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

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Dec 23 06:42:05 EST 2012

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 <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto: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 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/> | 
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational 
> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20121223/3362e057/attachment.htm>

More information about the Bestbits mailing list