From anriette at apc.org  Tue Feb  5 14:39:55 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 21:39:55 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and
 Responsibilities
In-Reply-To: <D25792DE-E584-4E55-A0DE-7806F0E86931@varonferraz.com>
References: <v4wqnoxd3og10noe7m3uapyg.1359633153085@email.android.com> <D25792DE-E584-4E55-A0DE-7806F0E86931@varonferraz.com>
Message-ID: <5111600B.3030507@apc.org>

Dear all

Apologies for silencein this discussion.

A few of us from APC (staff and members) are planning to be in Paris. 
Lillian Nalwoga from CIPESA in Uganda has some support. 
ValeriaBetancourt and myself are still looking for supportbut am 
planning to be there if at all possible.

Was the statement finished? I have not had BestBits mail since 31 January.

And do we have a date scheduled yet for meeting in Paris around WSIS +10?

Regards

Anriette



On 31/01/2013 18:37, Joana Varonferraz wrote:
> Let's do it, Mathew.
>
> Are you already coordinating with CDT to adapt best bits statement?
>
> I'm between meetings but I can start a draft of the follow up on the letter to SG. Deborah, from Access, might help. Anyone who has a little time to help is more then welcome. We will start it in about 2 hours.
>
> Lets try to have both drafts by the end of the day and try not to be so creative, just departuring from the points and views of previous consensus, as these letters will be just follow ups from previous "achievements", right?
>
> Best
>
> Joana
>
> --- ~ --- ~ --- ~
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> Researcher
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV)
> www.freenetfilm.org
>
>
> On 31/01/2013, at 09:52, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree also on this approach
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>
>> Date:
>> To: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org,Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>,joana at varonferraz.com
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and Responsibilities
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with Joana and Jeremy - there are two communications we should do pretty quickly:
>>
>> 1) take the Best Bits WCIT statement and adapt it - or at least the first part on transparency and access, etc. - to the WTPF.  I personally don't see the participation challenges for civil society being much less than they were at the WCIT - which is ironic because the WTPF is not a treaty-making conference - and the IEG is not adequate by any means (I am on the IEG and will be attending next week).  I'm sure CDT would be happy to take a first cut at this text.
>>
>> 2) follow-up on the letter to the SG and the meeting we had in Dubai in which participation in the WTPF was discussed.
>>
>> If there is agreement on text on 1 above I can raise points from it or read it in the IEG meeting next week for Best Bits.
>>
>> While I understand the Brazilian telecoms regulator's view there are a number of points in the SG's 4th report that refer to multistakeholderism in Internet governance issues and there are two opinions submitted so far that take positions I believe are contrary to civil society's interests in terms of stakeholder participation and enhanced cooperation.   I think civil society messaging on these issues is as important for the WTPF as it was for the WCIT.
>>
>> And finally, who on this list is going to the UNESCO WSIS/IGF meeting at the end of February?  Thought it might be good to have a gathering during that week to compare notes on WSIS+10/IGF and discuss WTPF?
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 31/01/2013 09:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> On 31/01/13 05:15, Joana Varon wrote:
>>>> Sorry for the late reply after the sympathy some have expressed on drafting a letter highlighting the promises of Dr Touré at the WCIT SC meeting. I was approaching the Brazilian government for support on our demand for space and participation of civil society organizations on ITU processes.
>>>>
>>>> Though showing solidarity with the cause, Brazilian government (or our               telecom regulatory agency responsible for representing the country at ITU) has signaled that WTPF is not the proper sphere to submit extensive contribution regarding CS participation, the plenipotentiary would be so. So, as far as I know, Brazil will submit a contribution to WTPF only generally speaking about openness and transparency, but not presenting a particular proposal for change in the mechanisms for civil society participation.
>>>>
>>>> In that sense, they have also addressed the existence of Informal Experts Group for WTPF, highlighting that:
>>>> ...
>>>> Well, this is surely not satisfactory, so, with that in mind, I wonder if we should go for that joined CS letter focusing on WTPF and stressing previous commitments from the Secretary General, do we still have time? Or, for the ones how are more aware of UN bodies internal procedures, do we have to wait the loooong time for the plenipot? What could we grasp right now?
>>>>
>>> (I'm quoting almost your whole message because I intend on forwarding my reply to the wcit12 list too, as an almost identical discussion is going on there.)
>>>
>>> The deadline for comments on the Secretary General's report is tomorrow, so we may be hard pressed to do anything by then!  Having said that, we could ask for special dispensation to contribute a belated submission, as was granted for the Best Bits statement to WCIT.
>>>
>>> Personally I am unlikely to have time to take the lead on a letter but I am supportive of the idea and would have comments to give on a draft if say you or Emma from CDT were to send some draft text.  The IGC has not successfully done a statement for a while, and Best Bits is in transition (watch this space), so probably it would probably not be under either of those umbrellas, but rather a generic civil society letter to which groups could sign on.
>>>
>>> I agree that the invitation to participate in the IEG is no substitute, though for those who can, good on them.  Avri said she is on the group and there is CDT, but unless you count ISOC (I don't), there is no other civil society that I know of.  Doubtless largely due to the lack of funding, as always (that's why I won't be there).
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 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 | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>>
>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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/20130205/f29c5485/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Fri Feb  8 05:28:02 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 05:28:02 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and
 Responsibilities
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTo7co5d6bBHvMSpZsE2qB0s5mdPnbDXwbsJO2ixRGLy2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <v4wqnoxd3og10noe7m3uapyg.1359633153085@email.android.com> <D25792DE-E584-4E55-A0DE-7806F0E86931@varonferraz.com> <5111600B.3030507@apc.org> <CALU7RQassXcDh_gCaXOs3M1z3qECkrVMABCG-Gn6xtb-_Fk1-g@mail.gmail.com> <511329FB.7000701@itforchange.net> <CALTAiTo7co5d6bBHvMSpZsE2qB0s5mdPnbDXwbsJO2ixRGLy2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <615641B2-8529-4E77-9E65-307A9F80E51A@acm.org>


On 6 Feb 2013, at 23:31, Joana Varon wrote:

> 1) When was the IEG opened to civil society participation? Was it just that we didn’t know to ask? [We have heard that the USG had sent a letter to the IEG Chair to request CS participation, waiting to hear back if that happened and when.]

I dont know if anyone heard before 20 Jan?

> 2) Do members of the IEG have speaking rights at the WTPF May meeting? i.e. if civil society is on the IEG, then do they have the right to speak at the WTPF?

I think so, but don't know if any have yet.

> 3) Is it possible to participate meaningfully in the IEG without attending in person, i.e. remote participation, contributions over email, etc.

I am participating today on the IEG remotely as are some other list members

I have not tried to intervene from remote. 
think I could if I had anything to say.
maybe one of us should try just to check, but ... 

The ITU is doing a good job of serving the remote participants.

BTW, I know of at least one case of a person who applied for IEG on the first day of the meeting and was approved in time for remote participation by the second day.

I think they are trying, so think we should be saying something that conveys - good start, keep it coming.

avri

From avri at acm.org  Fri Feb  8 08:00:20 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 08:00:20 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] [] Multistakeholder Roles and Responsibilities
In-Reply-To: <615641B2-8529-4E77-9E65-307A9F80E51A@acm.org>
References: <v4wqnoxd3og10noe7m3uapyg.1359633153085@email.android.com> <D25792DE-E584-4E55-A0DE-7806F0E86931@varonferraz.com> <5111600B.3030507@apc.org> <CALU7RQassXcDh_gCaXOs3M1z3qECkrVMABCG-Gn6xtb-_Fk1-g@mail.gmail.com> <511329FB.7000701@itforchange.net> <CALTAiTo7co5d6bBHvMSpZsE2qB0s5mdPnbDXwbsJO2ixRGLy2Q@mail.gmail.com> <615641B2-8529-4E77-9E65-307A9F80E51A@acm.org>
Message-ID: <E9D74609-051C-4453-A575-C17856A77695@acm.org>


A correction.

We could have known about applying for IEG membership as early as September.  I applied in September.

It was the ability to apply to attend the WTPF itself that wasn't known until Jan.  I think.

i should be more careful about what I write before 6am.

avri


On 8 Feb 2013, at 05:28, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> On 6 Feb 2013, at 23:31, Joana Varon wrote:
> 
>> 1) When was the IEG opened to civil society participation? Was it just that we didn’t know to ask? [We have heard that the USG had sent a letter to the IEG Chair to request CS participation, waiting to hear back if that happened and when.]
> 
> I dont know if anyone heard before 20 Jan?
> 
>> 2) Do members of the IEG have speaking rights at the WTPF May meeting? i.e. if civil society is on the IEG, then do they have the right to speak at the WTPF?
> 
> I think so, but don't know if any have yet.
> 
>> 3) Is it possible to participate meaningfully in the IEG without attending in person, i.e. remote participation, contributions over email, etc.
> 
> I am participating today on the IEG remotely as are some other list members
> 
> I have not tried to intervene from remote. 
> think I could if I had anything to say.
> maybe one of us should try just to check, but ... 
> 
> The ITU is doing a good job of serving the remote participants.
> 
> BTW, I know of at least one case of a person who applied for IEG on the first day of the meeting and was approved in time for remote participation by the second day.
> 
> I think they are trying, so think we should be saying something that conveys - good start, keep it coming.
> 
> avri
> 



From gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Feb 10 11:33:55 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 08:33:55 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] A CS Position Paper for WSIS +10
Message-ID: <023b01ce07ac$7a785980$6f690c80$@gmail.com>

As part of my own prep for the WSIS +10 review in a couple of weeks I've taken another look at the CS declarations http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf and the attached. Apart from some things that don't appear (not much mention of Broadband, none of wireless, nothing on Net Neutrality and so on) the documents seem to stand up quite well as the basis for a position paper for the upcoming review and more importantly for the beginning of the development of an input position for WSIS +10 in 2015.

 

I'm wondering if there might not be some value in a break out group forming to collaboratively review, discuss and then make comments and suggested updates on that documents as part of the process of CS preparing for WSIS +10 in 2015. It might be most interesting to start off with folks who were directly involved in the original document (my participation in these was almost all virtual so I'm not really very clear as to who that might be) or who have been actively engaged in work related to the document as for example, those working with Information Society Watch and then start to move out from there but of course, no one who aligns themselves with the positions presented in those documents would be excluded.

 

Perhaps those interested might contact me off-list.  Also, feel free to pass this along to anyone who won't be reached by this mass mailing. 

 

Best,

 

M

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130210/0100d62c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSIS-CS-summit-statement-18-12-2005-en.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 348038 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130210/0100d62c/attachment.pdf>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Feb 11 17:08:12 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:08:12 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Blogpost: Civil Society and the Emerging Internet Cold
 War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest
Message-ID: <08a601ce08a4$499567b0$dcc03710$@gmail.com>

I've taken my comments below and expanded them as a blogpost (with links
etc.

 

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/civil-society-and-the-emerging-inte
rnet-cold-war-non-alignment-and-the-public-interest/

 

http://tinyurl.com/bllvbry

 

Comments/critiques etc. welcomed


 

M

 

From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 8:43 AM
To: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Philipp Mirtl'; 'Louis Pouzin (well)'
Subject: RE: [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"

 

To carry forward this Cold War analogy I'm wondering whether the appropriate
position for civil society should rather be one of "non-alignment"; that is,
a position which recognizes a degree of validity in both sets of arguments
but chooses to put these in the broader and more univeral context of the
development of the Internet as a global public good, operating in support of
the global public interest where there is a universal acceptance of free
expression, human rights, and a fair distribution of economic benefits among
other rights and principles.

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Philipp Mirtl
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 7:41 AM
To: Louis Pouzin (well); governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: AW: [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"

 

Dear Louis,

 

Thanks for your comment. Please note that the commentary was written by
Alexander Klimburg, who I am working together with – not myself. Alex is not
member to this list which is why he asked me to forward you the following:

 

“Depends what you mean by “creeping cyberwar”. If you mean the often-noted
“militarisation of cyberspace” that is only one trend – and in some cases it
is simply really part of “de-spooking of cyberwar” (i.e. making it more,
rather than less, visible). The vast majority cyberconflict is invisible to
those without the necessary technical or governmental insight.“

 

For more info, I also send you two additional links on that issue:

 

-          Alexander Klimburg (2011): “Mobilising Cyber Power”, Survival,
53:1, 41-60 (via:
http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/zselden/coursereading2011/Klimcyber.pdf)

-          Alexander Klimburg (Ed.) (2012), National Cyber Security
Framework Manual, NATO CCD COE Publication (via:
http://www.ccdcoe.org/369.html)

 

Warm regards,

 

Philipp

 

 

Von: pouzin at gmail.com [mailto:pouzin at gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Louis Pouzin
(well)
Gesendet: Montag, 11. Februar 2013 16:21
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Philipp Mirtl
Betreff: [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"

 

Hi Philipp,

Congrats for your very perceptive analysis. The fragmentation trend is
indeed on the ground already. Do you have any comments on the creeping
cyberwar ?

Best, Louis
- - -

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Philipp Mirtl <Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at>
wrote:

Dear list members,

 

For those who are interested, I forward you the link to a recently published
commentary on WCIT-12: http://www.cnas.org/theinternetyalta.

 

The abstract reads as follows:

 

“The December 2012 meeting of the World Conference on International
Telecommunications (WCIT) may be the digital equivalent of the February 1945
meeting of the Allied powers in Yalta: the beginning of a long Internet Cold
War between authoritarian and liberal-democratic countries. The battles over
Internet governance that surfaced at WCIT are not just about competing
visions of the Internet, with one side favoring openness and the other
security. They are also about two different visions of political power – one
in which that power is increasingly distributed and includes non-state
actors, and one in which state power is dominant. At the Yalta Conference,
Western democracies made two fundamental mistakes: first, they allowed naive
statements of wishful thinking to supplant actual realities on the ground.
Second, they overlooked the risk inherent in permitting ambiguous
definitions. Both of these mistakes may have been repeated at WCIT.”

 

Best regards,

 

 

Philipp Mirtl

 

Fellow / Adviser

Österreichisches Institut für Internationale Politik (oiip)

Austrian Institute for International Affairs

Berggasse 7

A-1090 WIEN/VIENNA

Tel: +43-(0)1-581 11 06-29 <tel:%2B43-%280%291-581%2011%2006-29> 

Fax: +43-(1)1-581 11 06-10 <tel:%2B43-%281%291-581%2011%2006-10> 

E-Mail: philipp.mirtl at oiip.ac.at

Website: www.oiip.ac.at <http://www.oiip.ac.at/> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130211/ee620020/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Feb 11 17:55:20 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:55:20 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] RE: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the
 Emerging Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxgoLdK+5XtHMKAe9oJeF0QJ9ih3oUvrNc1daA+VQii52g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <08a601ce08a4$499567b0$dcc03710$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxgoLdK+5XtHMKAe9oJeF0QJ9ih3oUvrNc1daA+VQii52g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <08ec01ce08aa$e693c6f0$b3bb54d0$@gmail.com>

I've no idea of the position of "China, Russia, Iran etc." on the issue, but
at least from my reading there was considerable support for the below among
the "sovereigntist" camp--my point being that there was a wide range of
perspectives within that group and it is possible/desireable for CS to make
the effort to recognize that spectrum and to align itself with those who for
example support the below (and seek a means to have them support our broader
positions). That the "lib-dems" ended up "opposing" the resolution below if
only by association, should be (and I believe has been) a cause of
considerable embarrassment within that camp and its followers.

