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

Fri Aug 30 14:47:36 EDT 2013

OK - I'll give it an hour or so
Andrew Puddephatt, Director
Global Partners Digital
Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK
Office 44 (0)207 549 0350
Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597
andrew at g <mailto:andrew at global-partners.co.uk>p-digital.org
  www.global-partners.co.uk <http://www.global-partners.co.uk/>

On 30/08/2013 17:53, "Anriette Esterhuysen" <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

>Hi all.. it also happened to me but then I got the confirmation email
>immediately after. It is working.
>
>Anriette
>
>On 30/08/2013 18:42, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>> I'm also having trouble signing  the website appears to be hung once I
>>press the endorsement button
>> Andrew Puddephatt, Director          Global Partners Digital
>> Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK
>> Office 44 (0)207 549 0350
>> Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597
>> andrew at g<mailto:andrew at global-partners.co.uk>p-digital.org
>>    www.global-partners.co.uk<http://www.global-partners.co.uk/>
>>
>> From: Anne Jellema
>><anne at webfoundation.org<mailto:anne at webfoundation.org>>
>> Date: Friday, 30 August 2013 16:48
>> To: Deborah Brown <deborah at accessnow.org<mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>>
>> Cc: Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com<mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>>,
>>"<bestbits at lists. net>"
>><bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for sign on CWG-Internet statement2 (Was
>>Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal
>>to Open CWG- Internet)
>>
>> Thanks Deborah and everyone else who contributed to drafting. Web
>>Foundation has signed (I hope so anyway - the website hung as I was
>>submitting the form).
>> Best
>> Anne
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Deborah Brown
>><deborah at accessnow.org<mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>> wrote:
>> 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<mailto: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<mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org>> wrote:
>> Ditto for Effi.
>>
>> --
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>
>> On Aug 12 18:20, Anriette Esterhuysen
>>(anriette at apc.org<mailto: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 bodies¹ 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://fil
>>>>es.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<mailto:anriette at apc.org>
>>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>>> www.apc.org<http://www.apc.org>
>>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>>> south africa
>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692<tel:%2B27%2011%20726%201692>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Deborah Brown
>> Senior Policy Analyst
>> Access | AccessNow.org
>> E. deborah at accessnow.org<mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>
>> @deblebrown
>> PGP 0x5EB4727D
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anne Jellema
>> Chief Executive Officer
>> Cape Town, RSA
>> mob +27 61 036 9652
>> tel +27 21 788 4585
>> Skype anne.jellema
>> @afjellema
>>
>> World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA
>>| www.webfoundation.org<http://www.webfoundation.org/> | Twitter:
>>@webfoundation
>>
>
>-- 
>------------------------------------------------------
>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
>