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

[Nnenna Nwakanma]

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
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130814/bf3c84c6/attachment.htm>