M

RESOLUTION PLEN/1 (DUBAI, 2012) 
Special measures for landlocked developing countries and small island
developing
states for access to international optical fibre networks

http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Pages/News.aspx?ItemID=16 +
http://www.un.org/special-rep/ohrlls/lldc/default.htm

M

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 2:19 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the Emerging
Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest

<I've made this comment on the web as well>

Michael,

Can you back up the below with any facts? My impression is that China,
Russia, Iran, etc don't give a fig about digital inclusion!

"In addition to the positions noted above, the cybersovereigntists include a
number of those whose primary concern is that of ensuring the widest
possible access to the Internet (digital inclusion) and to the economic
benefits that are accruing as a result of Internet activity; "


--
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel



From ca at cafonso.ca  Mon Feb 11 18:08:43 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 21:08:43 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the
 Emerging Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxgoLdK+5XtHMKAe9oJeF0QJ9ih3oUvrNc1daA+VQii52g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <08a601ce08a4$499567b0$dcc03710$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxgoLdK+5XtHMKAe9oJeF0QJ9ih3oUvrNc1daA+VQii52g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <511979FB.4090008@cafonso.ca>

McTim, at a minimum Russia and China are not dumb -- the Internet has 
become significant part of their economic development as well, and 
universalization is central to this process. The "etc" in your phrase is 
dubious...

On the other hand, Europe cut their annual budget for the first time, 
hurting digital inclusion investments in the area, as Neelie points out 
(in this case, almost a tenfold cut). It seems Europe is not giving a 
damn about DI as well eh?

--c.a.

On 02/11/2013 08:18 PM, McTim wrote:
> <I've made this comment on the web as well>
>
> Michael,
>
> Can you back up the below with any facts? My impression is that China,
> Russia, Iran, etc don’t give a fig about digital inclusion!
>
> “In addition to the positions noted above, the cybersovereigntists
> include a number of those whose primary concern is that of ensuring
> the widest possible access to the Internet (digital inclusion) and to
> the economic benefits that are accruing as a result of Internet
> activity; “
>
>


From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Feb 11 18:47:44 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:47:44 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] RE: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the
 Emerging Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxjtPQo36vR0rBQ3raC6QktrLuKV-R+igw2JDq5r_Uh1yQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <08a601ce08a4$499567b0$dcc03710$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxgoLdK+5XtHMKAe9oJeF0QJ9ih3oUvrNc1daA+VQii52g@mail.gmail.com> <08ec01ce08aa$e693c6f0$b3bb54d0$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxjtPQo36vR0rBQ3raC6QktrLuKV-R+igw2JDq5r_Uh1yQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <092601ce08b2$384993b0$a8dcbb10$@gmail.com>

McTim, my point was and remains that there are a range of issues involved in
these matters and that the polarization generated at the WCIT may serve the
interests of some but it doesn't necessarily reflect reality nor the
interests/values of CS.

CS should be looking for higher ground (to my mind support for the Internet
as a global public good) and finding allies in support of this wherever they
can found.  The focusing in the WCIT (and dare I say before that at the IGF)
on the Internet Freedom issue by certain elements within CS and others
ignored the very large range of issues on which agreement could and should
be found and overall as I said CS should be "non-aligned" in the emerging
"Internet Cold War" and developing it's own position(s) which include among
others free expression, human rights, and digital inclusion.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 3:29 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the Emerging
Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:55 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I've no idea of the position of "China, Russia, Iran etc." on the 
> issue, but at least from my reading there was considerable support for 
> the below among the "sovereigntist" camp

"The approved Resolution was unanimously supported by ITU Member States"

I don't see your point.  Everyone supported this resolution according to the
BDT press release, which is hilarious BTW...."ITU is at the very heart of
the ICT sector" for example.


--
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel



From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Feb 12 00:16:51 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:46:51 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [IRPCoalition] MAG consultations
In-Reply-To: <5119CDAD.8000509@itforchange.net>
References: <5119CDAD.8000509@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <5119D043.2010404@itforchange.net>

Dear All

I am not sure of the level of interest that this group may have in 
shaping the program of the next IGF, but just in case it is interested, 
I am forwarding the first draft of a proposed statement that the Dynamic 
Colalition on Internet Rights and Principles is considering at present . 
The deadline to give written inputs is the day after, although a day or 
two of grace period may be available... The MAG of the IGF will have an 
open consultation on the 28th in which additional inouts can be made 
orally.

Wonder if this group may want to support the below statement, especially 
since we decided to work towards framing a 'positive agenda' for global 
IG... I see looking at possible set of global Internet principles as a 
good starting point for framing such an agenda..

regards, parminder


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [IRPCoalition] MAG consultations
Date: 	Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:35:49 +0530
From: 	parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: 	irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> 
"irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" 
<irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>



Hi All

The first draft of the proposed statement by the IRP dynamic coalition 
for the MAG open consultation is enclosed, and also below... We have 
just 2 days (maybe we can ask for another 2), so pl hurry with your 
comments... parminder


*Proposed statement by DC on IRP for the MAG Open Consultations on the 
28th February*

In the times of mind-boggling flux like the present one, one needs 
perhaps to go back to basic normative values and frameworks, and then 
draw their implications for actual policies and practice in a particular 
field of application. For too long, global Internet governance has been 
a fight for or between different institutions, and different possible 
points of exercising political and economic control. The resulting 
logjam is for everyone to see. A more worthwhile alternative approach to 
take would be to first focus on what needs to be done rather than on who 
will do it, which lands us directly into institutional and other kinds 
of power politics. It may therefore be worthwhile to focus on developing 
some kind of 'Internet Principles' or "Principles for Internet 
Governance' as touchstones that can guide global IG. Such a process is 
expected to help pave way for the required public interest policies and 
other activities in the area of global IG. It may also give us important 
leads on what kind of institutional frameworks best suit global Internet 
governance, an issue which is expected to be quite hot in the run up to 
WSIS + 10 review event in 2015.

The Chair's summary at the 5th IGF at Vilnius, Lithuania, in 2010, spoke 
of a kind of consensus that the IGF process must now go beyond mere 
discussions, and take some more concrete steps. (Extending the 'arranged 
marriage' metaphor, the Chair said something to the effect that the 
couple has been sitting around holding hands for too long, and it must 
now move on....!) It was proposed that looking at some kind of Internet 
principles would be a good starting point. Brazil had framed a set of 
Internet Principles that it brought to the IGF that year. This 
initiative was held up as good example of what was being proposed. 
Internet Principles also have a history within the IGF, with a Dynamic 
Coalition on Framework of Principles being formed at the first IGF in 
Athens. Later this dynamic coalition merged with the Dynamic Coalition 
on Internet Rights to form the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and 
Principles. This Dynamic Coalition has developed a Charter of Internet 
Rights and Principles, which is still a work in progress. It recently 
also developed a set of 10 Internet Rights and Principles, a shorter, 
punchier document based on the larger charter.

It is also pertinent to note that many organizations have been framing 
some kind of Internet principles, for instance, Council of Europe and 
the OECD. Some countries like US, UK and China have come with their own 
statements on cyber norms. Recently, a Brazilian civil society group 
proposed another statement of Internet Principles which was endorsed by 
many other groups worldwide. (CAN ADD MORE INSTANCES OF INT PRINCIPLES 
HERE).

In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Bali IGF must take 
up work in full earnest on seeking convergences and divergences (as 
recommended by the Working Group on IGF Improvements), if not possible 
consensus, among different initiatives on Internet Principles. This will 
help us employ our common normative understandings and frameworks to 
help close political differences on global IG as the best way to move 
forward. IGF must contribute to developing global Internet policies and 
institutional frameworks that are equitable and just, and that serve the 
global public interest. Working on global Internet Principles is, in our 
view, the best way to proceed forward in this regard.

We propose that the next IGF in Bali devotes one full day to the theme 
of 'Internet Principles'. The day can start with a round-table on the 
subject and end with an open session on the subject. Other possible 
formats can be considered in-between. The Dynamic Coalition on Internet 
Right and Principles offers its experience and expertise in this area to 
help the MAG organise 'Internet Principles' related work program. We are 
especially eager to help organize the proposed round table on 'Internet 
Principles'.

We also propose that the overall theme of Bali IGF be 'Internet 
Principles'. Possible overall themes being put forward for MAG's 
consideration are (1) Public interest principles for the Internet (2)  
Shaping global principles for the Internet.






On Monday 11 February 2013 03:45 PM, Marianne Franklin wrote:
> Dear Parminder
>
> Thanks for providing these signposts. This idea certainly has my vote 
> and I hope others in the coalition can also confirm this is an idea we 
> are all behind as well as provide some feedback as there are only 3 
> days before the deadline!
>
> Could you send the draft blurb over as soon as possible as people can 
> then respond more specifically. My views are at this point and seeing 
> as it is a proposal so details can emerge later,
>
> 1) Yes to holding a Roundtable. Work can begin on that straightaway.
>
> 2) Yes to formulating the Main theme proposal in terms of how global 
> principles for the Internet need to be also public interest 
> principles. I think the connection is there in that we need to make 
> clear that public interest is in effect a global issue when it comes 
> to human rights and principles for the Internet. This is crucial to my 
> mind for this initiative to make sense for the upcoming IGF itself as 
> well as the IRP Coalition; as a whole and in terms of the work 
> coalition member organizations are doing already around the world and 
> in IGO forums such as the upcoming WSIS+10 then
>
> Thanks again Parminder. Looking forward to seeing the draft 'blurb'. 
> If people could respond quickly too so that we can move this forward 
> and out.
>
> One last point (and to save too many emails from me this morning!): 
> the WSIS+10 Meeting in Paris is at the end of the month. The IRP 
> Coalition is holding a session on Tuesday morning and the Best Bits 
> Coalition have a session also at another time. APC are also hosting a 
> session, or perhaps two. And there are others so the coalition's work 
> on the IRP Charter is well represented as is the work of our members.
>
> Who is going to be in Paris? I have an idea based on the coalition 
> session and the program but it would be good for the list to hear who 
> will be there and in what capacity. If people recall from 10 years ago 
> ( Time Flies!) the WSIS events then had little publicity. Since the 
> Arab Spring and last year's furore around the ITU and IGF we can see 
> that the WSIS concerns are now very much in the public eye. So things 
> have moved on.
>
> Back later with more details about all the relevant sessions for our 
> work in Paris.
>
> best
> MF
>
>
> On 11/02/2013 10:04, parminder wrote:
>> Hi All
>>
>> I was supposed to give text for IRP's written contribution to the MAG 
>> meeting later this month, for which the deadline of 14th Feb.
>>
>> I had already suggested some elements of what I would like IRP to 
>> propose, which were
>>
>> (1) IRP holds a round table on Internet principles at the next IGF
>>
>> (2) We propose that Internet principles be part of the next year's 
>> IGF's main theme - in this regard two possible formulations were 
>> suggested (a) Public interest principles for the Internet (b) Shaping 
>> global principles for the Internet
>>
>> Now if the group can give its views on the above, we can just write 
>> that our our input which can be backgrounded by how Internet 
>> principles are important, how various IGFs have stressed on them, and 
>> that tiem may have come etc etc.... But that part is non 
>> controversial, and I promise to do a para by tomorrow. Meanwhile the 
>> real agreement has to be built on the above operative parts. Do, 
>> please give your views asap, the deadline beinbg the 14th,
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>
> -- 
> Dr Marianne Franklin
> Reader
> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
> Goldsmiths, University of London
> Dept. of Media & Communications
> New Cross, London SE14 6NW
> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
> <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
> @GloComm
> https://twitter.com/GloComm
> http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
> https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130212/3a22a7dd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IRP MAG open consultations.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 17920 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130212/3a22a7dd/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IRP MAG open consultations.odt
Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text
Size: 44334 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130212/3a22a7dd/attachment.odt>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Tue Feb 12 05:31:42 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:31:42 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil
 Society and the Emerging Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public
 Interest
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxjtPQo36vR0rBQ3raC6QktrLuKV-R+igw2JDq5r_Uh1yQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <08a601ce08a4$499567b0$dcc03710$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxgoLdK+5XtHMKAe9oJeF0QJ9ih3oUvrNc1daA+VQii52g@mail.gmail.com> <08ec01ce08aa$e693c6f0$b3bb54d0$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxjtPQo36vR0rBQ3raC6QktrLuKV-R+igw2JDq5r_Uh1yQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <511A1A0E.6020900@cafonso.ca>

In order to laugh, we first need to know what the "heart of the ICT 
sector" is, McT.

--c.a.

On 02/11/2013 09:29 PM, McTim wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:55 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've no idea of the position of "China, Russia, Iran etc." on the issue, but
>> at least from my reading there was considerable support for the below among
>> the "sovereigntist" camp
>
> "The approved Resolution was unanimously supported by ITU Member States"
>
> I don't see your point.  Everyone supported this resolution according
> to the BDT press release, which is hilarious BTW...."ITU is at the
> very heart of the ICT sector" for example.
>
>


From ca at cafonso.ca  Tue Feb 12 05:54:49 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:54:49 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the
 Emerging Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxgMMb9N1mAco+u18CvscCVir6OSAmeQt6fhPM0Xk1f9+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <08a601ce08a4$499567b0$dcc03710$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxgoLdK+5XtHMKAe9oJeF0QJ9ih3oUvrNc1daA+VQii52g@mail.gmail.com> <511979FB.4090008@cafonso.ca> <CACAaNxgMMb9N1mAco+u18CvscCVir6OSAmeQt6fhPM0Xk1f9+w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <511A1F79.6070306@cafonso.ca>

McT,

On 02/11/2013 09:37 PM, McTim wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>> McTim, at a minimum Russia and China are not dumb -- the Internet has become
>> significant part of their economic development as well, and universalization
>> is central to this process.
>
>
> They are both also keen to take control over naming and addressing in
> the "national segments" as well as to censor what their citizenry can
> and can't see or produce content wise.

Fine, although there are significant differences between Russia and 
China on this, and between both and Iran, but both Russia and China are 
universalizing the Internet in their countries on very objective grounds.

>
> Why would we want to support these Member States agendas?
>
>> The "etc" in your phrase is dubious...
>
> Are there no other like minded Member States?  Many of not most of the
> African States were pulled into the vortex of the agenda set by the 3
> I named.  How is that dubious?

Wrong. Many of the 89 voted yes not because they are "like-minded". As I 
said elsewhere, the reasons of the ones who voted no are not the same, 
so the 55 cannot be seen as "USA-like-minded" -- Or should we consider 
Europe as just a US-driven like-minded State? Actually, 104 did not vote 
yes (summing up the 55 nos and the 49 abstentions or no-shows) -- how do 
you classify this diverse bunch?

Regarding the ones who did vote: Brazil voted for the treaty because the 
gov sectors which have leverage on these policies are heavily influenced 
by transnational telcos who dominate the market here -- none of them 
from Russia or China (three of the big four are European). Its 
justification is that some of its proposals (which are not bad at all) 
made their way into the treaty, and in their defense delegation members 
claim the ITRs are not really binding...

This move incidentally meant a tremendous blow against the Marco Civil 
process now running in Congress. Both telcos and media (trying to insert 
arbitrary takedown measures without due process in the Marco) are 
bombarding it with intense lobbying in Congress and the help of the 
Ministry of Communications.

Let us not be simplistic on this.

--c.a.


