris that has > been reserved already. Personally I think this is a better way > forward than getting hung up on the ITU and thereby investing it with > more importance than it deserves. > > So whilst you have proposed that Andrew and I attempt to assess how > the new treaty measures against the (first) Best Bits statement, I > would also note that this kind of analysis is something that the > Internet Governance Caucus is planning to do, and so it might be more > efficient for those who want to do an in-depth analysis of the ITRs to > join that effort, rather than duplicating it. There is a little > working group mailing list for that > (http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/wcit), which you can join. Trying to > do both as Best Bits is possible, but I would favour a division of > labour between us and the IGC whereby their working group can analyse > the ITRs, and we can focus on "if not the ITU, then what". > > Anyway, these are just my thoughts and I welcome alternative views. > Meanwhile Andrew and I are planning to talk early in the new year and > come back with some suggestions about the way forward. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:* > http://consint.info/RightsMission > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Mon Dec 3 13:35:34 2012 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 18:35:34 +0000 Subject: [WCIT12] Re: [bestbits] Coordination during WCIT -- who's attending, who's reporting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50BCF0F6.4080602@cdt.org> Hello Dubai-ers Good news for those of you who are unaffiliated, the WCIT plenaries and committee 5 are open to the public. While restricted this does give you access to the main hall and plenty of opportunities to meet with all present. I had proposed to Lea that for those who are interested in a daily get together we could meet at the Cafe Nero at the main entrance to the WTC and opposite the IBIS at 0830 hours. The WCIT day starts at 0930 except Friday when it starts at 0900. Although those on dels may have other schedules. Hope to see you for coffee in the am. Matthew On 03/12/2012 16:46, Rohan A. Jayasekera wrote: > > Dear Lea > > My flying visit to Dubai. Arriving Saturday, leaving Monday. > > I took your advice and booked in at the Ibis WTC too. See you and > everyone else at the weekend. > > Mobile +44 795 682 7251 - twitter @rohanjay > > Best > > Rohan Jayasekera > > Index on Censorship > > *From:*wcit12 at cdt.org [mailto:wcit12 at cdt.org] *On Behalf Of *Lea Kaspar > *Sent:* 28 November 2012 21:10 > *To:* Rashmi Rangnath; Tim Hwang > *Cc:* William Drake; Deborah Brown; Ellery Biddle; wcit12 at cdt.org; > bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org; Harold Feld > *Subject:* [WCIT12] Re: [bestbits] Coordination during WCIT -- who's > attending, who's reporting > > Dear Ellery et al, > > For those of you I haven't had the pleasure of meeting yet, I'm Lea > Kaspar, working with Global Partners in London. > > We are facilitating participation of several groups -- I can post/send > the info as soon as I have the final details. Should this be done to > Matthew directly or are we using the etherpad? I will also be > attending the conference as an unaffiliated rep from Dec 4 to 10. > > Unfortunately, I'll be on a plane at the time of the call, but would > like to be kept in the loop about what other folk are doing/planning. > Are you planning to share the list here? > > Someone asked about accommodation -- I got a very affordable deal at > the hotel IBIS WTC, which seems to be practically adjacent to the > conference venue. > > Best, > > Lea > > *From: *Rashmi Rangnath > > *Date: *Wednesday, 28 November 2012 19:39 > *To: *Tim Hwang > > *Cc: *William Drake >, Deborah Brown >, Ellery Biddle >, "wcit12 at cdt.org " > >, "bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org > " >, Harold Feld > > > *Subject: *Re: [bestbits] Coordination during WCIT -- who's attending, > who's reporting > > Al: > > I and my colleague Harold Feld will be on the US delegation. > > I will be in Dubai from December 9th to the14th. > > Harold will be there from December 4th to the 12th. > > Rashmi > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Tim Hwang > wrote: > > To facilitate the on-the-ground list - I've thrown up a quick Etherpad > page here that people can fill in with information, if it's helpful: > https://foundation.etherpad.mozilla.org/itudubai > > Password is: ITU. > > -Tim > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:31 AM, William Drake > wrote: > > Hi > > FWIW I'm on a US del call right now and we just finished a long > briefing on security, thought I'd pass along a few points of local > interest while thinking it: > > * expect to be constantly electronically surveilled, including in hotels > * expect all electronic communications to be insecure, particularly > wireless > * keep any confidential info on you rather than in hotel > * USG has received no info on how the government might react to any > on-site activism of an unapproved nature, and if relevant urges US > citizens to let State or the consulate know they'll be in town. > > Make of these what you will.... > > Cheers, > > Bill > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 5:12 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > Thanks for coordinating this Ellery/Matthew. Picking up on Bill's last > point, it might be helpful to include people's dates in Dubai in the > list to facilitate coordination on the ground. I'm happy to lend a > hand in coordination as well. > > Best, > > Deborah > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:06 AM, William Drake > wrote: > > Hi > > Despite all the debate and mobilization, and ITU staff's refrain that > the meeting's fully multistakeholder since people can simply join > their national delegations, a cursory scan of the Announced List of > Participants as of 27 November shows 1764 participants, only a dozen > or so that seem obviously to be civil society---half on the US del, > the others scattered. Caveats apply: a) It may be that I just don't > recognize some individual and organizational names so this > guesstimate's a little low. b) In the UN context (WSIS/IGF/CSTD etc) > and OECD the technical community and CS are separated, so that's how I > count. I see more TC than CS names on the list, and while most of the > former work in the private sector or for administrative bodies like > the RIRs, there are some people who are by various standards in both. > c) The list is being periodically updated, so there may be some late > registrations. All that said, the number seems unlikely to be > terribly high. There may be more CS just coming and hanging around in > hopes of getting into any open to the public sessions (TBD Monday), or > otherwise populating the hallways, than there are on the delegations. > > It would be good to have a list with contact details and to establish > a communication channel e.g. Skype/mail (although delegation members > will have some constraints) if Matthew wants to coordinate. > > Best, > > Bill > > PS: The call time below may not be optimal for people on dels if > meetings run late (I'll be on a plane). > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 12:50 AM, Ellery Biddle wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > We have been talking here at CDT about various strategies for > communications and coordination during the WCIT. Lots to think about > here. Two items on this: > > First: Who is going to Dubai? We /really/ want to develop a list of > civil society people who will be in Dubai for the conference. We think > it would be helpful for those attending WCIT to know what other CS > people will be there, and to develop a rough plan for coordinating > once they are in Dubai. Matthew Shears, ISOC's former policy director > who has been working on ITU issues with CDT, will be in Dubai on CDT's > behalf. He will not be affiliated with any delegation. *If you or > someone from your organization is going to be in Dubai (with or > without delegate status), and you'd like to be in touch with other > civil society folks there, please send Matthew an email letting him > know. Matthew's email: mshears at cdt.org * > > Second: How can we coordinate on public communication about the WCIT? > We know that many CSOs will be blogging, tweeting, and responding to > press inquiries about the WCIT as it's happening. Given the relatively > closed nature of the event, we know that it may be difficult to get > the information we need in order to do this well, and that some > coordination between groups may help fill this gap. We also anticipate > that rumors and misinformation may become an issue, as different > delegates may hear different things, etc. In anticipation of this, we > want to propose a group call for next week. This will be open to any > civil society groups planning to report on WCIT, either from Dubai or > from outside the UAE. Given the size of these lists, I