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

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On 23/12/2012, at 12:06 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121223/84bd7d6a/attachment.htm>