From deborah at accessnow.org  Wed Feb  6 14:01:12 2013
From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 14:01:12 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and
 Responsibilities
In-Reply-To: <5111600B.3030507@apc.org>
References: <v4wqnoxd3og10noe7m3uapyg.1359633153085@email.android.com>
	<D25792DE-E584-4E55-A0DE-7806F0E86931@varonferraz.com>
	<5111600B.3030507@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CALU7RQassXcDh_gCaXOs3M1z3qECkrVMABCG-Gn6xtb-_Fk1-g@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Anriette and all,

I believe that the last thread on this chain was on 31 January, but it was
a later email from Joana, which had the draft text for a letter that she
and I had worked on for feedback from this group. I pasted that email below.

The letter has not been finalized and is very much open for edits and
comments. You can send comments either on this email chain or in the google
doc (linked below). We only ask that if you make edits directly into the
google doc that you insert a comment noting/explaining your changes (other
than editorial ones) to make the process manageable.

https://docs.google.com/a/accessnow.org/document/d/1qz4D839quE5vnY-XP-pgu3ENu3WArwIwm5_VgxukgaE/edit

On a related note, I have joined the IEG and am participating remotely.
There may be a consolidated draft text on the multistakeholder framework
available tomorrow, which I can share with the list if it is of interest.

I'm planning to attend the Paris meeting, as is my colleague Raegan
MacDonald who is Brussels-based. If there is a date for a BestBits meeting
around WSIS+10 could someone please send the information around?

Best regards,
Deborah


Joana Varon via<http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&ctx=mail&answer=1311182>
 lists.igcaucus.org
Jan 31 (6 days ago)
to governance, mshears, bestbits, jeremy
Dear all,

I think some people of the governance list felt off from this thread
because people that replied were not in both lists, if so, please, refer to
the exchange of mensages bellow.

Basically, some of us are willing to draft to communications to ITU: 1)
adaptation of the best bits statement (on the content of WTPF documents),
2) follow-up on the letter to the SG during WCIT (on process/barriers faced
by civil society).

With that in mind, Deborah Brown and I have drafted the following text for
the item 2 (follow-up letter to SG). (Is it right that CDT is working on
the first draft for number 1?)

We hope that the draft bellow is useful and if you think so, could you
please add comments until Monday?

As Jeremy have mentioned, let us try to ask for special dispensation to
contribute and try to submit both letters (or just this one) with CS
signatures during next week meeting. Would those attending next week's IEG
meeting (Matthew, Avri?) support this letter and agree to deliver it in
Geneva?

Hope it helps!

Kind regards,

Joana
-- 


Joana Varon Ferraz
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/
<https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/goog_946507056>www.freenetfilm.org
@joana_varon



--------

31 January, 2012


Open letter to ITU in ref. World Telecommunication Policy Forum (WTPF-13)
preparation process


Dear Secretary General Touré,


Recalling Tunis Agenda (Paragraph 35, in particular) we, the undersigned
members of civil society, write to urge International Telecommunication
Union (ITU) to honor previous commitments expressed by the Secretary
General in order to recognize the importance of ensuring meaningful and
sustainable civil society participation in the preparatory process
undertaken for the World Telecommunication Policy Forum (WTPF).


The few civil society representatives who were in Dubai attending WCIT
welcomed the opportunity to meet with you. On that occasion, we shared with
you the concerns expressed in a
letter<https://docs.google.com/a/accessnow.org/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM>
that
gained the support of over 60 members of civil society globally. At that
time, main issues were: the lack of any official standing to the public
comments solicited prior to WCIT at the ITU’s invitation; the lack of
access to and transparency of working groups, particularly the working
groups of Committee 5; and the absence of mechanisms to encourage
independent civil society participation. We welcome that you included the
public comments in an information note to members of the ITU, where you have
recognized<http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-INF-0005!!MSW-E.pdf>
the
“*benefits from a greater civil society engagement at ITU” and have *committed
“*to take stock” and provide your membership with “some important
recommendations” in line with the issue that civil society representatives
raised. *


Yet, as preparations are underway for the WTPF, civil society finds itself
facing familiar barriers to participation:


1) There is no formal mechanism for civil society to independently make
contributions to the preparatory process. We recognize that you have on a
number of occasions encouraged member states to form multistakeholder
delegations, but as representatives of civil society has expressed to you
previously, civil society participation in national delegations cannot
substitute for engagement with independent members of civil society. We
request the  opportunity to submit comments on the SG’s report and Member
State opinions, similar to the Public Views and Opinions page for the WCIT,
but with the guarantee that these opinions will be entered into the formal
record.  We recognize that the deadline for contributions was 1 February
2013, but given these barriers.


2) There are significant barriers to entry for meaningful participation in
the May 2013 WTPF meeting. While we welcome that there is a formal process
to apply to attend as a “public attendant”, there is no indication that
civil society representatives who attend will have speaking rights at the
meeting. As previously expressed in the Best Bits
statement,<http://bestbits.igf-online.net/statement/> we
call for the ITU to create spaces during WTPF for civil society to express
their views, as was done during the WSIS process. We also request that the
WTPF be live streamed to allow for civil society and members of the public
to follow remotely.


Additionally the vetting process is opaque, with no public guidelines for
who is accepted as a public attendant. We call for the ITU to provide
guidance on how the applications admitted.


[ 3) While some members of civil society have been invited to participate
in the Informal Experts Group (IEG), this notice came too late in the
process-- just a few weeks before the IEG’s final meeting-- for most
individuals to find the resources to travel to Geneva. Furthermore,
participation in the final IEG meeting is not sufficient for meaningful
participation in the WTPF process. We regret that this opportunity was not
communicated earlier and more publicly, and call for civil society to be
included earlier in the process in future ITU meetings.]

Sincerely,

*Questions:*

1) When was the IEG opened to civil society participation? Was it just that
we didn’t know to ask? [We have heard that the USG had sent a letter to the
IEG Chair to request CS participation, waiting to hear back if that
happened and when.]

2) Do members of the IEG have speaking rights at the WTPF May meeting? i.e.
if civil society is on the IEG, then do they have the right to speak at the
WTPF?

3) Is it possible to participate meaningfully in the IEG without attending
in person, i.e. remote participation, contributions over email, etc.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:

>  Dear all
>
> Apologies for silence in this discussion.
>
> A few of us from APC (staff and members) are planning to be in Paris.
> Lillian Nalwoga from CIPESA in Uganda has some support. ValeriaBetancourt and myself are still looking for supportbut am planning to be there if at all possible.
>
> Was the statement finished? I have not had BestBits mail since 31 January.
>
> And do we have a date scheduled yet for meeting in Paris around WSIS +10?
>
> Regards
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
>  On 31/01/2013 18:37, Joana Varonferraz wrote:
>
> Let's do it, Mathew.
>
> Are you already coordinating with CDT to adapt best bits statement?
>
> I'm between meetings but I can start a draft of the follow up on the letter to SG. Deborah, from Access, might help. Anyone who has a little time to help is more then welcome. We will start it in about 2 hours.
>
> Lets try to have both drafts by the end of the day and try not to be so creative, just departuring from the points and views of previous consensus, as these letters will be just follow ups from previous "achievements", right?
>
> Best
>
> Joana
>
> --- ~ --- ~ --- ~
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> Researcher
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV)www.freenetfilm.org
>
>
> On 31/01/2013, at 09:52, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com> <genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>  I agree also on this approach
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> <mshears at cdt.org>
> Date:
> To: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org,Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> <jeremy at ciroap.org>,joana at varonferraz.com
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and Responsibilities
>
>
>
> I agree with Joana and Jeremy - there are two communications we should do pretty quickly:
>
> 1) take the Best Bits WCIT statement and adapt it - or at least the first part on transparency and access, etc. - to the WTPF.  I personally don't see the participation challenges for civil society being much less than they were at the WCIT - which is ironic because the WTPF is not a treaty-making conference - and the IEG is not adequate by any means (I am on the IEG and will be attending next week).  I'm sure CDT would be happy to take a first cut at this text.
>
> 2) follow-up on the letter to the SG and the meeting we had in Dubai in which participation in the WTPF was discussed.
>
> If there is agreement on text on 1 above I can raise points from it or read it in the IEG meeting next week for Best Bits.
>
> While I understand the Brazilian telecoms regulator's view there are a number of points in the SG's 4th report that refer to multistakeholderism in Internet governance issues and there are two opinions submitted so far that take positions I believe are contrary to civil society's interests in terms of stakeholder participation and enhanced cooperation.   I think civil society messaging on these issues is as important for the WTPF as it was for the WCIT.
>
> And finally, who on this list is going to the UNESCO WSIS/IGF meeting at the end of February?  Thought it might be good to have a gathering during that week to compare notes on WSIS+10/IGF and discuss WTPF?
>
> Best
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
>
> On 31/01/2013 09:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
>  On 31/01/13 05:15, Joana Varon wrote:
>
>  Sorry for the late reply after the sympathy some have expressed on drafting a letter highlighting the promises of Dr Touré at the WCIT SC meeting. I was approaching the Brazilian government for support on our demand for space and participation of civil society organizations on ITU processes.
>
> Though showing solidarity with the cause, Brazilian government (or our               telecom regulatory agency responsible for representing the country at ITU) has signaled that WTPF is not the proper sphere to submit extensive contribution regarding CS participation, the plenipotentiary would be so. So, as far as I know, Brazil will submit a contribution to WTPF only generally speaking about openness and transparency, but not presenting a particular proposal for change in the mechanisms for civil society participation.
>
> In that sense, they have also addressed the existence of Informal Experts Group for WTPF, highlighting that:
> ...
> Well, this is surely not satisfactory, so, with that in mind, I wonder if we should go for that joined CS letter focusing on WTPF and stressing previous commitments from the Secretary General, do we still have time? Or, for the ones how are more aware of UN bodies internal procedures, do we have to wait the loooong time for the plenipot? What could we grasp right now?
>
>
>  (I'm quoting almost your whole message because I intend on forwarding my reply to the wcit12 list too, as an almost identical discussion is going on there.)
>
> The deadline for comments on the Secretary General's report is tomorrow, so we may be hard pressed to do anything by then!  Having said that, we could ask for special dispensation to contribute a belated submission, as was granted for the Best Bits statement to WCIT.
>
> Personally I am unlikely to have time to take the lead on a letter but I am supportive of the idea and would have comments to give on a draft if say you or Emma from CDT were to send some draft text.  The IGC has not successfully done a statement for a while, and Best Bits is in transition (watch this space), so probably it would probably not be under either of those umbrellas, but rather a generic civil society letter to which groups could sign on.
>
> I agree that the invitation to participate in the IEG is no substitute, though for those who can, good on them.  Avri said she is on the group and there is CDT, but unless you count ISOC (I don't), there is no other civil society that I know of.  Doubtless largely due to the lack of funding, as always (that's why I won't be there).
>
> --
> 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 | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org
>
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>


-- 
Deborah Brown
Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. deborah at accessnow.org
S. deborah.l.brown
T. deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130206/749db910/attachment.htm>

From Andrew at global-partners.co.uk  Tue Feb 12 10:44:24 2013
From: Andrew at global-partners.co.uk (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:44:24 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] RE: UNESCO WSIS plus 10
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399C69E9A2A030@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

To Best Bits list



Hi everyone



Unfortunately I wasn't able to secure any significant funding for Best Bits participation in the UNESCO Paris but taking advantage of people who can be there, that I was able to track down, we can host a panel discussion which will be an opportunity for us to set out some ideas that we can develop over the next three years.



It's been billed as Session 45. A public interest internet:  what can WSIS plus 10 deliver A view from civil society by Global Partners for Best Bits.   It's on the Wednesday (last day) at 14:30 to 16:00 and the platform speakers are Jeremy Malcolm CI (remotely), Grace Githaiga Kicktanet Kenya, Pranesh Prakash CIS India and Joana Varon from FGV Brazil.  There will be remote access to allow people to join - details to follow next week - and it would be great if other Best Bits participants could join us so that it is an interactive conversation rather than one dominated by the platform.



I'm planning to start from the position that we all have basically the same idea of the ideal internet environment (which I'll sketch that out in an introduction) so that we can spend the rest of the workshop thinking about what we need to do over the next three years (particularly in terms of the WSIS +10 process) to get there.



In terms of our shared idea of the ideal internet environment: I'm assuming that we are all agreed that we want to see an internet environment that is open and accessible to all on an equitable and affordable basis.  It should be one that is not dominated by governments or powerful corporations.  Finally it should support democracy and human rights.



This is easy to say but hard to achieve.  I'm also assuming that the way the internet is governed should be as democratic as possible, with participation from the broadest range of voices - geographically, politically, including civil society.



The speakers will say a few words about how you think we can achieve this goal, from the perspective of their own region/country.  Given the focus of current debates on governance how do we think the internet should be run - who by, and how should difficult decisions be made when consensus is likely to be impossible; is there a role for governments and if so, what?  How should civil society be represented?  What's the CS accountability and transparency in policy making?  And any thoughts the speakers might have.



If you have any thoughts on the discussion do let me know and I'll try and accommodate them.



Andrew Puddephatt, Director

Global Partners & Associates



Direct: +44 (0)20 7549 0336

Office: +44 (0)20 7549 0350

Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597

Email: andrew at global-partners.co.uk

Address: Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, London EC2A 4LT, UK



www.global-partners.co.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130212/582a72f0/attachment.htm>

From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk  Tue Feb 12 11:47:22 2013
From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:47:22 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the
 Emerging Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <092601ce08b2$384993b0$a8dcbb10$@gmail.com>
References: <08a601ce08a4$499567b0$dcc03710$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxgoLdK+5XtHMKAe9oJeF0QJ9ih3oUvrNc1daA+VQii52g@mail.gmail.com> <08ec01ce08aa$e693c6f0$b3bb54d0$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxjtPQo36vR0rBQ3raC6QktrLuKV-R+igw2JDq5r_Uh1yQ@mail.gmail.com> <092601ce08b2$384993b0$a8dcbb10$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <511A721A.7020601@gold.ac.uk>

Dear Best Bits folk (sent this to the IRP list...!, thanks Mike!)

This is a very interesting discussion. If I could suggest however that 
the reiteration of Cold War references actually serves the purposes of 
those interests keen to keep this issue a polarized one. The use of 
military idioms is an well-worn element in the 'armory' (see I am doing 
it too!) of political communications.

How things are said matter, for critique as well. So, whilst I agree 
with the substantive point Mike is making, and also concur with the 
point Carlos has made about the EU Budget cuts (and this is something 
for the upcoming EuroDIG I hope) here, I am not sure about formulating 
the work and various affiliations of 'civil society' ( which is also a 
large fuzzy term that includes lots of different sorts of committments) 
as non-aligned. The use of 'war' and such like appeared just prior to 
the WCIT in major broadsheets around the world, the UK in particular. 
This is the work of Spin and if civil society has anything to offer to 
my mind it needs to work hard at reframing the debate in other equally 
evocative ways.