am setting an > arbitrary (though early, which generally seems best) time and date for > the call. Hope that plenty of folks can join -- we'll take and > circulate good notes for those who can't make it. > > *The call will take place on Tuesday, December 4 at 16:00 UTC / 11:00 > EST. *A list of international toll-free call-in numbers is attached. I > will circulate this again, along with a reminder, on Monday. > > As always, please feel encouraged to reply to the list with additional > ideas, questions, etc. > > Thanks all! > > Ellery > > Ellery Roberts Biddle > > Center for Democracy and Technology > > (415) 814-1711 > > > > -- > > Deborah Brown > > Policy Analyst > > Access | AccessNow.org > > E. deborah at accessnow.org > > S. deborah.l.brown > > T. deblebrown > > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > > -- > Rashmi Rangnath > > Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney > Public Knowledge > 1818 N Street NW > Suite 410 > Washington, D.C. 20036 > 202 861 0020 > rrangnath at publicknowledge.org > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Dec 23 06:44:50 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:14:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: <50D6EE0D.3010404@itforchange.net> References: <113f01cddf4d$f9bb9b30$ed32d190$@gmail.com> <50D5B573.9010903@itforchange.net> <50D6835A.1070308@itforchange.net> <6D4F39FA-80F3-4E4E-A5CE-402C259D6156@ciroap.org> <50D6EE0D.3010404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50D6EEB2.3080104@itforchange.net> On Sunday 23 December 2012 05:12 PM, parminder wrote: > > Jeremy/ Andrew > > I am fine with your vision and strategy on how to go ahead. Sorry, I forgot to add - not that IGC is going to come up with a WCIT analysis :), but I agree it may not be needed that much. > > regards, parminder > > > On Sunday 23 December 2012 03:41 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 23/12/2012, at 12:06 PM, parminder > > wrote: >> >>>> Referring to the BestBits statement in reacting to the new ITRs >>>> seemed like the natural and right thing to do, but it was most >>>> certainly not meant to speak on behalf of the BestBits group. There >>>> are of course a variety of different views on WCIT, so it is >>>> understandable that there may be disagreement among BestBits >>>> signatories on how the new treaty measures against the BestBits >>>> statement. But as you suggest, initiating that conversation within >>>> the BestBits group may be valuable. >>> >>> I propose that Jeremy and Andrew attempt that exercise, whether or >>> not it culminates into an agreement on a single text. >> >> First dealing with whether there should be another statement, many of >> you (including IT for Change) have already signed on to a post-WCIT >> statement developed at a workshop ‘Governing the Internet’ held in >> Rio last month. For lack of a decent alternative place for it on our >> current website, when Andrew asked me to add the statement to the >> Best BIts site I just stuck it on the front page underneath our main >> pre-WCIT Best Bits statement (though since it's not an output of our >> Best Bits meeting maybe I should move it to the "links" section at >> the bottom?). >> >> There is some overlap between this and the statement developed in >> Dubai, though the latter is longer and pushes more strongly for the >> reform of the ITU. There's no reason why I couldn't link to that >> too. But if we want to highlight only one of them, it should be one >> that has the support of the whole group if possible. Do we want to >> collectively support one or the other? Or just link to them both? >> Whilst I have supported both statements, I do have reservations >> about how the longer one presupposes that we want the ITU to remain >> in this space as an institution that we would have a strong interest >> in more deeply engaging with. >> >> The alternative, and what Andrew and I (and others) had proposed that >> the Best Bits group should move onto in the new year, would be trying >> to map out a future for Internet governance that doesn't revolve >> around the ITU, and indeed would probably to some extent sideline the >> ITU, as WGIG did with its four recommendations in 2005. This would >> be our input into the new CSTD working group on Enhanced Cooperation. >> We (at least those who can make it) will have the opportunity for a >> face-to-face on this at a workshop on 25 February in Paris that has >> been reserved already. Personally I think this is a better way >> forward than getting hung up on the ITU and thereby investing it with >> more importance than it deserves. >> >> So whilst you have proposed that Andrew and I attempt to assess how >> the new treaty measures against the (first) Best Bits statement, I >> would also note that this kind of analysis is something that the >> Internet Governance Caucus is planning to do, and so it might be more >> efficient for those who want to do an in-depth analysis of the ITRs >> to join that effort, rather than duplicating it. There is a little >> working group mailing list for that >> (http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/wcit), which you can join. Trying to >> do both as Best Bits is possible, but I would favour a division of >> labour between us and the IGC whereby their working group can analyse >> the ITRs, and we can focus on "if not the ITU, then what". >> >> Anyway, these are just my thoughts and I welcome alternative views. >> Meanwhile Andrew and I are planning to talk early in the new year >> and come back with some suggestions about the way forward. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >> Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:* >> http://consint.info/RightsMission >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice >> . Don't >> print this email unless necessary. >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 17:39:04 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:39:04 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture Message-ID: <00da01cde15e$50e73ec0$f2b5bc40$@gmail.com> One, among the many thoughts that arise from listening to the ISOC/USG post-mortem is the role and significance of multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance. This was mentioned by all of the discussants--the US Ambassador, ISOC and someone who identified themselves as speaking from civil society. Both in this discussion and more broadly, as the significance of the WCIT is discussed and blogged there is emerging the broad understanding of the central role that Civil Society of necessity plays in multi-stakeholderism--i.e. that without an active, engaged Civil Society there can be no "multi-stakeholderism". There is also emerging a further recognition of the central role (through multi-stakeholderism) that CS has going forward in overall global Internet governance. As everyone knows there are huge, even overwhelming financial (and other, for example, security) interests involved in these global Internet governance processes and their outcomes. The experience has been that where such interests/outcomes are involved there are likely to be attempts by various parties to influence these processes and their participants in both legitimate and illegitimate ways. One of the illegitimate ways for exerting such influence, that has fairly recently found a name is what is being called "astroturfing" defined as "apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Astroturf Another such process is called "regulatory capture" -- although in this instance it might be renamed as "stakeholder capture". This is defined: "Regulatory (stakeholder) capture occurs when a regulatory (stakeholder) agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory (stakeholder) capture is a form of government (multi-stakeholder governance) failure... " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture I think that it is quite likely that CS will become a venue for such astroturfing and attempted "capture" (if this hasn't already been occuring) and including by governments who will look to create or enable what appear to be CS stakeholder organizations but which in fact, function rather as non-formal spokespersons for national and/or corporate interests. For multi-stakeholderism and particularly for CS to have an effect and role in independently representing the public interest some effective means will need to be established (and quickly) to ensure that participants in these processes purporting to "be" or to "represent" Civil Society are neither captured nor astroturfed. In the absence of this, the much praised "multi-stakeholder global Internet governance model" will die stillborn, lacking any form of credibility or legitimacy. