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

[Joana Varon]

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


-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon

----

DRAFT Statement on Rejection of Proposal to Open CWG- Internet

We, the undersigned members of civil society, regret that at its June 2013
session, the ITU Council rejected proposals to open participation in the
Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy
Issues (CWG-Internet) to other stakeholders, including civil society.

Members of civil society submitted a
proposal<http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet/>,
endorsed by 41 organizations and individuals from all geographic regions,
that would have made possible civil society participation in CWG-Internet
based on an improved Informal Experts Group (IEG) model, which enabled
non-ITU members to contribute to WTPF-13

At a minimum, it was expected that the ITU Council would embrace the IEG
model, which, though imperfect, introduced a degree of multistakeholder
participation in the ITU’s work, and as such was recognized by participants
in the WTPF as improving the quality of the meeting’s outcome. Indeed
Secretary-General Touré called for adopting an IEG model of participation
in CWG-Internet’s work as did the contributions from
Poland<http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S13-CL-C-0084!!MSW-E.pdf>and
the United
States <http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S13-CL-C-0069!!MSW-E.pdf>. The
ITU Council’s rejection of these calls for greater openness marks a
significant and disappointing step backward.

The aforementioned proposal outlined reasonable and achievable steps to
improve multistakeholder participation at CWG-Internet, based on the IEG
model. Specifically, it recommended:

   -

   Outlining clear procedures for inviting stakeholders to Council Working
   Groups, at least 90 days prior to the relevant meeting dates.
   -

   Issuing clear procedures for all stakeholders to submit official
   documents for consideration.
   -

   Establishing mechanisms for remote participation, allowing not only
   remote participants to follow the debate, but also to request the floor.


 We viewed the relative success of the IEG model as a signal that the ITU
was committed to the multistakeholder framework of internet governance as
established by the Tunis Agenda.  We view its rejection of this model for
CWG-Internet as a sign that it is not.  While the Secretary-General has
indicated that he will “carry out or facilitate informal consultations with
stakeholders...and [to bring] the essence of these discussions to the
Council Working Group on this issue for information” any such informal
consultations should not be equated with multistakeholder participation.

We also take this opportunity to renew our call for the ITU to continue to
coordinate its with 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).
*
*
**
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130812/480c75df/attachment.htm>