Moreover, historically the Cold War has past. The East-West compass in 
that respect has since shifted so I for one am uneasy about an 
over-reliance in this sort of vocabulary; 'us versus them' is already 
framing things as a zero-sum game and this is the fallout from the WCIT, 
by design perhaps.

best
MF

On 12/02/2013 00:47, michael gurstein wrote:
> McTim, my point was and remains that there are a range of issues involved in
> these matters and that the polarization generated at the WCIT may serve the
> interests of some but it doesn't necessarily reflect reality nor the
> interests/values of CS.
>
> CS should be looking for higher ground (to my mind support for the Internet
> as a global public good) and finding allies in support of this wherever they
> can found.  The focusing in the WCIT (and dare I say before that at the IGF)
> on the Internet Freedom issue by certain elements within CS and others
> ignored the very large range of issues on which agreement could and should
> be found and overall as I said CS should be "non-aligned" in the emerging
> "Internet Cold War" and developing it's own position(s) which include among
> others free expression, human rights, and digital inclusion.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 3:29 PM
> To: michael gurstein
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP
> Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the Emerging
> Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:55 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I've no idea of the position of "China, Russia, Iran etc." on the
>> issue, but at least from my reading there was considerable support for
>> the below among the "sovereigntist" camp
> "The approved Resolution was unanimously supported by ITU Member States"
>
> I don't see your point.  Everyone supported this resolution according to the
> BDT press release, which is hilarious BTW...."ITU is at the very heart of
> the ICT sector" for example.
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
> indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>

-- 
Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Goldsmiths, University of London
Dept. of Media & Communications
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
@GloComm
https://twitter.com/GloComm
http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/

_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp



From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Feb 12 21:52:53 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:52:53 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] RE: The new politics of the internet: Everything is
 connected | The Economist
In-Reply-To: <50EF17A9.5080208@communisphere.com>
References: <50EF17A9.5080208@communisphere.com>
Message-ID: <105901ce0995$39743fe0$ac5cbfa0$@gmail.com>

So what did they get right and what did they get wrong.

 

M

 

-------------------------

 

From: Thomas Lowenhaupt [mailto:toml at communisphere.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:34 AM
To: Michael Gurstein
Subject: The new politics of the internet: Everything is connected | The
Economist

 

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21569041-can-internet-activism-turn-r
eal-political-movement-everything-connected

Tom

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130212/2960a1a4/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Feb 14 20:35:36 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:35:36 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] RE: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the
 Emerging Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <CAGF_KH9vwz92YR3u4g4+OgUYJF-3P_-vSqmsTTu9GYea8P3wbw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <08a601ce08a4$499567b0$dcc03710$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxgoLdK+5XtHMKAe9oJeF0QJ9ih3oUvrNc1daA+VQii52g@mail.gmail.com> <08ec01ce08aa$e693c6f0$b3bb54d0$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxjtPQo36vR0rBQ3raC6QktrLuKV-R+igw2JDq5r_Uh1yQ@mail.gmail.com> <092601ce08b2$384993b0$a8dcbb10$@gmail.com> <511A1296.9010006@gold.ac.uk> <0d7401ce0943$9a503690$cef0a3b0$@gmail.com> <CAGF_KH9vwz92YR3u4g4+OgUYJF-3P_-vSqmsTTu9GYea8P3wbw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <017f01ce0b1c$cc254ef0$646fecd0$@gmail.com>

Hi Bertrand,

 

The Cold War analogy wasn't my usage, rather I first saw it in the
Economist
 I must say though that, regrettably, a lot of the rhetoric and
posturing from certain of our colleagues including in CS was very much of
the Cold War variety including ominous characterizations in various forums
of the fact that Toure had been "educated in Russia", frissant, frissant


 

The terminology has come to be more widely used including somewhat tongue in
cheek by myself because it so neatly fit the "us good guys vs. those forces
of evil" reality of how various folks approached the WCIT discussions.  If
you go back into my interventions on this issue both on the "governance"
list and on my blog I was arguing for nuance and a larger understanding of
the overall issues that were at play (motivated in fact by your type of
vison) than the extreme simplifications of the "Internet Freedom" warriors
and their dark mutterings about UN takeovers of the Internet and deep
Machiavellian plots by countries "out to steal the Internet".  

 

So rather than chiding me on this I'll give you a rather lengthy list of
those whose gross (and dare I say self-serving) simplifications made such a
characterization quite inevitable, not from me but from most everyone else
in the world who wasn't riding on that particular Independence Day float.

 

And yes, I'm agreeing with you and hoping that the kind of polarization that
was seen at the WCIT is a one time thing but if that is to be avoided there
has to be a degree of recognition of the need of an Internet that benefits
all with some degree of equity. That in turn means a recognition that the
Internet is too important to be left simply to the determination of the
currently dominant Internet corporations and their nation state supporters
and allies; but rather means need to be found to ensure an Internet that
develops and operates truly as a global commons and in the global public
interest.

 

Best,

 

M 

 

From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:53 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Marianne Franklin; irp; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the Emerging
Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest

 

Michael,

 

Promoting the Cold War analogy - or even "not being that uncomfortable with
it" has one clear drawback: the Cold War was a perfect example of a
negative-sum game (as in "game theory"). The amount of money spent on the
corresponding arms race and the amount of ill-will generated by the "you are
with us or without us" mentality was certainly something that we had better
avoided. Inasmuch as using this analogy now would simplify the mental
framework, it would be at the cost of a caricature and a binary mindset that
I personally am not comfortable with.  

 

The Internet is the most perfect example of a positive-sum game and
collaborative effort where an amazingly large number of people (and, yes,
companies too) around the world managed to pursue their own interests AND
create global value at the same time. Let's not forget it. 

 

Today,  the security apparatuses on all sides have an objective convergence
of interests and an incentive to reintroduce the Cold War analogy because it
means funding, reaffirmation of power and justification for surveillance.
Do citizens really want this negative-sum game to happen again? Do they want
to see tremendous amounts of resources, human and financial, that could be
used to promote development be squandered in a useless cyber arms race? Do
we want our children to live in a world where cross-border communication
around the world will be as distant and nostalgic a memory as freely
boarding airplanes is now for us?  

 

Or will civil society instead help shape, with other actors, new governance
mechanisms to deal with the real security issues and enable coexistence in
shared online spaces of soon 3 billion people with very different social,
political, religious and cultural affiliations and beliefs? Can we not
reaffirm that this is about managing commons; that this is about finding
ways to gather and involve those who want to live together rather than
submitting to those who prefer humanity separated in nice little geographic
buckets that can be controlled? 

 

I refuse negative-sum games when there are so many ways to produce
positive-sum ones by building things together. Call me naive. But I believe
- I know - it is possible, lucidly, without compromising values, without
being duped and without overlooking the complexity of the task. But is it
not what makes it exciting? Building the institutions humanity needs in this
emerging digital age is a worthy endeavor and something that energizes many
people on this list, and many other in different stakeholder groups. Let's
not allow ourselves to be distracted. Even if it takes time. And it may. 

 

Alain the philosopher once said: Pessimism is a matter of Mood; Optimism is
a matter of Will (le Pessimisme est d'Humeur; l'Optimisme est de Volonté). I
resolutely vote for the second leg of the alternative. Let us not accept
artificial dichotomies that prevent positive progress. We need another
narrative.

 

Just my two cents.

 

Best

 

Bertrand

 

 

 

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 6:08 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:

Hi Marianne,

I generally agree with your point but analogies in these types of instances
act as a sort of mental shorthand simplifying complex matters and making
things more comprehensible but of course, often distorting and introducing
false conditions in the process.

In this case I'm actually not that uncomfortable with the Cold War analogy
at least at a very superficial interpretive level if only because so many of
those from at least one leading country (and at least pre-WCIT, even from
that country's more visisible representatives) were framing their
interventions either implicitly or explicitly within a Cold War (Us-Them,
Enemies of Democracy-Democracy Alliance) framework...

MG


-----Original Message-----
From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
[mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of
Marianne Franklin
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:00 AM
To: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the Emerging
Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest

Dear Best Bits folk

This is a very interesting discussion. If I could suggest however that the
reiteration of Cold War references actually serves the purposes of those
interests keen to keep this issue a polarized one. The use of military
idioms is an well-worn element in the 'armory' (see I am doing it too!) of
political communications.

How things are said matter, for critique as well. So, whilst I agree with
the substantive point Mike is making, and also concur with the point Carlos
has made about the EU Budget cuts (and this is something for the upcoming
EuroDIG I hope) here, I am not sure about formulating the work and various
affiliations of 'civil society' ( which is also a large fuzzy term that
includes lots of different sorts of committments) as non-aligned. The use of
'war' and such like appeared just prior to the WCIT in major broadsheets
around the world, the UK in particular.
This is the work of Spin and if civil society has anything to offer to my
mind it needs to work hard at reframing the debate in other equally
evocative ways.

Moreover, historically the Cold War has past. The East-West compass in that
respect has since shifted so I for one am uneasy about an over-reliance in
this sort of vocabulary; 'us versus them' is already framing things as a
zero-sum game and this is the fallout from the WCIT, by design perhaps.

best
MF

On 12/02/2013 00:47, michael gurstein wrote:
> McTim, my point was and remains that there are a range of issues
> involved in these matters and that the polarization generated at the
> WCIT may serve the interests of some but it doesn't necessarily
> reflect reality nor the interests/values of CS.
>
> CS should be looking for higher ground (to my mind support for the
> Internet as a global public good) and finding allies in support of
> this wherever they can found.  The focusing in the WCIT (and dare I
> say before that at the IGF) on the Internet Freedom issue by certain
> elements within CS and others ignored the very large range of issues
> on which agreement could and should be found and overall as I said CS
> should be "non-aligned" in the emerging "Internet Cold War" and
> developing it's own position(s) which include among others free
expression, human rights, and digital inclusion.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 3:29 PM
> To: michael gurstein
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP
> Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the Emerging
> Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:55 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I've no idea of the position of "China, Russia, Iran etc." on the
>> issue, but at least from my reading there was considerable support
>> for the below among the "sovereigntist" camp
> "The approved Resolution was unanimously supported by ITU Member States"
>
> I don't see your point.  Everyone supported this resolution according
> to the BDT press release, which is hilarious BTW...."ITU is at the
> very heart of the ICT sector" for example.
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
> irp
>

--
Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Goldsmiths,
University of London Dept. of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14
6NW
Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 <tel:%2B44%2020%207919%207072> 
<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
@GloComm
https://twitter.com/GloComm
http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/

_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp

_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp





 

-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle

Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy
(www.internetjurisdiction.net)

Member, ICANN Board of Directors 
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130214/b2e0443d/attachment.htm>

From deborah at accessnow.org  Fri Feb 15 17:13:24 2013
From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 17:13:24 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: SIGN ON: WTPF participation letter from civil
 society organizations
In-Reply-To: <list-2895227@studio405.com>
References: <list-2895227@studio405.com>
Message-ID: <CALU7RQZcZ9R3CuSqoXVk68jSF-Jshp1on7wb_QjMqNTUTp+T3Q@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Please see Emma's email below regarding the open letter to the ITU on civil
society participation in the WTPF. Thank you for all the edits and feedback
to the draft letter that Joana Varon sent around a few weeks ago and we
hope that your organization is able to sign on.

Best regards,
Deborah

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Emma Llanso <ellanso at cdt.org>
Date: Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 4:50 PM
Subject: [WCIT12] SIGN ON: WTPF participation letter from civil society
organizations
To: "wcit12 at cdt.org" <wcit12 at cdt.org>


 Dear all,

Thank you for your comments and input on the letter re: civil society
participation in the WTPF that we circulated a few weeks ago.  We've
incorporated the feedback and updated the requests in the letter following
the Informal Experts Group meeting last week.  The final text is available
here: *
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_M7hxSUFoeTuFM9yNbRH0Jb94ujVR9P23884R27id_Y/pub
*
*
* In short, the letter asks the Secretary General to follow up on
commitments he made during the WCIT to enable greater civil society
participation in the WTPF.  It asks that the Secretariat create a Public
Views and Opinions page for the WTPF documents, and that comments from the
public submitted through this page be entered into the formal record of the
meeting.  It also asks for civil society members to be accorded full
participation in this meeting, independent of national delegations (since
there is no treaty negotiation at the center of this conference), or at the
very least for the ITU to clarify the limitations of the "observer" status
that is currently available to members of the public.

If your organization would like to sign on to this letter, please send
an *email
to WTPFsignon at gmail.com*.  *Deadline *for joining the initial list of
signers is *Wednesday, 20 February*, *at 2300 UTC/1800 EST*; the list will
continue to be updated after that deadline, but we would like to send the
letter with the initial list of signers to the ITU on Thursday, 21 February.

Best regards, and happy weekend!
Emma

-- 
Emma J. Llansó
Policy Counsel
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech>



-- 
Deborah Brown
Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. deborah at accessnow.org
S. deborah.l.brown
T. deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130215/db37735c/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Mon Feb 18 03:06:36 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 03:06:36 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] RE: UNESCO WSIS plus 10
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399C69E9A2A030@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <sympa.1361174375.836.949@lists.igcaucus.org>

Here is a shorter version of the presentation that I'll be giving at the
meeting:

http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states

and here is a longer, serialised version on my IGF Watch blog:

http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/three-false-assumptions-internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states-part-1

Apologies for "spoilers" for next week, but the presentation will include some
content that you won't see above!

Here is an abstract, which also appears in neither of the Web versions:

Last year's ITU WCIT conference inflamed the community's fears of the
extension of intergovernmental control over the Internet. Whilst this fear was
legitimate, an over-emphasis on the ITU can obscure the fact that the Internet
is already controlled in undemocratic ways - often by governments, through
both national and global processes, but also by corporate interests. It also
obscures the fact that government action is sometimes necessary to uphold the
rights of Internet users, just as government inaction can sometimes support
their freedoms.

This is no less true at the global level than at the national level, although
the appropriate mechanisms of governance at each level differ. Specifically,
there are some areas in which developing globally-applicable principles for
the governance of the Internet could be valuable and important. Despite
popular belief, there is no network of global multi-stakeholder processes or
institutions that covers all of the important public policy areas in which
such global principles could be useful. However, with the convening of a new
CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, we now have the opportunity to
fill that gap.

To date, civil society has been very reluctant to participate in the
development of such a positive agenda for the evolution of Internet governance
arrangements. But if we do not, either the status quo will prevail or less
democratic and multi-stakeholder alternatives (such as the ITU) will come to
the fore. This paper suggests one possible format for operationalising the
enhanced cooperation mandate from WSIS, but its principal message is that
regardless of the format adopted, now is the time for civil society to
seriously consider the merits of a more formal institutional platform for the
protection of the rights and freedoms of Internet users.


From Andrew at global-partners.co.uk  Tue Feb 19 04:23:02 2013
From: Andrew at global-partners.co.uk (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:23:02 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] RE: UNESCO WSIS plus 10
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1361174375.836.949@lists.igcaucus.org>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399C69E9A2A030@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
 <sympa.1361174375.836.949@lists.igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399C69E9A2A4BE@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>


Lea will be the remote moderator so maybe  the tow of you could connect about the arrangements?

Andrew Puddephatt, Director       
Global Partners & Associates

Direct: +44 (0)20 7549 0336
Office: +44 (0)20 7549 0350
Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597
Email: andrew at global-partners.co.uk
Address: Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, London EC2A 4LT, UK

www.global-partners.co.uk 


-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: 18 February 2013 08:07
To: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] RE: UNESCO WSIS plus 10

Here is a shorter version of the presentation that I'll be giving at the
meeting:

http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states

and here is a longer, serialised version on my IGF Watch blog:

http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/three-false-assumptions-internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states-part-1

Apologies for "spoilers" for next week, but the presentation will include some content that you won't see above!

Here is an abstract, which also appears in neither of the Web versions:

Last year's ITU WCIT conference inflamed the community's fears of the extension of intergovernmental control over the Internet. Whilst this fear was legitimate, an over-emphasis on the ITU can obscure the fact that the Internet is already controlled in undemocratic ways - often by governments, through both national and global processes, but also by corporate interests. It also obscures the fact that government action is sometimes necessary to uphold the rights of Internet users, just as government inaction can sometimes support their freedoms.

