FW: [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT

[michael gurstein]

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.  <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org> deborah at accessnow.org

S. deborah.l.brown

T. deblebrown

PGP 0x5EB4727D

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121221/903e4f4e/attachment.htm>