[bestbits] Call for sign on CWG-Internet statement2 (Was Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal to Open CWG- Internet)

[Deborah Brown]

Dear all,

Please find the revised statement on the ITU Council's rejection of
proposals to open participation in the Council Working Group on
International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet):
http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet-2/

The text takes into account edits in the pad (
https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet) as of Monday, 19 August. Thanks to
all who contributed to the editing process.

Please indicate whether you would like to endorse this statement by end of
day *2 September*.

In terms of outreach on the statement, Nnenna suggested targeting specific
Council members.  I think is a good idea and I'm interested in hearing
others' thoughts on this. I've pasted the list of members of the ITU
Council below.

Source: http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/members.aspx
Council Membership (2010-2014)

   - *Region A (Americas)*: 9 seats
   Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico, Paraguay, United
   States, Venezuela

   - *Region B (Western Europe)*: 8 seats
   France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey

   - *Region C (Eastern Europe and Northern Asia)*: 5 seats
   Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation

   - *Region D (Africa)*: 13 seats
   Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Morocco,
   Nigeria, Senegal, Rwanda, South Africa, Tunisia

   - *Region E (Asia and Australasia)*: 13 seats
   Australia, Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea (Republic
   of),  Kuwait, Malaysia, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, United Arab
   Emirates


Best,
Deborah




On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have done a few edits.
> However, I do recall that during WCIT in Dubai,
> There was a face-to-face meeting with Hamadoun Touré on the openness
> issue. So that "effort" has been on.
> I also recall that HT did say that countries were playing double
> standards: speaking "openness" in public spaces and kicking against
> openness in council.
>
> Should we also specifically target some council members? Like send the
> letter to HT and also send copies to key council members?
>
> Just a thought
>
> N
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <
> tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote:
>
>> Ditto for Effi.
>>
>> --
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>
>> On Aug 12 18:20, Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Joana and all
>> >
>> > I like this and am pretty sure APC will support, but I will run it by
>> > members and staff.
>> >
>> > I am not entirely sure this last paragraph is necessary. I think to some
>> > extent it detracts from the main message in the letter which is about
>> > opening the CWG.
>> >
>> > "We also take this opportunity to renew our call for the ITU to continue
>> > to coordinate itseffortswith that of relevant /multistakeholder/Internet
>> > governance bodies, taking advantage of those bodies’ expertise and not
>> > attempting to duplicate their functions. These bodies include those
>> > devoted to technical issues (such as ICANN, the IETF and the RIRs) and
>> > those dealing primarily with non-technical issues (such as the Internet
>> > Governance Forum)."
>> >
>> > Anriette
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 12/08/2013 17:12, Joana Varon wrote:
>> > > Dear people,
>> > >
>> > > As you may know, the ITU Council has rejected proposals to open
>> > > participation in the Council Working Group on International
>> > > Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet).
>> > >
>> > > That happened in disregard of our previous
>> > > request<http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/>,
>> > > of contributions from some Member States
>> > > <http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S13-CL-C-0084!!MSW-E.pdf><
>> http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S13-CL-C-0069!!MSW-E.pdf>
>> > > and
>> > > of a statement from the Secretary General at the closing session of
>> WTPF,
>> > > where we called for adopting an IEG model of participation within
>> other
>> > > meetings of the organization.
>> > >
>> > > The CWG-Internet is a particularly relevant WG, as the Brazilian
>> proposal
>> > > on the role of States shall be discussed. Also a very important topic
>> in a
>> > > context where "Snowden conjecture" seams to be causing reactions for a
>> > > State centric internet governance (at least that's my perception).
>> > >
>> > > Therefore, Deborah, Matthew, Gene, Carolina and I have drafted a
>> response
>> > > to submit to ITU. Please, find it bellow, just like the link for the
>> > > editable pad:
>> > >
>> > > https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet
>> > >
>> > > Your comments are more then welcome. *The plan is to leave it open
>> until
>> > > next Monday, 19th.* Hope you find it useful.
>> > >
>> > > All the best
>> > >
>> > > Joana
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > --
>> > ------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>
>


-- 
Deborah Brown
Senior Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. deborah at accessnow.org
@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130826/c100433e/attachment.htm>