This is no less true at the global level than at the national level, although the appropriate mechanisms of governance at each level differ. Specifically, there are some areas in which developing globally-applicable principles for the governance of the Internet could be valuable and important. Despite popular belief, there is no network of global multi-stakeholder processes or institutions that covers all of the important public policy areas in which such global principles could be useful. However, with the convening of a new CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, we now have the opportunity to fill that gap.

To date, civil society has been very reluctant to participate in the development of such a positive agenda for the evolution of Internet governance arrangements. But if we do not, either the status quo will prevail or less democratic and multi-stakeholder alternatives (such as the ITU) will come to the fore. This paper suggests one possible format for operationalising the enhanced cooperation mandate from WSIS, but its principal message is that regardless of the format adopted, now is the time for civil society to seriously consider the merits of a more formal institutional platform for the protection of the rights and freedoms of Internet users.



From anriette at apc.org  Tue Feb 19 04:33:25 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:33:25 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] RE: UNESCO WSIS plus 10
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1361174375.836.949@lists.igcaucus.org>
References: <sympa.1361174375.836.949@lists.igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <512346E5.3010302@apc.org>

Dear Jeremy and all

This sounds interesting and important. (Have not read full paper yet). 
As not all of us can attend the presentation due to prior workshop 
commitments in that time slot, couldthe civil society/Best Bits people 
present in Paris not get together for dinner / lunch or early morning to 
have some kind of meeting?

Provisionally, can I propose lunch on day 2, Tuesday 26 February, or, 
dinner that same evening.

Thanks

Anriette


On 18/02/2013 10:06, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Here is a shorter version of the presentation that I'll be giving at the
> meeting:
>
> http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states
>
> and here is a longer, serialised version on my IGF Watch blog:
>
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/three-false-assumptions-internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states-part-1
>
> Apologies for "spoilers" for next week, but the presentation will include some
> content that you won't see above!
>
> Here is an abstract, which also appears in neither of the Web versions:
>
> Last year's ITU WCIT conference inflamed the community's fears of the
> extension of intergovernmental control over the Internet. Whilst this fear was
> legitimate, an over-emphasis on the ITU can obscure the fact that the Internet
> is already controlled in undemocratic ways - often by governments, through
> both national and global processes, but also by corporate interests. It also
> obscures the fact that government action is sometimes necessary to uphold the
> rights of Internet users, just as government inaction can sometimes support
> their freedoms.
>
> This is no less true at the global level than at the national level, although
> the appropriate mechanisms of governance at each level differ. Specifically,
> there are some areas in which developing globally-applicable principles for
> the governance of the Internet could be valuable and important. Despite
> popular belief, there is no network of global multi-stakeholder processes or
> institutions that covers all of the important public policy areas in which
> such global principles could be useful. However, with the convening of a new
> CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, we now have the opportunity to
> fill that gap.
>
> To date, civil society has been very reluctant to participate in the
> development of such a positive agenda for the evolution of Internet governance
> arrangements. But if we do not, either the status quo will prevail or less
> democratic and multi-stakeholder alternatives (such as the ITU) will come to
> the fore. This paper suggests one possible format for operationalising the
> enhanced cooperation mandate from WSIS, but its principal message is that
> regardless of the format adopted, now is the time for civil society to
> seriously consider the merits of a more formal institutional platform for the
> protection of the rights and freedoms of Internet users.
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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/20130219/29f81afc/attachment.htm>

From Andrew at global-partners.co.uk  Tue Feb 19 04:35:46 2013
From: Andrew at global-partners.co.uk (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:35:46 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] RE: UNESCO WSIS plus 10
In-Reply-To: <512346E5.3010302@apc.org>
References: <sympa.1361174375.836.949@lists.igcaucus.org>
 <512346E5.3010302@apc.org>
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399C69E9A2A4C5@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

There's a reception on Tuesday evening at 17:30 - could we find each other there?

Andrew Puddephatt, Director
Global Partners & Associates

Direct: +44 (0)20 7549 0336
Office: +44 (0)20 7549 0350
Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597
Email: andrew at global-partners.co.uk<mailto:niamh at global-partners.co.uk>
Address: Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, London EC2A 4LT, UK

www.global-partners.co.uk<http://www.global-partners.co.uk>

From: bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
Sent: 19 February 2013 09:33
To: Jeremy Malcolm
Cc: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] RE: UNESCO WSIS plus 10

Dear Jeremy and all

This sounds interesting and important. (Have not read full paper yet). As not all of us can attend the presentation due to prior workshop commitments in that time slot, could the civil society/Best Bits people present in Paris not get together for dinner / lunch or early morning to have some kind of meeting?

Provisionally, can I propose lunch on day 2, Tuesday 26 February, or, dinner that same evening.

Thanks

Anriette

On 18/02/2013 10:06, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

Here is a shorter version of the presentation that I'll be giving at the

meeting:



http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states



and here is a longer, serialised version on my IGF Watch blog:



http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/three-false-assumptions-internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states-part-1



Apologies for "spoilers" for next week, but the presentation will include some

content that you won't see above!



Here is an abstract, which also appears in neither of the Web versions:



Last year's ITU WCIT conference inflamed the community's fears of the

extension of intergovernmental control over the Internet. Whilst this fear was

legitimate, an over-emphasis on the ITU can obscure the fact that the Internet

is already controlled in undemocratic ways - often by governments, through

both national and global processes, but also by corporate interests. It also

obscures the fact that government action is sometimes necessary to uphold the

rights of Internet users, just as government inaction can sometimes support

their freedoms.



This is no less true at the global level than at the national level, although

the appropriate mechanisms of governance at each level differ. Specifically,

there are some areas in which developing globally-applicable principles for

the governance of the Internet could be valuable and important. Despite

popular belief, there is no network of global multi-stakeholder processes or

institutions that covers all of the important public policy areas in which

such global principles could be useful. However, with the convening of a new

CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, we now have the opportunity to

fill that gap.



To date, civil society has been very reluctant to participate in the

development of such a positive agenda for the evolution of Internet governance

arrangements. But if we do not, either the status quo will prevail or less

democratic and multi-stakeholder alternatives (such as the ITU) will come to

the fore. This paper suggests one possible format for operationalising the

enhanced cooperation mandate from WSIS, but its principal message is that

regardless of the format adopted, now is the time for civil society to

seriously consider the merits of a more formal institutional platform for the

protection of the rights and freedoms of Internet users.





--

------------------------------------------------------

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130219/f3b503e8/attachment.htm>

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Tue Feb 19 04:50:41 2013
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:50:41 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] UNESCO WSIS plus 10
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399C69E9A2A4C5@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <sympa.1361174375.836.949@lists.igcaucus.org> <512346E5.3010302@apc.org> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399C69E9A2A4C5@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <853A8306-1013-40CD-AF9C-96B779FCC499@uzh.ch>

After the reception could work.  However, as I've instigated a MAG dinner Thursday and am dealing with the logistical consequences, I would note that it might not be too easy to walk into restos in the 7th with a largish group and no booking.  You might want to Doodle a head count and call, or have a concierge do it…

Bill

On Feb 19, 2013, at 10:35 AM, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at global-partners.co.uk> wrote:

> There’s a reception on Tuesday evening at 17:30 – could we find each other there?
>  
> Andrew Puddephatt, Director      
> Global Partners & Associates
>  
> Direct: +44 (0)20 7549 0336
> Office: +44 (0)20 7549 0350
> Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597
> Email: andrew at global-partners.co.uk
> Address: Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, London EC2A 4LT, UK
>  
> www.global-partners.co.uk
>  
> From: bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
> Sent: 19 February 2013 09:33
> To: Jeremy Malcolm
> Cc: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] RE: UNESCO WSIS plus 10
>  
> Dear Jeremy and all
> 
> This sounds interesting and important. (Have not read full paper yet). As not all of us can attend the presentation due to prior workshop commitments in that time slot, could the civil society/Best Bits people present in Paris not get together for dinner / lunch or early morning to have some kind of meeting?
> 
> Provisionally, can I propose lunch on day 2, Tuesday 26 February, or, dinner that same evening.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> On 18/02/2013 10:06, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Here is a shorter version of the presentation that I'll be giving at the
> meeting:
>  
> http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states
>  
> and here is a longer, serialised version on my IGF Watch blog:
>  
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/three-false-assumptions-internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states-part-1
>  
> Apologies for "spoilers" for next week, but the presentation will include some
> content that you won't see above!
>  
> Here is an abstract, which also appears in neither of the Web versions:
>  
> Last year's ITU WCIT conference inflamed the community's fears of the
> extension of intergovernmental control over the Internet. Whilst this fear was
> legitimate, an over-emphasis on the ITU can obscure the fact that the Internet
> is already controlled in undemocratic ways - often by governments, through
> both national and global processes, but also by corporate interests. It also
> obscures the fact that government action is sometimes necessary to uphold the
> rights of Internet users, just as government inaction can sometimes support
> their freedoms.
>  
> This is no less true at the global level than at the national level, although
> the appropriate mechanisms of governance at each level differ. Specifically,
> there are some areas in which developing globally-applicable principles for
> the governance of the Internet could be valuable and important. Despite
> popular belief, there is no network of global multi-stakeholder processes or
> institutions that covers all of the important public policy areas in which
> such global principles could be useful. However, with the convening of a new
> CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, we now have the opportunity to
> fill that gap.
>  
> To date, civil society has been very reluctant to participate in the
> development of such a positive agenda for the evolution of Internet governance
> arrangements. But if we do not, either the status quo will prevail or less
> democratic and multi-stakeholder alternatives (such as the ITU) will come to
> the fore. This paper suggests one possible format for operationalising the
> enhanced cooperation mandate from WSIS, but its principal message is that
> regardless of the format adopted, now is the time for civil society to
> seriously consider the merits of a more formal institutional platform for the
> protection of the rights and freedoms of Internet users.
>  
> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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/20130219/70172c6b/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Wed Feb  6 14:31:03 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 21:31:03 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and
 Responsibilities
In-Reply-To: <CALU7RQassXcDh_gCaXOs3M1z3qECkrVMABCG-Gn6xtb-_Fk1-g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <v4wqnoxd3og10noe7m3uapyg.1359633153085@email.android.com> <D25792DE-E584-4E55-A0DE-7806F0E86931@varonferraz.com> <5111600B.3030507@apc.org> <CALU7RQassXcDh_gCaXOs3M1z3qECkrVMABCG-Gn6xtb-_Fk1-g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5112AF77.3040404@apc.org>

Thanks for the update Deborah. Looking forward to reports from the IEG 
if you and the others on the list who is following the meeting have time.
No time to make editsto the letter... crazy proposal writing deadlines :(

Anriette


On 06/02/2013 21:01, Deborah Brown wrote:
> Dear Anriette and all,
>
> I believe that the last thread on this chain was on 31 January, but it was
> a later email from Joana, which had the draft text for a letter that she
> and I had worked on for feedback from this group. I pasted that email below.
>
> The letter has not been finalized and is very much open for edits and
> comments. You can send comments either on this email chain or in the google
> doc (linked below). We only ask that if you make edits directly into the
> google doc that you insert a comment noting/explaining your changes (other
> than editorial ones) to make the process manageable.
>
> https://docs.google.com/a/accessnow.org/document/d/1qz4D839quE5vnY-XP-pgu3ENu3WArwIwm5_VgxukgaE/edit
>
> On a related note, I have joined the IEG and am participating remotely.
> There may be a consolidated draft text on the multistakeholder framework
> available tomorrow, which I can share with the list if it is of interest.
>
> I'm planning to attend the Paris meeting, as is my colleague Raegan
> MacDonald who is Brussels-based. If there is a date for a BestBits meeting
> around WSIS+10 could someone please send the information around?
>
> Best regards,
> Deborah
>
>
> Joana Varon via<http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&ctx=mail&answer=1311182>
>   lists.igcaucus.org
> Jan 31 (6 days ago)
> to governance, mshears, bestbits, jeremy
> Dear all,
>
> I think some people of the governance list felt off from this thread
> because people that replied were not in both lists, if so, please, refer to
> the exchange of mensages bellow.
>
> Basically, some of us are willing to draft to communications to ITU: 1)
> adaptation of the best bits statement (on the content of WTPF documents),
> 2) follow-up on the letter to the SG during WCIT (on process/barriers faced
> by civil society).
>
> With that in mind, Deborah Brown and I have drafted the following text for
> the item 2 (follow-up letter to SG). (Is it right that CDT is working on
> the first draft for number 1?)
>
> We hope that the draft bellow is useful and if you think so, could you
> please add comments until Monday?
>
> As Jeremy have mentioned, let us try to ask for special dispensation to
> contribute and try to submit both letters (or just this one) with CS
> signatures during next week meeting. Would those attending next week's IEG
> meeting (Matthew, Avri?) support this letter and agree to deliver it in
> Geneva?
>
> Hope it helps!
>
> Kind regards,
>
> 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/20130206/0d974182/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Feb 19 09:16:26 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:46:26 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] RE: UNESCO WSIS plus 10
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399C69E9A2A4BE@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399C69E9A2A030@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <sympa.1361174375.836.949@lists.igcaucus.org> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399C69E9A2A4BE@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <5123893A.5080300@itforchange.net>


Thanks Andrew, I have managed to be able to make the trip to Paris..... 
See you there. parminder


On Tuesday 19 February 2013 02:53 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> Lea will be the remote moderator so maybe  the tow of you could connect about the arrangements?
>
> Andrew Puddephatt, Director
> Global Partners & Associates
>
> Direct: +44 (0)20 7549 0336
> Office: +44 (0)20 7549 0350
> Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597
> Email: andrew at global-partners.co.uk
> Address: Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, London EC2A 4LT, UK
>
> www.global-partners.co.uk
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
> Sent: 18 February 2013 08:07
> To: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] RE: UNESCO WSIS plus 10
>
> Here is a shorter version of the presentation that I'll be giving at the
> meeting:
>
> http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states
>
> and here is a longer, serialised version on my IGF Watch blog:
>
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/three-false-assumptions-internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states-part-1
>
> Apologies for "spoilers" for next week, but the presentation will include some content that you won't see above!
>
> Here is an abstract, which also appears in neither of the Web versions:
>
> Last year's ITU WCIT conference inflamed the community's fears of the extension of intergovernmental control over the Internet. Whilst this fear was legitimate, an over-emphasis on the ITU can obscure the fact that the Internet is already controlled in undemocratic ways - often by governments, through both national and global processes, but also by corporate interests. It also obscures the fact that government action is sometimes necessary to uphold the rights of Internet users, just as government inaction can sometimes support their freedoms.
>
> This is no less true at the global level than at the national level, although the appropriate mechanisms of governance at each level differ. Specifically, there are some areas in which developing globally-applicable principles for the governance of the Internet could be valuable and important. Despite popular belief, there is no network of global multi-stakeholder processes or institutions that covers all of the important public policy areas in which such global principles could be useful. However, with the convening of a new CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, we now have the opportunity to fill that gap.
>
> To date, civil society has been very reluctant to participate in the development of such a positive agenda for the evolution of Internet governance arrangements. But if we do not, either the status quo will prevail or less democratic and multi-stakeholder alternatives (such as the ITU) will come to the fore. This paper suggests one possible format for operationalising the enhanced cooperation mandate from WSIS, but its principal message is that regardless of the format adopted, now is the time for civil society to seriously consider the merits of a more formal institutional platform for the protection of the rights and freedoms of Internet users.
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130219/4c9047b8/attachment.htm>

From deborah at accessnow.org  Tue Feb 19 17:21:12 2013
From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:21:12 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [WCIT12] Re: SIGN ON: WTPF participation letter
 from civil society organizations
In-Reply-To: <list-2900765@studio405.com>
References: <list-2900765@studio405.com>
Message-ID: <CALU7RQafhPmVMWiXn6u4br5afy9nt+HEzfiqKdfaPyF9ho++_A@mail.gmail.com>