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 20:45:57 2012 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:45:57 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture In-Reply-To: <00da01cde15e$50e73ec0$f2b5bc40$@gmail.com> References: <00da01cde15e$50e73ec0$f2b5bc40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1ACF685F-22EE-4362-B2DB-A0DB59C44521@gmail.com> This is a very helpful framing Michael. All of these issues related to legitimacy of various types of groups, transparency of funding, and refinement of multi-stakeholder definitions are most welcome. But I'm curious that you leave out so-called "experts" and "academics" who also have historically played a significant role in these discussions, but may not have been subject to the same rigorous vetting that you're suggesting for organizations. My sense is that these categories of civil society participation are subject to the exact same financial and political forces you describe for other elements of civil society. On Dec 23, 2012, at 5:39 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > One, among the many thoughts that arise from listening to the ISOC/ > USG post-mortem is the role and significance of multi-stakeholderism > in Internet governance. This was mentioned by all of the > discussants--the US Ambassador, ISOC and someone who identified > themselves as speaking from civil society. > > Both in this discussion and more broadly, as the significance of the > WCIT is discussed and blogged there is emerging the broad > understanding of the central role that Civil Society of necessity > plays in multi-stakeholderism--i.e. that without an active, engaged > Civil Society there can be no "multi-stakeholderism". > > There is also emerging a further recognition of the central role > (through multi-stakeholderism) that CS has going forward in overall > global Internet governance. > > As everyone knows there are huge, even overwhelming financial (and > other, for example, security) interests involved in these global > Internet governance processes and their outcomes. > > The experience has been that where such interests/outcomes are > involved there are likely to be attempts by various parties to > influence these processes and their participants in both legitimate > and illegitimate ways. > > One of the illegitimate ways for exerting such influence, that has > fairly recently found a name is what is being called "astroturfing" > defined as "apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions > that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, > industry trade associations, political interests or public relations > firms". > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing > > http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Astroturf > > Another such process is called "regulatory capture" -- although in > this instance it might be renamed as "stakeholder capture". This is > defined: "Regulatory (stakeholder) capture occurs when a regulatory > (stakeholder) agency, created to act in the public interest, instead > advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that > dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. > Regulatory (stakeholder) capture is a form of government (multi- > stakeholder governance) failure... " > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture > > I think that it is quite likely that CS will become a venue for such > astroturfing and attempted "capture" (if this hasn't already been > occuring) and including by governments who will look to create or > enable what appear to be CS stakeholder organizations but which in > fact, function rather as non-formal spokespersons for national and/ > or corporate interests. > > For multi-stakeholderism and particularly for CS to have an effect > and role in independently representing the public interest some > effective means will need to be established (and quickly) to ensure > that participants in these processes purporting to "be" or to > "represent" Civil Society are neither captured nor astroturfed. In > the absence of this, the much praised "multi-stakeholder global > Internet governance model" will die stillborn, lacking any form of > credibility or legitimacy. > > Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 21:08:33 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:08:33 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture In-Reply-To: <1ACF685F-22EE-4362-B2DB-A0DB59C44521@gmail.com> References: <00da01cde15e$50e73ec0$f2b5bc40$@gmail.com> <1ACF685F-22EE-4362-B2DB-A0DB59C44521@gmail.com> Message-ID: <014301cde17b$94053a50$bc0faef0$@gmail.com> Thanks Gene, the framing that I did was to point to specific identified "stakeholders" in the multi-stakeholder process. I don't think/see "experts" or "academics' as "experts" or "academics" as being specific stakeholders i.e. as having a specific "stake" separate from any of the existing group of stakeholders. Rather I see them as advisors/contributors to the activities/positioning of the other identified stakeholders--governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community--each of whom I understand as having interests/values which are specific to them and their grouping. But others might disagree. M From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 5:46 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture This is a very helpful framing Michael. All of these issues related to legitimacy of various types of groups, transparency of funding, and refinement of multi-stakeholder definitions are most welcome. But I'm curious that you leave out so-called "experts" and "academics" who also have historically played a significant role in these discussions, but may not have been subject to the same rigorous vetting that you're suggesting for organizations. My sense is that these categories of civil society participation are subject to the exact same financial and political forces you describe for other elements of civil society. On Dec 23, 2012, at 5:39 PM, michael gurstein wrote: One, among the many thoughts that arise from listening to the ISOC/USG post-mortem is the role and significance of multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance. This was mentioned by all of the discussants--the US Ambassador, ISOC and someone who identified themselves as speaking from civil society. Both in this discussion and more broadly, as the significance of the WCIT is discussed and blogged there is emerging the broad understanding of the central role that Civil Society of necessity plays in multi-stakeholderism--i.e. that without an active, engaged Civil Society there can be no "multi-stakeholderism". There is also emerging a further recognition of the central role (through multi-stakeholderism) that CS has going forward in overall global Internet governance. As everyone knows there are huge, even overwhelming financial (and other, for example, security) interests involved in these global Internet governance processes and their outcomes. The experience has been that where such interests/outcomes are involved there are likely to be attempts by various parties to influence these processes and their participants in both legitimate and illegitimate ways. One of the illegitimate ways for exerting such influence, that has fairly recently found a name is what is being called "astroturfing" defined as "apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Astroturf Another such process is called "regulatory capture" -- although in this instance it might be renamed as "stakeholder capture". This is defined: "Regulatory (stakeholder) capture occurs when a regulatory (stakeholder) agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory (stakeholder) capture is a form of government (multi-stakeholder governance) failure... " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture I think that it is quite likely that CS will become a venue for such astroturfing and attempted "capture" (if this hasn't already been occuring) and including by governments who will look to create or enable what appear to be CS stakeholder organizations but which in fact, function rather as non-formal spokespersons for national and/or corporate interests. For multi-stakeholderism and particularly for CS to have an effect and role in independently representing the public interest some effective means will need to be established (and quickly) to ensure that participants in these processes purporting to "be" or to "represent" Civil Society are neither captured nor astroturfed. In the absence of this, the much praised "multi-stakeholder global Internet governance model" will die stillborn, lacking any form of credibility or legitimacy. