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

[parminder]

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 <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/20121223/635fdd0c/attachment.htm>