FYI

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Emma Llanso <ellanso at cdt.org> wrote:

>  Just a reminder that the joint letter on participation in WTPF is open
> for initial sign-on through 2300UTC/1800EST tomorrow, 20 February 2013.
> Text of the letter is available here: *
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_M7hxSUFoeTuFM9yNbRH0Jb94ujVR9P23884R27id_Y/pub
> *
>
> If your organization would like to join the letter, please email
> WTPFsignon at gmail.com, and feel free to circulate this to other lists or
> groups you work with.  The list will remain open to additional signers
> after tomorrow's deadline
>
> Also, in case you missed it, CDT has a post about the WTPF and the
> Informal Experts Group meeting up on our blog: https://www.cdt.org/HxL
>
> Best,
> Emma
>
>
> On 2/15/2013 4:50 PM, Emma Llanso wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Thank you for your comments and input on the letter re: civil society
> participation in the WTPF that we circulated a few weeks ago.  We've
> incorporated the feedback and updated the requests in the letter following
> the Informal Experts Group meeting last week.  The final text is available
> here: https://docs.google.com/a/accessnow.org/document/d/1_M7hxSUFoeTuFM9yNbRH0Jb94ujVR9P23884R27id_Y/pub
> .<https://docs.google.com/a/accessnow.org/document/d/1_M7hxSUFoeTuFM9yNbRH0Jb94ujVR9P23884R27id_Y/pub>
>
> In short, the letter asks the Secretary General to follow up on
> commitments he made during the WCIT to enable greater civil society
> participation in the WTPF.  It asks that the Secretariat create a Public
> Views and Opinions page for the WTPF documents, and that comments from the
> public submitted through this page be entered into the formal record of the
> meeting.  It also asks for civil society members to be accorded full
> participation in this meeting, independent of national delegations (since
> there is no treaty negotiation at the center of this conference), or at the
> very least for the ITU to clarify the limitations of the "observer" status
> that is currently available to members of the public.
>
> If your organization would like to sign on to this letter, please send an
> *email to WTPFsignon at gmail.com*.  *Deadline *for joining the initial list
> of signers is *Wednesday, 20 February*, *at 2300 UTC/1800 EST*; the list
> will continue to be updated after that deadline, but we would like to send
> the letter with the initial list of signers to the ITU on Thursday, 21
> February.
>
> Best regards, and happy weekend!
> Emma
>
> --
> Emma J. Llansó
> Policy Counsel
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
> Washington, DC 20006
> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech>
>
>
> --
> Emma J. Llansó
> Policy Counsel
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
> Washington, DC 20006
> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech>
>



-- 
Deborah Brown
Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. deborah at accessnow.org
S. deborah.l.brown
T. deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130219/b40dba43/attachment.htm>

From dbu at donnybu.com  Thu Feb 21 02:43:44 2013
From: dbu at donnybu.com (Donny B.U.)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:43:44 +0700
Subject: [bestbits] 3 alternative main themes for #IGF2013
Message-ID: <CAJOH5-zB6Mx5=MxW8XFHg9GTCT2yZMtg7nFs2jhqAA-d6a9Vhw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

Please take a view of this brief document at slideshare: -->
http://www.slideshare.net/donnybu/indonesian-csos-for-igf2013

"How The Indonesian Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) Formulate 7 Key
Issues and 3 Alternative Main Themes for #IGF2013"


ps: we already submitted the alternative proposed themes for #IGF2013
here --> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/discussionspace?func=view&catid=7&id=285


best regards,


-dbu-


From anriette at apc.org  Thu Feb 21 14:59:33 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:59:33 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for  CSTD WG on Enhanced
 Cooperation
Message-ID: <51267CA5.50006@apc.org>

Dear colleagues

*Call for nominees from civil society to join the CSTD Working Group on
Enhanced Cooperation*

I have been asked by Mr. Miguel Palomino de la Gala, Chairperson of the
Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) to act as
the focal point for gathering nominations for the 5 civil society
positions on the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation.

Please pass this invitation around to other civil society organisations
or networks you work with.

*Background*

The formation of such a working group (WG) was first discussed at the
15th session of the CSTD in May 2012. The request to the Chairperson to
convene the group was confirmed in resolution 67/195 of the 67th session
of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/195

The task of the WG will bes to examine the "mandate of the World Summit
on the Information Society regarding enhanced cooperation as contained
in the Tunis Agenda, through seeking, compiling and reviewing inputs
from all Member States and all other stakeholders, and to make
recommendations on how to fully implement this mandate". The working
group has to report to the Commission at its 17th session in 2014 as an
input to the overall review of the outcomes of the WSIS. I am not in a
position to say how many times the WG will meet, but assume it is likely
to meet at least twice before submitting its report in May 2014.

*Role of the civil society focal point*

The role of the focal point for civil society is to assist the CSTD
Chair in reaching out to interested parties among civil society who
would like to be considered for participation in the group. The Chair of
the CSTD will decide on and announce the final composition of the
Working Group.

*Composition of the WG*

The WG will be made up of representatives from 22 Member States (four
per regional group plus the two that have hosted the World Summit on the
Information Society) and as invitees, five representatives each from (a)
the private sector, (b) civil society, (c) the technical and academic
communities and (d) intergovernmental and international organizations.

*Process for nominations*

If you would like to nominate yourself, or another individual, please
send an email to me (anriette at apc.org) copying Emilar Vushe
(emilar at apc.org).

Please include:
1. Your name, email and contact number
2. The civil  society entities (network or organisations) that you are
affiliated to
3. The capacity of this affiliation if applicable (e.g. "member" or your
job title)
3. Your country of residence
4. Your nationality and your gender

Could you also please answer the following questions to assist the CSTD
chair in making the final selection:

5.What experience and expertise do you have in public-interest oriented
policy processes that involves cooperation between governments, and also
between governments and non-governmental stakeholder groups (note that
people from sectors other than internet/ICTs are welcome and could have
a lot to contribute)?

6. What experience and expertise do you have in enhanced cooperation in
the context of the WSIS process and internet governance in general?

7. Are you able to commit to the time needed to travel to WG meetings
and participate in these meetings? Meetings will mostly be in Geneva.

Please let me know if you have any questions. I will try to answer them
to the best of my ability.

Sincerely

Anriette Esterhuysen

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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



From anriette at apc.org  Fri Feb 22 03:20:20 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:20:20 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Call for nominations: CSTD WG on
 enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <CAFabd1K+Og66BavcgODrXa8p=jOY4ZtVN9E+Znf3q+R9PRR8AA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51267C46.9010609@apc.org> <CAFabd1K+Og66BavcgODrXa8p=jOY4ZtVN9E+Znf3q+R9PRR8AA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51272A44.9000209@apc.org>

Dear Adam

On support for travel expenses. The GA resolution encourages 
contributions to be made into a trust fund to support the work of the 
working group.
Based on past experience while serving on the WG on IGF Improvements 
there was not always support available for travel to the meetings, but 
the CSTD secretariat ensured that remote participation was possible, and 
the Chairperson, Mr. Peter Major, was very sensitive to the inclusion of 
the remote participants.

On dates. Apologies for leaving that out.

*Deadline for submitting CS nominations to me: 4 March 2013*

Deadline for submitting nominations to the CSTD chairperson is 8 March 2013

Announcement of composition of WG 11 - 15 March 2013

  April - May 2013: first meeting of the working group (pending 
availability of resources)

30 -31 May 2013: second meeting of the working group (just before the 
16th session of the CSTD in June)

Anriette

> Hi Anriette,
>
> Thanks for this information.
>
> Point 7 mentions a time commitment and willingness  to travel to
> meetings. Will CSTD cover travel and other expenses to attend
> meetings?
>
> What's the closing date for nominations and general timeline for
> announcing the WG members etc,
>
> Best,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>> Dear colleagues
>>
>> *Call for nominees from civil society to join the CSTD Working Group on
>> Enhanced Cooperation*
>>
>> I have been asked by Mr. Miguel Palomino de la Gala, Chairperson of the
>> Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) to act as
>> the focal point for gathering nominations for the 5 civil society
>> positions on the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. I realise
>> that the IGC Nomcom has already started the process of gathering
>> nominations and will definitely include the names they propose in the
>> pool I compile along with an explanation of how they were selected.
>>
>> Please pass this invitation around to other civil society organisations
>> or networks you work with.
>>
>> *Background*
>>
>> The formation of such a working group (WG) was first discussed at the
>> 15th session of the CSTD in May 2012. The request to the Chairperson to
>> convene the group was confirmed in resolution 67/195 of the 67th session
>> of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
>> http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/195
>>
>> The task of the WG will bes to examine the "mandate of the World Summit
>> on the Information Society regarding enhanced cooperation as contained
>> in the Tunis Agenda, through seeking, compiling and reviewing inputs
>> from all Member States and all other stakeholders, and to make
>> recommendations on how to fully implement this mandate". The working
>> group has to report to the Commission at its 17th session in 2014 as an
>> input to the overall review of the outcomes of the WSIS. I am not in a
>> position to say how many times the WG will meet, but assume it is likely
>> to meet at least twice before submitting its report in May 2014.
>>
>> *Role of the civil society focal point*
>>
>> The role of the focal point for civil society is to assist the CSTD
>> Chair in reaching out to interested parties among civil society who
>> would like to be considered for participation in the group. The Chair of
>> the CSTD will decide on and announce the final composition of the
>> Working Group.
>>
>> *Composition of the WG*
>>
>> The WG will be made up of representatives from 22 Member States (four
>> per regional group plus the two that have hosted the World Summit on the
>> Information Society) and as invitees, five representatives each from (a)
>> the private sector, (b) civil society, (c) the technical and academic
>> communities and (d) intergovernmental and international organizations.
>>
>> *Process for nominations*
>>
>> If you would like to nominate yourself, or another individual, please
>> send an email to me (anriette at apc.org) copying Emilar Vushe
>> (emilar at apc.org).
>>
>> Please include:
>>
>> 1. Your name, email and contact number
>> 2. The civil  society entities (network or organisations) that you are
>> affiliated to
>> 3. The capacity of this affiliation if applicable (e.g. "member" or your
>> job title)
>> 3. Your country of residence
>> 4. Your nationality and your gender
>>
>> Could you also please answer the following questions to assist the CSTD
>> chair in making the final selection:
>>
>> 5.What experience and expertise do you have in public-interest oriented
>> policy processes that involve cooperation between governments, and also
>> between governments and non-governmental stakeholder groups? Note that
>> people from sectors other than internet/ICTs are welcome and could have
>> a lot to contribute.
>>
>> 6. What experience and expertise do you have in enhanced cooperation in
>> the context of the WSIS process and internet governance in general?
>>
>> 7. Are you able to commit to the time needed to travel to WG meetings
>> and participate in these meetings and in WG activity? Meetings will mostly
>> be in Geneva.
>>
>> Please let me know if you have any questions. I will try to answer them
>> to the best of my ability.
>>
>> Sincerely
>>
>> Anriette Esterhuysen
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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/20130222/c5931a55/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Feb 26 01:12:22 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 07:12:22 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] WSIS+10 My Address on Behalf of Civil Society
Message-ID: <04e501ce13e8$3f108230$bd318690$@gmail.com>

Colleagues,

I'm attaching my address on behalf of Civil Society to the WSIS +10 Review
meeting, Feb. 25, 2013 in Paris.

I've also put this up on my blog at: 

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=683&action=edit&message
=6&postpost=v2

http://tinyurl.com/aq6qb75

Best,

M
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSIS looking back and looking forward.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 35328 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130226/cb3af4d5/attachment.doc>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Feb 27 01:43:22 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 07:43:22 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Making HappyTalk in Paris: Disneyland and the WSIS +10
 Review
Message-ID: <0a2001ce14b5$be4fa5d0$3aeef170$@gmail.com>

Some reflections on the WSIS +10 Review.

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/making-happytalk-in-paris-disneylan
d-and-the-wsis-10-review/

http://tinyurl.com/ay3a2r6

M





From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Feb 28 02:03:11 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:03:11 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] RE: [IRPCoalition] WSIS+10 My Address on Behalf of Civil
 Society
In-Reply-To: <CAO9TZ0Va5S6f4ug+tdqv5wD_S54OUt7eVC0PnypeW7-4OD9wUw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <04e501ce13e8$3f108230$bd318690$@gmail.com> <CAO9TZ0Va5S6f4ug+tdqv5wD_S54OUt7eVC0PnypeW7-4OD9wUw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00d401ce1581$b44b47c0$1ce1d740$@gmail.com>

Thanks Steve :) (with the lesson never try to do/distribute a blogpost in
(somewhat) real time :(

 

M

 

From: Steven Clift [mailto:clift at e-democracy.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 1:29 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: IRP; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] WSIS+10 My Address on Behalf of Civil Society

 

Actually the blog link is here:
http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/world-summit-on-the-information-soc
iety-looking-back-and-looking-forward-my-comments-to-a-wsis-10-review-plenar
y/

Unless you want us to edit it? :-)

On a related note, for those interested in digital divide/inclusion issues I
invite you to join the largest e-list on the topic called the Digital
Inclusion Network. Join at:
http://e-democracy.org/di

Steven Clift

On Feb 26, 2013 12:12 AM, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

Colleagues,

I'm attaching my address on behalf of Civil Society to the WSIS +10 Review
meeting, Feb. 25, 2013 in Paris.

I've also put this up on my blog at:

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=683
<http://gurstein.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=683&action=edit&messag
e=6&postpost=v2> &action=edit&message
=6&postpost=v2

http://tinyurl.com/aq6qb75

Best,

M

_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130228/f75b870e/attachment.htm>

From ggithaiga at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 28 15:31:56 2013
From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:31:56 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] my opening statement at WSIS +10
In-Reply-To: <0a2001ce14b5$be4fa5d0$3aeef170$@gmail.com>
References: <0a2001ce14b5$be4fa5d0$3aeef170$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY151-W2048F4D9433E057C18F3CB4FE0@phx.gbl>


Good peoplePlease find my opening statement made on Monday 25/02/13 during the opening ceremony. It was crowd sourced from the IGC, IRP coalition and bestbits. 
Thanks to Deidre, Ginger, Allon, Anriette, Deborah, Andrew, Trevor, Marianne, Nobert and all of you for your support and for your showing  faith in me. 
Opening Remarks

Acknowledge dignitaries and Participants


As
CS, we applaud the efforts being made to provide accessible remote
participation for this meeting, improving possibilities for inclusion and
active engagement in this significant global policy process. It is exciting
that WSIS is setting an example, which strongly supports timely interventions
from remote participants, and registration as participants in the WSIS +10.


The
civil society wishes to note the following developments that stand out:

·        
Enormous growth in
number of Internet users, in absolute figures, in percentage per country, in
global reach. 

·        
At the same time
most people in the world still can't access the Internet at all (for reasons of
infrastructure, economics, disabilities, politics, etc.), or are experiencing
censorship, limited bandwidth, physical accessibility, etc.)

·        
Others like the
Small Islands Developing States that are susceptible to
natural disasters have such challenges as ageing infrastructure, a lack of
universal accessibility with Digital Inclusion and scarce resources. 

·        
Explosion
of mobile phone use in particular in Africa, which are also facilitating
adoption and use of internet. 

·        
Social
media: People increasingly reaching beyond passive consumption of information
to actively creating and sharing information. There is much wider involvement of citizens in debates on
information society issues. 