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 22:39:34 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:39:34 -0800 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture In-Reply-To: References: <00da01cde15e$50e73ec0$f2b5bc40$@gmail.com> <1ACF685F-22EE-4362-B2DB-A0DB59C44521@gmail.com> <014301cde17b$94053a50$bc0faef0$@gmail.com> <49973760-FDD5-4941-B05A-7717099F0491@hserus.net> Message-ID: <015e01cde188$56de1810$049a4830$@gmail.com> Tks Suresh :) and best to you (and everyone) as well! M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 7:06 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Gene Kimmelman; ; Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture "include experts and academia ****as a group distinct from**** civil society [etc]" Thanks - and merry christmas and a happy new year. It must be the holiday spirit but I find myself agreeing 100% with Mike Gurstein, so, my best wishes especially to you, Mike. --srs (iPad) On 24-Dec-2012, at 8:25, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: I agree. There is no reason to specifically include individual experts and academia from civil society, industry or whatever group they identify with (maybe a combination of groups, depending on whether they participate representing their organization, or in their individual capacity) --srs (iPad) On 24-Dec-2012, at 7:38, "michael gurstein" wrote: Thanks Gene, the framing that I did was to point to specific identified "stakeholders" in the multi-stakeholder process… I don't think/see "experts" or "academics' as "experts" or "academics" as being specific stakeholders i.e. as having a specific "stake" separate from any of the existing group of stakeholders… Rather I see them as advisors/contributors to the activities/positioning of the other identified stakeholders--governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community--each of whom I understand as having interests/values which are specific to them and their grouping… But others might disagree… M From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 5:46 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture This is a very helpful framing Michael. All of these issues related to legitimacy of various types of groups, transparency of funding, and refinement of multi-stakeholder definitions are most welcome. But I'm curious that you leave out so-called "experts" and "academics" who also have historically played a significant role in these discussions, but may not have been subject to the same rigorous vetting that you're suggesting for organizations. My sense is that these categories of civil society participation are subject to the exact same financial and political forces you describe for other elements of civil society. On Dec 23, 2012, at 5:39 PM, michael gurstein wrote: One, among the many thoughts that arise from listening to the ISOC/USG post-mortem is the role and significance of multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance. This was mentioned by all of the discussants--the US Ambassador, ISOC and someone who identified themselves as speaking from civil society. Both in this discussion and more broadly, as the significance of the WCIT is discussed and blogged there is emerging the broad understanding of the central role that Civil Society of necessity plays in multi-stakeholderism--i.e. that without an active, engaged Civil Society there can be no "multi-stakeholderism". There is also emerging a further recognition of the central role (through multi-stakeholderism) that CS has going forward in overall global Internet governance. As everyone knows there are huge, even overwhelming financial (and other, for example, security) interests involved in these global Internet governance processes and their outcomes. The experience has been that where such interests/outcomes are involved there are likely to be attempts by various parties to influence these processes and their participants in both legitimate and illegitimate ways. One of the illegitimate ways for exerting such influence, that has fairly recently found a name is what is being called "astroturfing" defined as "apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Astroturf Another such process is called "regulatory capture" -- although in this instance it might be renamed as "stakeholder capture". This is defined: "Regulatory (stakeholder) capture occurs when a regulatory (stakeholder) agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory (stakeholder) capture is a form of government (multi-stakeholder governance) failure... " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture I think that it is quite likely that CS will become a venue for such astroturfing and attempted "capture" (if this hasn't already been occuring) and including by governments who will look to create or enable what appear to be CS stakeholder organizations but which in fact, function rather as non-formal spokespersons for national and/or corporate interests. For multi-stakeholderism and particularly for CS to have an effect and role in independently representing the public interest some effective means will need to be established (and quickly) to ensure that participants in these processes purporting to "be" or to "represent" Civil Society are neither captured nor astroturfed. In the absence of this, the much praised "multi-stakeholder global Internet governance model" will die stillborn, lacking any form of credibility or legitimacy. Mike ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Mon Dec 24 07:35:51 2012 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 07:35:51 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture Message-ID: So just to follow your logic,  who selects these "advisors/consultants?" I get the impression many select themselves and identify as a civil society group rather thsn being invited to advise a group. Maybe you can clarify?michael gurstein wrote:Thanks Gene, the framing that I did was to point to specific identified "stakeholders" in the multi-stakeholder process… I don't think/see "experts" or "academics' as "experts" or "academics" as being specific stakeholders i.e. as having a specific "stake" separate from any of the existing group of stakeholders… Rather I see them as advisors/contributors to the activities/positioning of the other identified stakeholders--governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community--each of whom I understand as having interests/values which are specific to them and their grouping…   But others might disagree…   M   From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 5:46 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture   This is a very helpful framing Michael.  All of these issues related to legitimacy of various types of groups, transparency of funding, and refinement of multi-stakeholder definitions are most welcome.  But I'm curious that you leave out so-called "experts" and "academics" who also have historically played a significant role in these discussions, but may not have been subject to the same rigorous vetting that you're suggesting for organizations.  My sense is that these categories of civil society participation are subject to the exact same financial and political forces you describe for other elements of civil society. On Dec 23, 2012, at 5:39 PM, michael gurstein wrote:   One, among the many thoughts that arise from listening to the ISOC/USG post-mortem is the role and significance of multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance. This was mentioned by all of the discussants--the US Ambassador, ISOC and someone who identified themselves as  speaking from civil society.   Both in this discussion and more broadly, as the significance of the WCIT is discussed and blogged there is emerging the broad understanding of the central role that Civil Society of necessity plays in multi-stakeholderism--i.e. that without an active, engaged Civil Society there can be no "multi-stakeholderism".   There is also emerging a further recognition of the central role (through multi-stakeholderism) that CS has going forward in overall global Internet governance.    As everyone knows there are huge, even overwhelming financial (and other, for example, security) interests involved in these global Internet governance processes and their outcomes.   The experience has been that where such interests/outcomes are involved there are likely to be attempts by various parties to influence these processes and their participants in both legitimate and illegitimate ways.    One of the illegitimate ways for exerting such influence, that has fairly recently found a name is what is being called "astroturfing" defined as "apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms".   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing   http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Astroturf   Another such process is called "regulatory capture" -- although in this instance it might be renamed as "stakeholder capture". This is defined: "Regulatory (stakeholder) capture occurs when a regulatory (stakeholder) agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory (stakeholder) capture is a form of government (multi-stakeholder governance) failure... "   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture   I think that it is quite likely that CS will become a venue for such astroturfing and attempted "capture" (if this hasn't already been occuring) and including by governments who will look to create or enable what appear to be CS stakeholder organizations but which in fact, function rather as non-formal spokespersons for national and/or corporate interests.   