·        
Growing awareness
of the impact of policies on how we enjoy the Internet and on our lives in
general.

·        
Continued
incredible intuitiveness and creativeness with which people use, adapt and
invent technology—a demonstration that the human mind is free. 

·        
A lot has been
achieved in terms of consciousness-raising and shifting agendas. A very
concrete achievement is the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet
that has already been making its mark in the wider IG community.


However:

 

The internet presents a
new challenge in thinking about the protection and promotion of human rights, protection of the right to privacy, and data
protection online. 

 

Therefore an understanding of the human rights
environment online calls for an 
understanding of the technical design of the internet and how it is
shaped by commercial forces as well as looking at the kinds of content it
carries, and the controls that apply to such content.

 

As we reflect on WSIS + 10, and as someone who comes from
Kenya, I can attest to the fact that the multistakeholder model endorsed at
WSIS IS doable and has worked for us. It has deepened efforts to expand access
and therefore needs to be preserved.

 

There is need for all sectors, all countries to work
together to bridge divides, tackle issues, and not allow geopolitical interests
to prevail.

 

Conclusion

The right to information, both to impart and to receive,
is a fundamental right that impacts every country in the world. While the right
to information is often regarded as being a "first world problem"
that is secondary to the right to life, education, and health, neither of these
rights can truly exist if we don't facilitate every means to achieve the right
to information.

 

As we take stock let us remind ourselves that
this event is not just a reiteration of well-worn themes, or a
self-congratulation 'festival' but that it really challenges and provides concrete
examples of how and where to implement the WSIS plan of action in a
holistic sense.

 

We need to ensure that internet access is
universal and affordable, and must therefore, be seen as a global public
infrastructure. 

 

Any positive agenda for internet freedom will
need to address  issues raised by developing nations
as well as being in line with the human rights values, and be negotiated
through a multi-stakeholder process.


 

A long-term objective would be to ensure that the internet continues to be a global, interconnected information commons governed in a
dispersed and participatory manner by its users.          

 

I thank you for
your attention. 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130228/41622fbb/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Feb  6 23:13:47 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 09:43:47 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and
 Responsibilities
In-Reply-To: <CALU7RQassXcDh_gCaXOs3M1z3qECkrVMABCG-Gn6xtb-_Fk1-g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <v4wqnoxd3og10noe7m3uapyg.1359633153085@email.android.com> <D25792DE-E584-4E55-A0DE-7806F0E86931@varonferraz.com> <5111600B.3030507@apc.org> <CALU7RQassXcDh_gCaXOs3M1z3qECkrVMABCG-Gn6xtb-_Fk1-g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <511329FB.7000701@itforchange.net>

Dear All

Can the mentioned document be cut pasted here. It is difficult to access 
documents behind google walls, and they ask for log ins and then say you 
will be intimated if the owner allows access. Thanks, parminder


On Thursday 07 February 2013 12:31 AM, Deborah Brown wrote:
> Dear Anriette and all,
>
> I believe that the last thread on this chain was on 31 January, but it 
> was a later email from Joana, which had the draft text for a letter 
> that she and I had worked on for feedback from this group. I pasted 
> that email below.
>
> The letter has not been finalized and is very much open for edits and 
> comments. You can send comments either on this email chain or in the 
> google doc (linked below). We only ask that if you make edits directly 
> into the google doc that you insert a comment noting/explaining your 
> changes (other than editorial ones) to make the process manageable.
>
> https://docs.google.com/a/accessnow.org/document/d/1qz4D839quE5vnY-XP-pgu3ENu3WArwIwm5_VgxukgaE/edit
>
> On a related note, I have joined the IEG and am participating 
> remotely. There may be a consolidated draft text on the 
> multistakeholder framework available tomorrow, which I can share with 
> the list if it is of interest.
>
> I'm planning to attend the Paris meeting, as is my colleague Raegan 
> MacDonald who is Brussels-based. If there is a date for a BestBits 
> meeting around WSIS+10 could someone please send the information around?
>
> Best regards,
> Deborah
>
>
> Joana Varon via 
> <http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&ctx=mail&answer=1311182> 
> lists.igcaucus.org <http://lists.igcaucus.org>
>
> 	
> Jan 31 (6 days ago)
> 	
> 	
> to governance, mshears, bestbits, jeremy
>
> Dear all,
>
> I think some people of the governance list felt off from this thread 
> because people that replied were not in both lists, if so, please, 
> refer to the exchange of mensages bellow.
>
> Basically, some of us are willing to draft to communications to 
> ITU: 1) adaptation of the best bits statement (on the content of WTPF 
> documents), 2) follow-up on the letter to the SG during WCIT (on 
> process/barriers faced by civil society).
>
> With that in mind, Deborah Brown and I have drafted the following text 
> for the item 2 (follow-up letter to SG). (Is it right that CDT is 
> working on the first draft for number 1?)
>
> We hope that the draft bellow is useful and if you think so, could you 
> please add comments until Monday?
>
> As Jeremy have mentioned, let us try to ask for special dispensation 
> to contribute and try to submit both letters (or just this one) with 
> CS signatures during next week meeting. Would those attending next 
> week's IEG meeting (Matthew, Avri?) support this letter and agree to 
> deliver it in Geneva?
>
> Hope it helps!
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Joana
> -- 
>
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/
> <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/goog_946507056>www.freenetfilm.org 
> <http://www.freenetfilm.org/>
> @joana_varon
>
>
>
> --------
>
> 31 January, 2012
>
>
> Open letter to ITU in ref. World Telecommunication Policy Forum 
> (WTPF-13) preparation process
>
>
> Dear Secretary General Touré,
>
>
> Recalling Tunis Agenda (Paragraph 35, in particular) we, the 
> undersigned members of civil society, write to urge International 
> Telecommunication Union (ITU) to honor previous commitments expressed 
> by the Secretary General in order to recognize the importance of 
> ensuring meaningful and sustainable civil society participation in the 
> preparatory process undertaken for the World Telecommunication Policy 
> Forum (WTPF).
>
>
> The few civil society representatives who were in Dubai attending WCIT 
> welcomed the opportunity to meet with you. On that occasion, we shared 
> with you the concerns expressed in a letter 
> <https://docs.google.com/a/accessnow.org/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM> that 
> gained the support of over 60 members of civil society globally. At 
> that time, main issues were: the lack of any official standing to the 
> public comments solicited prior to WCIT at the ITU’s invitation; the 
> lack of access to and transparency of working groups, particularly the 
> working groups of Committee 5; and the absence of mechanisms to 
> encourage independent civil society participation. We welcome that you 
> included the public comments in an information note to members of the 
> ITU, where you haverecognized 
> <http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-INF-0005%21%21MSW-E.pdf> the 
> “*benefits from a greater civil society engagement at ITU” and have 
> *committed “*to take stock” and provide your membership with “some 
> important recommendations” in line with the issue that civil society 
> representatives raised. *
>
>
> Yet, as preparations are underway for the WTPF, civil society finds 
> itself facing familiar barriers to participation:
>
>
> 1) There is no formal mechanism for civil society to independently 
> make contributions to the preparatory process. We recognize that you 
> have on a number of occasions encouraged member states to form 
> multistakeholder delegations, but as representatives of civil society 
> has expressed to you previously, civil society participation in 
> national delegations cannot substitute for engagement with independent 
> members of civil society. We request the  opportunity to submit 
> comments on the SG’s report and Member State opinions, similar to the 
> Public Views and Opinions page for the WCIT, but with the guarantee 
> that these opinions will be entered into the formal record.  We 
> recognize that the deadline for contributions was 1 February 2013, but 
> given these barriers.
>
>
> 2) There are significant barriers to entry for meaningful 
> participation in the May 2013 WTPF meeting. While we welcome that 
> there is a formal process to apply to attend as a “public attendant”, 
> there is no indication that civil society representatives who attend 
> will have speaking rights at the meeting. As previously expressed in 
> the Best Bits statement, 
> <http://bestbits.igf-online.net/statement/> we call for the ITU to 
> create spaces during WTPF for civil society to express their views, as 
> was done during the WSIS process. We also request that the WTPF be 
> live streamed to allow for civil society and members of the public to 
> follow remotely.
>
>
> Additionally the vetting process is opaque, with no public guidelines 
> for who is accepted as a public attendant. We call for the ITU to 
> provide guidance on how the applications admitted.
>
>
> [ 3) While some members of civil society have been invited to 
> participate in the Informal Experts Group (IEG), this notice came too 
> late in the process-- just a few weeks before the IEG’s final 
> meeting-- for most individuals to find the resources to travel to 
> Geneva. Furthermore, participation in the final IEG meeting is not 
> sufficient for meaningful participation in the WTPF process. We regret 
> that this opportunity was not communicated earlier and more publicly, 
> and call for civil society to be included earlier in the process in 
> future ITU meetings.]
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> *Questions:*
>
> 1) When was the IEG opened to civil society participation? Was it just 
> that we didn’t know to ask? [We have heard that the USG had sent a 
> letter to the IEG Chair to request CS participation, waiting to hear 
> back if that happened and when.]
>
> 2) Do members of the IEG have speaking rights at the WTPF May meeting? 
> i.e. if civil society is on the IEG, then do they have the right to 
> speak at the WTPF?
>
> 3) Is it possible to participate meaningfully in the IEG without 
> attending in person, i.e. remote participation, contributions over 
> email, etc.
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org 
> <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
>
>     Dear all
>
>     Apologies for silencein this discussion.
>
>     A few of us from APC (staff and members) are planning to be in
>     Paris. Lillian Nalwoga from CIPESA in Uganda has some support.
>     ValeriaBetancourt and myself are still looking for supportbut am
>     planning to be there if at all possible.
>
>     Was the statement finished? I have not had BestBits mail since 31
>     January.
>
>     And do we have a date scheduled yet for meeting in Paris around
>     WSIS +10?
>
>     Regards
>
>     Anriette
>
>
>
>     On 31/01/2013 18:37, Joana Varonferraz wrote:
>>     Let's do it, Mathew.
>>
>>     Are you already coordinating with CDT to adapt best bits statement?
>>
>>     I'm between meetings but I can start a draft of the follow up on the letter to SG. Deborah, from Access, might help. Anyone who has a little time to help is more then welcome. We will start it in about 2 hours.
>>
>>     Lets try to have both drafts by the end of the day and try not to be so creative, just departuring from the points and views of previous consensus, as these letters will be just follow ups from previous "achievements", right?
>>
>>     Best
>>
>>     Joana
>>
>>     --- ~ --- ~ --- ~
>>     Joana Varon Ferraz
>>     Researcher
>>     Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV)
>>     www.freenetfilm.org  <http://www.freenetfilm.org>
>>
>>
>>     On 31/01/2013, at 09:52, Gene Kimmelman<genekimmelman at gmail.com>  <mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>>     I agree also on this approach
>>>
>>>
>>>     -------- Original message --------
>>>     From: matthew shears<mshears at cdt.org>  <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>  
>>>     Date:
>>>     To:bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org,Jeremy  <mailto:bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org,Jeremy>  Malcolm<jeremy at ciroap.org>  <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>,joana at varonferraz.com  <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>  
>>>     Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and Responsibilities
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     I agree with Joana and Jeremy - there are two communications we should do pretty quickly:
>>>
>>>     1) take the Best Bits WCIT statement and adapt it - or at least the first part on transparency and access, etc. - to the WTPF.  I personally don't see the participation challenges for civil society being much less than they were at the WCIT - which is ironic because the WTPF is not a treaty-making conference - and the IEG is not adequate by any means (I am on the IEG and will be attending next week).  I'm sure CDT would be happy to take a first cut at this text.
>>>
>>>     2) follow-up on the letter to the SG and the meeting we had in Dubai in which participation in the WTPF was discussed.
>>>
>>>     If there is agreement on text on 1 above I can raise points from it or read it in the IEG meeting next week for Best Bits.
>>>
>>>     While I understand the Brazilian telecoms regulator's view there are a number of points in the SG's 4th report that refer to multistakeholderism in Internet governance issues and there are two opinions submitted so far that take positions I believe are contrary to civil society's interests in terms of stakeholder participation and enhanced cooperation.   I think civil society messaging on these issues is as important for the WTPF as it was for the WCIT.
>>>
>>>     And finally, who on this list is going to the UNESCO WSIS/IGF meeting at the end of February?  Thought it might be good to have a gathering during that week to compare notes on WSIS+10/IGF and discuss WTPF?
>>>
>>>     Best
>>>
>>>     Matthew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 31/01/2013 09:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>     On 31/01/13 05:15, Joana Varon wrote:
>>>>>     Sorry for the late reply after the sympathy some have expressed on drafting a letter highlighting the promises of Dr Touré at the WCIT SC meeting. I was approaching the Brazilian government for support on our demand for space and participation of civil society organizations on ITU processes.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Though showing solidarity with the cause, Brazilian government (or our               telecom regulatory agency responsible for representing the country at ITU) has signaled that WTPF is not the proper sphere to submit extensive contribution regarding CS participation, the plenipotentiary would be so. So, as far as I know, Brazil will submit a contribution to WTPF only generally speaking about openness and transparency, but not presenting a particular proposal for change in the mechanisms for civil society participation.
>>>>>
>>>>>     In that sense, they have also addressed the existence of Informal Experts Group for WTPF, highlighting that:
>>>>>     ...
>>>>>     Well, this is surely not satisfactory, so, with that in mind, I wonder if we should go for that joined CS letter focusing on WTPF and stressing previous commitments from the Secretary General, do we still have time? Or, for the ones how are more aware of UN bodies internal procedures, do we have to wait the loooong time for the plenipot? What could we grasp right now?
>>>>>
>>>>     (I'm quoting almost your whole message because I intend on forwarding my reply to the wcit12 list too, as an almost identical discussion is going on there.)
>>>>
>>>>     The deadline for comments on the Secretary General's report is tomorrow, so we may be hard pressed to do anything by then!  Having said that, we could ask for special dispensation to contribute a belated submission, as was granted for the Best Bits statement to WCIT.
>>>>
>>>>     Personally I am unlikely to have time to take the lead on a letter but I am supportive of the idea and would have comments to give on a draft if say you or Emma from CDT were to send some draft text.  The IGC has not successfully done a statement for a while, and Best Bits is in transition (watch this space), so probably it would probably not be under either of those umbrellas, but rather a generic civil society letter to which groups could sign on.
>>>>
>>>>     I agree that the invitation to participate in the IEG is no substitute, though for those who can, good on them.  Avri said she is on the group and there is CDT, but unless you count ISOC (I don't), there is no other civil society that I know of.  Doubtless largely due to the lack of funding, as always (that's why I won't be there).
>>>>
>>>>     -- 
>>>>     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  <tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599>
>>>>
>>>>     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. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>>>
>
>     -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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
> Policy Analyst
> Access | AccessNow.org
> E. deborah at accessnow.org <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>
> S. deborah.l.brown
> T. deblebrown
> PGP 0x5EB4727D

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130207/21270980/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Wed Feb  6 23:31:13 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 02:31:13 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and
 Responsibilities
In-Reply-To: <511329FB.7000701@itforchange.net>
References: <v4wqnoxd3og10noe7m3uapyg.1359633153085@email.android.com>
 <D25792DE-E584-4E55-A0DE-7806F0E86931@varonferraz.com> <5111600B.3030507@apc.org>
 <CALU7RQassXcDh_gCaXOs3M1z3qECkrVMABCG-Gn6xtb-_Fk1-g@mail.gmail.com> <511329FB.7000701@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTo7co5d6bBHvMSpZsE2qB0s5mdPnbDXwbsJO2ixRGLy2Q@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Parminder,

Please, find it bellow. It is the letter to ITU Secretary General as a
follow up of a previous one delivered by CS representatives during WCIT, on
process/barriers faced by CS for participating and having a voice. Deborah
and I gave an initial thought in this draft and raised some
doubts/questions at the end. I believe it could be interesting if the group
decides there is will to move further with it.