For multi-stakeholderism and particularly for CS to have an effect and role in independently representing the public interest some effective means will need to be established (and quickly) to ensure that participants in these processes purporting to "be" or to "represent" Civil Society are neither captured nor astroturfed. In the absence of this, the much praised "multi-stakeholder global Internet governance model" will die stillborn, lacking any form of credibility or legitimacy.   Mike   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Mon Dec 24 08:23:34 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:23:34 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63CEEB4A-8DCB-45BD-B348-A5BED6F40C44@acm.org> Hi, Certainly in terms of Civil Society 'advisors' from the developed economies, I think many of us not only went looking for the applications, we the applied and followed up on the applications. For various reasons we wanted to be at what might have been a critical milestone in Internet governance. I think many did the fundraising for their own trips, though some were NGO members who had organizational sponsorship. I think there may have also been some funding directed to some organizations for participants from the developing and least developed economies, but I am not clear on that. There were also some NGO ITU sector members in attendance. I am not sure how many or how they were funded - I expect it is a mix. And since it is finger pointing season - my SoI for WCIT I applied as a part time employee of dotgay LLC, a for profit company that is applying for a gTLD for the LGBTQIA community [talk about a community with interesting 'who represents whom' issues]. dotgay sponsored my tour of WTSA, WCIT and ILGA. Something I discovered on the trip is that in many cases just passing out a business card that said .gay, was a political act in the UAE. And as a bizactivist who supports my advocacy activities, that pleased my boss. BTW my contract with dotgay makes it clear that I remain a multi-denominational free-radical and that 'I say what I say' and they are free to end the relationship if I ever go too far for them. Our views tend to be mostly in harmony, so the relationship works. [And I wonder why I have a hard time finding work.] I denoted myself as a civil society participant both in the application for a seat on the US Delegation and whenever I was asked, based on both independent activities/affinities and of being a contracted part time volunteer at APC. I also noted that I was a long time participant and contributor in the Internet technical community. I do not actually remember ever identifying myself as a representative of Civil Society or of the Technical Community. cheers and happy celebrations. avri On 24 Dec 2012, at 07:35, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > So just to follow your logic, who selects these "advisors/consultants?" I get the impression many select themselves and identify as a civil society group rather thsn being invited to advise a group. Maybe you can clarify? > michael gurstein wrote: > Thanks Gene, the framing that I did was to point to specific identified "stakeholders" in the multi-stakeholder process… I don't think/see "experts" or "academics' as "experts" or "academics" as being specific stakeholders i.e. as having a specific "stake" separate from any of the existing group of stakeholders… Rather I see them as advisors/contributors to the activities/positioning of the other identified stakeholders--governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community--each of whom I understand as having interests/values which are specific to them and their grouping… > > > > But others might disagree… > > > > M > > > > From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 5:46 PM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture > > > > This is a very helpful framing Michael. All of these issues related to legitimacy of various types of groups, transparency of funding, and refinement of multi-stakeholder definitions are most welcome. But I'm curious that you leave out so-called "experts" and "academics" who also have historically played a significant role in these discussions, but may not have been subject to the same rigorous vetting that you're suggesting for organizations. My sense is that these categories of civil society participation are subject to the exact same financial and political forces you describe for other elements of civil society. > > On Dec 23, 2012, at 5:39 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > > One, among the many thoughts that arise from listening to the ISOC/USG post-mortem is the role and significance of multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance. This was mentioned by all of the discussants--the US Ambassador, ISOC and someone who identified themselves as speaking from civil society. > > > > Both in this discussion and more broadly, as the significance of the WCIT is discussed and blogged there is emerging the broad understanding of the central role that Civil Society of necessity plays in multi-stakeholderism--i.e. that without an active, engaged Civil Society there can be no "multi-stakeholderism". > > > > There is also emerging a further recognition of the central role (through multi-stakeholderism) that CS has going forward in overall global Internet governance. > > > > As everyone knows there are huge, even overwhelming financial (and other, for example, security) interests involved in these global Internet governance processes and their outcomes. > > > > The experience has been that where such interests/outcomes are involved there are likely to be attempts by various parties to influence these processes and their participants in both legitimate and illegitimate ways. > > > > One of the illegitimate ways for exerting such influence, that has fairly recently found a name is what is being called "astroturfing" defined as "apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms". > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing > > > > http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Astroturf > > > > Another such process is called "regulatory capture" -- although in this instance it might be renamed as "stakeholder capture". This is defined: "Regulatory (stakeholder) capture occurs when a regulatory (stakeholder) agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory (stakeholder) capture is a form of government (multi-stakeholder governance) failure... " > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture > > > > I think that it is quite likely that CS will become a venue for such astroturfing and attempted "capture" (if this hasn't already been occuring) and including by governments who will look to create or enable what appear to be CS stakeholder organizations but which in fact, function rather as non-formal spokespersons for national and/or corporate interests. > > > > For multi-stakeholderism and particularly for CS to have an effect and role in independently representing the public interest some effective means will need to be established (and quickly) to ensure that participants in these processes purporting to "be" or to "represent" Civil Society are neither captured nor astroturfed. In the absence of this, the much praised "multi-stakeholder global Internet governance model" will die stillborn, lacking any form of credibility or legitimacy. > > > > Mike > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Dec 24 10:30:22 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 07:30:22 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderism, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture Message-ID: <023b01cde1eb$971ce5b0$c556b110$@gmail.com> Good question Gene, and I really don't have an answer readily to hand. How is anyone within the MS framework "selected"… What this line of discussion points to I think, is how difficult it is going to be in practice to operationalize multi-stakeholderism (and particularly Civil Society's role within this). M From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 4:36 AM To: gurstein at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture So just to follow your logic, who selects these "advisors/consultants?" I get the impression many select themselves and identify as a civil society group rather thsn being invited to advise a group. Maybe you can clarify? michael gurstein wrote: Thanks Gene, the framing that I did was to point to specific identified "stakeholders" in the multi-stakeholder process… I don't think/see "experts" or "academics' as "experts" or "academics" as being specific stakeholders i.e. as having a specific "stake" separate from any of the existing group of stakeholders… Rather I see them as advisors/contributors to the activities/positioning of the other identified stakeholders--governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community--each of whom I understand as having interests/values which are specific to them and their grouping… But others might disagree… M From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 5:46 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture This is a very helpful framing Michael. All of these issues related to legitimacy of various types of groups, transparency of funding, and refinement of multi-stakeholder definitions are most welcome. But I'm curious that you leave out so-called "experts" and "academics" who also have historically played a significant role in these discussions, but may not have been subject to the same rigorous vetting that you're suggesting for organizations. My sense is that these categories of civil society participation are subject to the exact same financial and political forces you describe for other elements of civil society. On Dec 23, 2012, at 5:39 PM, michael gurstein wrote: One, among the many thoughts that arise from listening to the ISOC/USG post-mortem is the role and significance of multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance. This was mentioned by all of the discussants--the US Ambassador, ISOC and someone who identified themselves as speaking from civil society. Both in this discussion and more broadly, as the significance of the WCIT is discussed and blogged there is emerging the broad understanding of the central role that Civil Society of necessity plays in multi-stakeholderism--i.e. that without an active, engaged Civil Society there can be no "multi-stakeholderism". There is also emerging a further recognition of the central role (through multi-stakeholderism) that CS has going forward in overall global Internet governance. As everyone knows there are huge, even overwhelming financial (and other, for example, security) interests involved in these global Internet governance processes and their outcomes. The experience has been that where such interests/outcomes are involved there are likely to be attempts by various parties to influence these processes and their participants in both legitimate and illegitimate ways. One of the illegitimate ways for exerting such influence, that has fairly recently found a name is what is being called "astroturfing" defined as "apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Astroturf Another such process is called "regulatory capture" -- although in this instance it might be renamed as "stakeholder capture". This is defined: "Regulatory (stakeholder) capture occurs when a regulatory (stakeholder) agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory (stakeholder) capture is a form of government (multi-stakeholder governance) failure... " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture I think that it is quite likely that CS will become a venue for such astroturfing and attempted "capture" (if this hasn't already been occuring) and including by governments who will look to create or enable what appear to be CS stakeholder organizations but which in fact, function rather as non-formal spokespersons for national and/or corporate interests. For multi-stakeholderism and particularly for CS to have an effect and role in independently representing the public interest some effective means will need to be established (and quickly) to ensure that participants in these processes purporting to "be" or to "represent" Civil Society are neither captured nor astroturfed. In the absence of this, the much praised "multi-stakeholder global Internet governance model" will die stillborn, lacking any form of credibility or legitimacy. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Dec 24 11:32:19 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:32:19 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] 2013! In-Reply-To: <00da01cde15e$50e73ec0$f2b5bc40$@gmail.com> References: <00da01cde15e$50e73ec0$f2b5bc40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50D88393.8070403@cafonso.ca> We hope you all will enjoy a wonderful and peaceful 2013! fraternal regards Carlos A. Afonso & family From farooq at ciroap.org Mon Dec 24 14:32:22 2012 From: farooq at ciroap.org (Farooq Ahmed Jam) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 00:32:22 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Merry Christmas Message-ID: <50D8ADC6.4030508@ciroap.org> -- May God bless all the friends and their families with Health, wealth, prosperity and true happiness of life. Regards *Farooq Ahmed Jam Intern Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 *Your rights, our mission -- download CI's Strategy 2015:* http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ellery at cdt.org Mon Dec 3 19:55:56 2012 From: ellery at cdt.org (Ellery Biddle) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 16:55:56 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] Coordination during WCIT -- who's attending, who's reporting In-Reply-To: <8E4639A9-E51F-4FD2-909A-CA8725CFA77C@cdt.org> References: <8E4639A9-E51F-4FD2-909A-CA8725CFA77C@cdt.org> Message-ID: Hi everyone, Important update about tomorrow's call -- after talking with some of our colleagues who are in Dubai this week, we've decided that we should move the time back a few hours, so that those in Dubai can more easily participate. So here's the new plan: The call will take place at 18:00 UTC / 1:00 PM EST. A list of international toll-free call-in numbers is attached. Since new issues may arise between now and then, I'll suggest that we can try to set a rough agenda at the start of the call, rather than setting one now. Looking forward to chatting with everyone! cheers, Ellery Ellery Roberts Biddle Center for Democracy and Technology (415) 814-1711 On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Ellery Biddle wrote: > Hi everyone, > > We have been talking here at CDT about various strategies for communications and coordination during the WCIT. Lots to think about here. Two items on this: > > First: Who is going to Dubai? We really want to develop a list of civil society people who will be in Dubai for the conference. We think it would be helpful for those attending WCIT to know what other CS people will be there, and to develop a rough plan for coordinating once they are in Dubai. Matthew Shears, ISOC's former policy director who has been working on ITU issues with CDT, will be in Dubai on CDT's behalf. He will not be affiliated with any delegation. If you or someone from your organization is going to be in Dubai (with or without delegate status), and you'd like to be in touch with other civil society folks there, please send Matthew an email letting him know. Matthew's email: mshears at cdt.org > > Second: How can we coordinate on public communication about the WCIT? We know that many CSOs will be blogging, tweeting, and responding to press inquiries about the WCIT as it's happening. Given the relatively closed nature of the event, we know that it may be difficult to get the information we need in order to do this well, and that some coordination between groups may help fill this gap. We also anticipate that rumors and misinformation may become an issue, as different delegates may hear different things, etc. In anticipation of this, we want to propose a group call for next week. This will be open to any civil society groups planning to report on WCIT, either from Dubai or from outside the UAE. Given the size of these lists, I am setting an arbitrary (though early, which generally seems best) time and date for the call. Hope that plenty of folks can join -- we'll take and circulate good notes for those who can't make it. > > The call will take place on Tuesday, December 4 at 16:00 UTC / 11:00 EST. A list of international toll-free call-in numbers is attached. I will circulate this again, along with a reminder, on Monday. > > As always, please feel encouraged to reply to the list with additional ideas, questions, etc. > > Thanks all! > > Ellery > > Ellery Roberts Biddle > Center for Democracy and Technology > (415) 814-1711 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: int'l call-in numbers071812.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 80971 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Dec 24 23:59:30 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:29:30 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [governance] ISOC/USG WCIT Post Mortem In-Reply-To: <50D93269.2060605@itforchange.net> References: <50D93269.2060605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50D932B2.7070100@itforchange.net> On Monday 24 December 2012 01:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > http://isoc-ny.org/misc/isoc-dc_wcit_post_mortem.mp3 Could not open this link but saw on youtube ar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN_PwWkv14A A good and cogent speech by Terry Kramer. One thing surprised me, and it links to what I think was the failure to posit a positive agenda at the WCIT by civil society. Kramer says, first let me deal with the telecommunication side, and there are many positives there (vis a vis WCIT)... (paraphrased) And then he speaks of the ETNO proposal, as being /on the telecom side/.... Of course, he (like us) was happy that ENTO proposal did not pass, he clearly seems to agree that it belonged to the telecom side, and thus to ITR's mandate. This is very significant. (Others who know US positions better can perhaps clarify.) If ETNO proposal was within ITR mandates, even if otherwise a very disagreeable one, would not Internet traffic interconnection regimes be also in ITR's remit.... I dont think it is anyone's case that ETNO proposal was not about the Internet (its physical/ infrastructural layer). So, isnt the US agreeing here that/some kind of Internet could/ should well have been in the ITRs/. Later in the speech, Kramer regrets that much could be done (at the WCIT) about spread of broadband, but that this was not something members were willing to pursue seriously.... Again, it surprised me, but this statement is consistent with the above one on ETNO..... Of course, broadband is Internet, right! This is perplexing. Does the Ambassador say that US would have accepted to write in the ITR's high-level principles that, say, ETNO kind of proposals should never be encouraged (I mean, of course, in some form of non-specific formal text) and that, say, more competition should be promoted to improve universal access to broadband . From his speech I clearly get this impression. And if true, that makes a revealing point. Why did the civil society then had this single agenda - no internet in the ITRs (as if the Internet was a kind of virus which, even if present in the minutest quantity, spreads everywhere quickly) - without making the distinction between the physical/ infrastructure player (with issues like broadband access, net neutrality, inter-connection regimes) and higher, application and content players. Why were we not able to present and articulate a positive agenda around broadband access, net neutrality and the such, vis a vis the issues that belong to physical/ infrastructure layer. Why were we, the CS, ended up looking like also motivated by the secret desire (though not difficult to divine) - as were the extreme libertarian actors, to just see the ITU die, and with it, also all regulatory regimes around the Internet at national levels. If we indeed want to see ITU simply die, lets not play games and say so it clearly. No Internet in ITU's scope - not even the physical/ infrastructure layer - is simple a death warrant for the ITU. Which may be fine, but then who, for instance addresses the issue of ' global net neutrality'. ('Global net neutrality' was identified as a key cross-border issues by a Council of Europe's expert committee, in which incidentally, Wolfgang also participated.) Why do we think that these are questions for someone else to answer, not for us, the 'global IG civil society'. Why did we allow ourselves to so blatantly take sides in the intense ideological struggle taking place around the remit and powers of the FCC in the US, where the struggle for net neutrality is now all but lost. A game which is going to soon visit our own national regulatory systems very soon. Just watch out! That was at least as big a game that played out at the WCIT as the efforts by some authoritarian countries to use ITU to carve out tightly controllable 'national segments' of the Internet. But, such is the power of the neoliberal social intermediary space - in which I include media as well as the civil society - that only one story is coming out of the WCIT. parminder > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Tue Dec 25 05:00:41 2012 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:00:41 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Merry Christmas In-Reply-To: <50D8ADC6.4030508@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Same to you Farooq, and to all the best bits folks. Paul Wilson APNIC From: Farooq Ahmed Jam > Organization: Consumers International Date: Tuesday, 25 December 2012 5:32 AM To: "bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org" > Subject: [bestbits] Merry Christmas -- May God bless all the friends and their families with Health, wealth, prosperity and true happiness of life. Regards Farooq Ahmed Jam Intern Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Tue Dec 25 11:09:27 2012 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 11:09:27 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [governance] ISOC/USG WCIT Post Mortem In-Reply-To: <50D932B2.7070100@itforchange.net> References: <50D93269.2060605@itforchange.net> <50D932B2.7070100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I think Parminder is reminding us of many of the key issues we must address going forward. I'm not sure how useful it is to debate what civil society could otherwise have accomplished at WCIT (but others may wish to continue this debate); my sense is that none of us knew if and when ITU would open up more for civil society involvement (we did succeed somewhat, but only at the last minute and it mostly required enormous effort to pressure national delegations to open up, find resources for travel, etc); none of us knew how various nations would react to civil society endeavors to become more engaged; none of us knew how the nation to nation (or regional) negotiations would unfold. However, we did anticipate that a positive agenda related to key civil society needs/demands would not be on the agenda at WCIT and -- if I remember correctly -- the consensus at the Baku BestBits meeting was that we needed to find a way to promote our agenda. Again, others may believe we could have done more in Dubai with this positive agenda, but my sense is that we got the attention of many delegations with our joint and individual statements, there was substantial discussion of the need to address broadband affordability, development issues, security issues (both privacy and cybersecurity), and a tremendous amount of allegiance to some enhanced forms of multistakeholderism (again, never defined with precision). My impression is that participants at the Baku meeting have, with their statement, launched a discussion of key elements of what Parminder is referring to; and the joint Latin American statement launched in late November in Rio and released with broader signatories after WCIT furthers this positive civil society agenda. We woke up many stakeholders to our demands going forward, and I know that at least in the U.S., civil society groups are continuing to pressure their government and corporate sector to begin addressing these issues. To me the question is: how do we decide what our most desired multilateral/global targets are for substantive engagement? Obviously civil society groups will have their own national agendas, but maybe an addition question would be: how do we help each other further our immediate local policy engagements while supporting a broader global initiative? Many have suggested carrying this discussion forward at the upcoming WSIS+10 convening; the ITU's policy forum; the next IGF; the ITU plenipotentiary....maybe there are other ideas? I'm hoping that we can continue to unite those who want to work within the ITU structure with those who prefer to seek other venues for action, on a common substantive agenda. Regardless, I hope we can continue the collaboration that has been going on for many years and may have been enhanced at BestBits, Rio/Latin American and other joint endeavors that have generated excellent process and policy suggestions. On Dec 24, 2012, at 11:59 PM, parminder wrote: > > > On Monday 24 December 2012 01:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> http://isoc-ny.org/misc/isoc-dc_wcit_post_mortem.mp3 > > Could not open this link but saw on youtube ar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN_PwWkv14A > > A good and cogent speech by Terry Kramer. One thing surprised me, > and it links to what I think was the failure to posit a positive > agenda at the WCIT by civil society. > > Kramer says, first let me deal with the telecommunication side, and > there are many positives there (vis a vis WCIT)... (paraphrased) > > And then he speaks of the ETNO proposal, as being on the telecom > side.... Of course, he (like us) was happy that ENTO proposal did > not pass, he clearly seems to agree that it belonged to the telecom > side, and thus to ITR's mandate. > > This is very significant. (Others who know US positions better can > perhaps clarify.) > > If ETNO proposal was within ITR mandates, even if otherwise a very > disagreeable one, would not Internet traffic interconnection regimes > be also in ITR's remit.... I dont think it is anyone's case that > ETNO proposal was not about the Internet (its physical/ > infrastructural layer). So, isnt the US agreeing here that some > kind of Internet could/ should well have been in the ITRs. > > Later in the speech, Kramer regrets that much could be done (at the > WCIT) about spread of broadband, but that this was not something > members were willing to pursue seriously.... Again, it surprised me, > but this statement is consistent with the above one on ETNO..... Of > course, broadband is Internet, right! > > This is perplexing. Does the Ambassador say that US would have > accepted to write in the ITR's high-level principles that, say, ETNO > kind of proposals should never be encouraged (I mean, of course, in > some form of non-specific formal text) and that, say, more > competition should be promoted to improve universal access to > broadband . > > From his speech I clearly get this impression. And if true, that > makes a revealing point. > > Why did the civil society then had this single agenda - no internet > in the ITRs (as if the Internet was a kind of virus which, even if > present in the minutest quantity, spreads everywhere quickly) - > without making the distinction between the physical/ infrastructure > player (with issues like broadband access, net neutrality, inter- > connection regimes) and higher, application and content players. > > Why were we not able to present and articulate a positive agenda > around broadband access, net neutrality and the such, vis a vis the > issues that belong to physical/ infrastructure layer. > > Why were we, the CS, ended up looking like also motivated by the > secret desire (though not difficult to divine) - as were the > extreme libertarian actors, to just see the ITU die, and with it, > also all regulatory regimes around the Internet at national levels. > If we indeed want to see ITU simply die, lets not play games and say > so it clearly. No Internet in ITU's scope - not even the physical/ > infrastructure layer - is simple a death warrant for the ITU. Which > may be fine, but then who, for instance addresses the issue of ' > global net neutrality'. ('Global net neutrality' was identified as a > key cross-border issues by a Council of Europe's expert committee, > in which incidentally, Wolfgang also participated.) Why do we think > that these are questions for someone else to answer, not for us, the > 'global IG civil society'. > > Why did we allow ourselves to so blatantly take sides in the intense > ideological struggle taking place around the remit and powers of the > FCC in the US, where the struggle for net neutrality is now all but > lost. A game which is going to soon visit our own national > regulatory systems very soon. Just watch out! > > That was at least as big a game that played out at the WCIT as the > efforts by some authoritarian countries to use ITU to carve out > tightly controllable 'national segments' of the Internet. But, such > is the power of the neoliberal social intermediary space - in which > I include media as well as the civil society - that only one story > is coming out of the WCIT. > > parminder > > >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Dec 25 23:11:19 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 12:11:19 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] ISOC/USG WCIT Post Mortem In-Reply-To: References: <50D93269.2060605@itforchange.net> <50D932B2.7070100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 26/12/2012, at 12:09 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > Many have suggested carrying this discussion forward at the upcoming WSIS+10 convening; the ITU's policy forum; the next IGF; the ITU plenipotentiary....maybe there are other ideas? I'm hoping that we can continue to unite those who want to work within the ITU structure with those who prefer to seek other venues for action, on a common substantive agenda. Regardless, I hope we can continue the collaboration that has been going on for many years and may have been enhanced at BestBits, Rio/Latin American and other joint endeavors that have generated excellent process and policy suggestions. Yep, it will be important to continue to seek to work with the ITU on telecommunications issues, and Consumers International for our part is seeking to engage with the ITU-D on consumer protection issues around non-content aspects of broadband, pursuant to its Resolution 64 of the 2010 ITU-D meeting at Hyderabad (we have a background paper on this, but currently only in French). Definitely, there are telecoms issues on which public interest representation at the ITU is important. Same as in other standards bodies, like the ISO, where we also work. But there are only so many resources that Best Bits members will want to continue to pour into telecommunications work, or into a negative agenda at the ITU just devoted to delineating the line between Internet and telecoms. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Dec 26 02:18:33 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 12:48:33 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] ISOC/USG WCIT Post Mortem In-Reply-To: References: <50D93269.2060605@itforchange.net> <50D932B2.7070100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50DAA4C9.8000209@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 26 December 2012 09:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > But there are only so many resources that Best Bits members will want > to continue to pour into telecommunications work, or into a negative > agenda at the ITU just devoted to delineating the line between > Internet and telecoms. Unfortunately, behind delineating or blurring that line lies a sordid tale --- of huge implication to the governance of our communication realm see for instance 'Internet Freedom'? AT&T's Verbal Jujitsu to Close Down Telecommunications in America' . and Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network WCIT outcomes, whatever they may actually be or not, will now be touted as having decisively sealed the issue that Internet is not to be governed/ regulated by traditional telecom regulators in any way whatsoever (not even at the physical/ infrastructure level).... Such global norms are even more important in developing countries, which are still to see the net neutrality struggle begin... It may have been snuffed out even before in could begin. If telecom regulators dont enforce net neutrality, I dont see how it can be enforced at all. Wishing a great 2013 to all! parminder > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:* > http://consint.info/RightsMission > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 03:27:32 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 00:27:32 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] FW: Yes! Hands off the Internet! Message-ID: <02c601cde59e$5972c660$0c585320$@gmail.com> (from today's various Internet news feeds.... Yes, for sure, these hands off the Internet. http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/china-tightens-internet-control-b ans-anonymity-allows-government-to-delete-posts/censorship-online-twitter-we ibo-xinhua-/c3s10510/#.UN2qcI7896I http://tinyurl.com/cryyx5l And these http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/07170621508/fisa-is-renewed-with-a ll-its-problems-still-intact.shtml http://tinyurl.com/d7trx4j And these http://torrentfreak.com/google-removed-50-million-pirate-search-results-this -year-121228/ http://tinyurl.com/d7trx4j And these http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/12/washingtons-blog-facebook-censors-pro minent-political-critics.html http://tinyurl.com/cn72l3v Maybe a New Year's Resolution: Enough with the hypocrisy! M From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 17:48:40 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 14:48:40 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] (Blogpost) Yes, Hands Off the Internet! (Towards "Internet Freedom"!. (Enough with the hypocrisy Message-ID: <044e01cde616$a65cc8e0$f3165aa0$@gmail.com> (You've seen most of this but now it's available for online comment :) http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/yes-hands-off-the-internet-towards- internet-freedom/ Tiny URL: http://wp.me/pJQl5-a2 From avri at acm.org Mon Dec 3 23:09:16 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 08:09:16 +0400 Subject: [bestbits] WCIT odds n' ends. Message-ID: <0C497E08-1D91-499F-B38A-1B99E574CA70@acm.org> Hi, Actually two things. Some of spoke about those of us in dubai gathering in the time between 8 and 9:30 when the fun begin at cafe nero just to collect thought, commiserate and possibly share info for our respective delegations. I think of it as a meta delegation. I do not know if the word of mouth got very far, so I am sending this on best bit which seems to be the email channel for Civil Society at WCIT. I am headed there now. and, I have started a Skype chat, though I willing to do jabber if that works out better for people, for Civil Society at WCIT. Send me your contact point if you want to be added to this chat. I am so glad they opened WCIT at least a bit. But that does not mean we should not push for more until the ITU is fully integrated. cheers, avri