As previously suggested by Matthew, a second task could be an update on the
best bits statement (during IEG or WSIS+10 at Paris?)

I'm also attending the Paris meeting and will be glad to join any Best Bits
meeting if there is general will to convene as so.

For the very few fellows who were able to attend IEG, we are looking
forward for any report or feedback, so, please, share links of any
publication you might have or general comments. :)

Kind regards,

Joana

----
31 January, 2012

Open letter to ITU in ref. World Telecommunication Policy Forum (WTPF-13)
preparation process

Dear Secretary General Touré,

Recalling Tunis Agenda (Paragraph 35, in particular) we, the undersigned
members of civil society, write to urge International Telecommunication
Union (ITU) to honor previous commitments expressed by the Secretary
General to ensure meaningful and sustainable civil society participation in
the preparatory process undertaken for the World Telecommunication Policy
Forum (WTPF).

The civil society representatives who were in Dubai attending WCIT welcomed
the opportunity to meet with you. On that occasion, those representatives
shared with you the concerns expressed in a
letter<https://docs.google.com/a/accessnow.org/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM>that
gained the support of over 60 members of civil society globally. At
that time, major challenges facing civil society included the lack of any
official standing to the public comments solicited prior to WCIT at the
ITU’s invitation; the lack of access to and transparency of working groups,
particularly the working groups of Committee 5, which dealt with
substantive revisions to the ITRs; and the absence of mechanisms to support
independent civil society participation. Similarly the Protect Global
Internet Freedom <http://www.protectinternetfreedom.net/> statement signed
by signed by 38,582 people and 1,519 organizations in 185 Countries
requests the ITU to embrace transparency and multi-stakeholder
participation. We welcome that you included the comments from the Public
Views and Opinions page in an information note to members of the ITU, where
you have recognized<http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-INF-0005%21%21MSW-E.pdf>the
“benefits
from a greater civil society engagement at ITU” and have committed “to take
stock” and provide your membership with “some important recommendations” in
line with the issue that civil society representatives raised.

Yet, as preparations are underway for the WTPF, civil society finds itself
facing familiar barriers to participation:

1) There is no formal mechanism for civil society to independently make
contributions to the preparatory process. We recognize that you have on a
number of occasions encouraged member states to form multistakeholder
delegations, but as representatives of civil society has expressed to you
previously, civil society participation in national delegations cannot
substitute for engagement with independent members of civil society. We
request the  opportunity to submit comments on the SG’s report and Member
State opinions, similar to the Public Views and Opinions page for the WCIT,
but with the guarantee that these opinions will be entered into the formal
record.  We recognize that the deadline for contributions was 1 February
2013, but given these barriers, we request [???].

-Another meeting of the IEG? Public comment period? Funnel opinions through
civil society members of IEG? Opportunity for civil society to comment on
March 1 report

2) There are significant barriers to entry for meaningful participation in
the May 2013 WTPF meeting. While we welcome that there is a formal process
to apply to attend as a “public attendant”, there is no indication that
civil society representatives who attend will have speaking rights at the
meeting.  As previously expressed in the Best Bits
statement,<http://bestbits.igf-online.net/statement/>we call for the
ITU to create spaces during WTPF for civil society to
express their views, as was done during the WSIS process. We also request
that the WTPF be live streamed to allow for civil society and members of
the public to follow remotely. As we saw during the WCIT, there is
significant interest among the Internet-using public in the policy and
governance discussions that will be conducted during WTPF.

Additionally the vetting process is opaque, with no public guidelines for
who is accepted as a public attendant. We call for the ITU to provide
guidance on how the applications are admitted.

[also request information about the first-come, first-served basis -- how
many public observer slots are there, are MS delegations limited in #?
 opportunity for remote participation from additional public observers?]

[ 3) While some members of civil society have been invited to participate
in the Informal Experts Group (IEG), this notice came too late in the
process-- just a few weeks before the IEG’s final meeting-- for most
individuals to find the resources to travel to Geneva. Furthermore,
participation in the final IEG meeting is not sufficient for meaningful
participation in the WTPF process. We regret that this opportunity was not
communicated earlier and more publicly, and call for civil society to be
included earlier in the process in future ITU meetings.]


Sincerely,


Questions:
1) When was the IEG opened to civil society participation? Was it just that
we didn’t know to ask? [We have heard that the USG had sent a letter to the
IEG Chair to request CS participation, waiting to hear back if that
happened and when.]
2) Do members of the IEG have speaking rights at the WTPF May meeting? i.e.
if civil society is on the IEG, then do they have the right to speak at the
WTPF?
3) Is it possible to participate meaningfully in the IEG without attending
in person, i.e. remote participation, contributions over email, etc.




On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:13 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>  Dear All
>
> Can the mentioned document be cut pasted here. It is difficult to access
> documents behind google walls, and they ask for log ins and then say you
> will be intimated if the owner allows access. Thanks, parminder
>
>
>  On Thursday 07 February 2013 12:31 AM, Deborah Brown wrote:
>
> Dear Anriette and all,
>
>  I believe that the last thread on this chain was on 31 January, but it
> was a later email from Joana, which had the draft text for a letter that
> she and I had worked on for feedback from this group. I pasted that email
> below.
>
>  The letter has not been finalized and is very much open for edits and
> comments. You can send comments either on this email chain or in the google
> doc (linked below). We only ask that if you make edits directly into the
> google doc that you insert a comment noting/explaining your changes (other
> than editorial ones) to make the process manageable.
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/a/accessnow.org/document/d/1qz4D839quE5vnY-XP-pgu3ENu3WArwIwm5_VgxukgaE/edit
>
>  On a related note, I have joined the IEG and am participating remotely.
> There may be a consolidated draft text on the multistakeholder framework
> available tomorrow, which I can share with the list if it is of interest.
>
> I'm planning to attend the Paris meeting, as is my colleague Raegan
> MacDonald who is Brussels-based. If there is a date for a BestBits meeting
> around WSIS+10 could someone please send the information around?
>
>  Best regards,
>  Deborah
>
>
>       Joana Varon via<http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&ctx=mail&answer=1311182>
>  lists.igcaucus.org
>     Jan 31 (6 days ago)
>
>        to governance, mshears, bestbits, jeremy
>        Dear all,
>
>  I think some people of the governance list felt off from this thread
> because people that replied were not in both lists, if so, please, refer to
> the exchange of mensages bellow.
>
>  Basically, some of us are willing to draft to communications to ITU: 1)
> adaptation of the best bits statement (on the content of WTPF documents),
> 2) follow-up on the letter to the SG during WCIT (on process/barriers faced
> by civil society).
>
>  With that in mind, Deborah Brown and I have drafted the following text
> for the item 2 (follow-up letter to SG). (Is it right that CDT is working
> on the first draft for number 1?)
>
>  We hope that the draft bellow is useful and if you think so, could you
> please add comments until Monday?
>
>  As Jeremy have mentioned, let us try to ask for special dispensation to
> contribute and try to submit both letters (or just this one) with CS
> signatures during next week meeting. Would those attending next week's IEG
> meeting (Matthew, Avri?) support this letter and agree to deliver it in
> Geneva?
>
>  Hope it helps!
>
>  Kind regards,
>
>  Joana
> --
>
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/
>  <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/goog_946507056>www.freenetfilm.org
> @joana_varon
>
>
>
>  --------
>
> 31 January, 2012
>
>
>  Open letter to ITU in ref. World Telecommunication Policy Forum
> (WTPF-13) preparation process
>
>
>  Dear Secretary General Touré,
>
>
>  Recalling Tunis Agenda (Paragraph 35, in particular) we, the undersigned
> members of civil society, write to urge International Telecommunication
> Union (ITU) to honor previous commitments expressed by the Secretary
> General in order to recognize the importance of ensuring meaningful and
> sustainable civil society participation in the preparatory process
> undertaken for the World Telecommunication Policy Forum (WTPF).
>
>
>  The few civil society representatives who were in Dubai attending WCIT
> welcomed the opportunity to meet with you. On that occasion, we shared with
> you the concerns expressed in a  letter<https://docs.google.com/a/accessnow.org/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM> that
> gained the support of over 60 members of civil society globally. At that
> time, main issues were: the lack of any official standing to the public
> comments solicited prior to WCIT at the ITU’s invitation; the lack of
> access to and transparency of working groups, particularly the working
> groups of Committee 5; and the absence of mechanisms to encourage
> independent civil society participation. We welcome that you included the
> public comments in an information note to members of the ITU, where you have
> recognized<http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-INF-0005%21%21MSW-E.pdf> the
> “*benefits from a greater civil society engagement at ITU” and have *committed
> “*to take stock” and provide your membership with “some important
> recommendations” in line with the issue that civil society representatives
> raised. *
>
>
>  Yet, as preparations are underway for the WTPF, civil society finds
> itself facing familiar barriers to participation:
>
>
>  1) There is no formal mechanism for civil society to independently make
> contributions to the preparatory process. We recognize that you have on a
> number of occasions encouraged member states to form multistakeholder
> delegations, but as representatives of civil society has expressed to you
> previously, civil society participation in national delegations cannot
> substitute for engagement with independent members of civil society. We
> request the  opportunity to submit comments on the SG’s report and Member
> State opinions, similar to the Public Views and Opinions page for the WCIT,
> but with the guarantee that these opinions will be entered into the formal
> record.  We recognize that the deadline for contributions was 1 February
> 2013, but given these barriers.
>
>
>  2) There are significant barriers to entry for meaningful participation
> in the May 2013 WTPF meeting. While we welcome that there is a formal
> process to apply to attend as a “public attendant”, there is no indication
> that civil society representatives who attend will have speaking rights at
> the meeting. As previously expressed in the Best Bits statement,<http://bestbits.igf-online.net/statement/> we
> call for the ITU to create spaces during WTPF for civil society to express
> their views, as was done during the WSIS process. We also request that the
> WTPF be live streamed to allow for civil society and members of the public
> to follow remotely.
>
>
>  Additionally the vetting process is opaque, with no public guidelines
> for who is accepted as a public attendant. We call for the ITU to provide
> guidance on how the applications admitted.
>
>
>  [ 3) While some members of civil society have been invited to
> participate in the Informal Experts Group (IEG), this notice came too late
> in the process-- just a few weeks before the IEG’s final meeting-- for most
> individuals to find the resources to travel to Geneva. Furthermore,
> participation in the final IEG meeting is not sufficient for meaningful
> participation in the WTPF process. We regret that this opportunity was not
> communicated earlier and more publicly, and call for civil society to be
> included earlier in the process in future ITU meetings.]
>
> Sincerely,
>
>  *Questions:*
>
> 1) When was the IEG opened to civil society participation? Was it just
> that we didn’t know to ask? [We have heard that the USG had sent a letter
> to the IEG Chair to request CS participation, waiting to hear back if that
> happened and when.]
>
> 2) Do members of the IEG have speaking rights at the WTPF May meeting?
> i.e. if civil society is on the IEG, then do they have the right to speak
> at the WTPF?
>
> 3) Is it possible to participate meaningfully in the IEG without attending
> in person, i.e. remote participation, contributions over email, etc.
>   On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:
>
>>  Dear all
>>
>> Apologies for silence in this discussion.
>>
>> A few of us from APC (staff and members) are planning to be in Paris.
>> Lillian Nalwoga from CIPESA in Uganda has some support. ValeriaBetancourt and myself are still looking for supportbut am planning to be there if at all possible.
>>
>> Was the statement finished? I have not had BestBits mail since 31
>> January.
>>
>> And do we have a date scheduled yet for meeting in Paris around WSIS +10?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>>
>>   On 31/01/2013 18:37, Joana Varonferraz wrote:
>>
>> Let's do it, Mathew.
>>
>> Are you already coordinating with CDT to adapt best bits statement?
>>
>> I'm between meetings but I can start a draft of the follow up on the letter to SG. Deborah, from Access, might help. Anyone who has a little time to help is more then welcome. We will start it in about 2 hours.
>>
>> Lets try to have both drafts by the end of the day and try not to be so creative, just departuring from the points and views of previous consensus, as these letters will be just follow ups from previous "achievements", right?
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Joana
>>
>> --- ~ --- ~ --- ~
>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>> Researcher
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV)www.freenetfilm.org
>>
>>
>> On 31/01/2013, at 09:52, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com> <genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>  I agree also on this approach
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> <mshears at cdt.org>
>> Date:
>> To: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org,Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> <jeremy at ciroap.org>,joana at varonferraz.com
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and Responsibilities
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with Joana and Jeremy - there are two communications we should do pretty quickly:
>>
>> 1) take the Best Bits WCIT statement and adapt it - or at least the first part on transparency and access, etc. - to the WTPF.  I personally don't see the participation challenges for civil society being much less than they were at the WCIT - which is ironic because the WTPF is not a treaty-making conference - and the IEG is not adequate by any means (I am on the IEG and will be attending next week).  I'm sure CDT would be happy to take a first cut at this text.
>>
>> 2) follow-up on the letter to the SG and the meeting we had in Dubai in which participation in the WTPF was discussed.
>>
>> If there is agreement on text on 1 above I can raise points from it or read it in the IEG meeting next week for Best Bits.
>>
>> While I understand the Brazilian telecoms regulator's view there are a number of points in the SG's 4th report that refer to multistakeholderism in Internet governance issues and there are two opinions submitted so far that take positions I believe are contrary to civil society's interests in terms of stakeholder participation and enhanced cooperation.   I think civil society messaging on these issues is as important for the WTPF as it was for the WCIT.
>>
>> And finally, who on this list is going to the UNESCO WSIS/IGF meeting at the end of February?  Thought it might be good to have a gathering during that week to compare notes on WSIS+10/IGF and discuss WTPF?
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 31/01/2013 09:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>
>>  On 31/01/13 05:15, Joana Varon wrote:
>>
>>  Sorry for the late reply after the sympathy some have expressed on drafting a letter highlighting the promises of Dr Touré at the WCIT SC meeting. I was approaching the Brazilian government for support on our demand for space and participation of civil society organizations on ITU processes.
>>
>> Though showing solidarity with the cause, Brazilian government (or our               telecom regulatory agency responsible for representing the country at ITU) has signaled that WTPF is not the proper sphere to submit extensive contribution regarding CS participation, the plenipotentiary would be so. So, as far as I know, Brazil will submit a contribution to WTPF only generally speaking about openness and transparency, but not presenting a particular proposal for change in the mechanisms for civil society participation.
>>
>> In that sense, they have also addressed the existence of Informal Experts Group for WTPF, highlighting that:
>> ...
>> Well, this is surely not satisfactory, so, with that in mind, I wonder if we should go for that joined CS letter focusing on WTPF and stressing previous commitments from the Secretary General, do we still have time? Or, for the ones how are more aware of UN bodies internal procedures, do we have to wait the loooong time for the plenipot? What could we grasp right now?
>>
>>
>>  (I'm quoting almost your whole message because I intend on forwarding my reply to the wcit12 list too, as an almost identical discussion is going on there.)
>>
>> The deadline for comments on the Secretary General's report is tomorrow, so we may be hard pressed to do anything by then!  Having said that, we could ask for special dispensation to contribute a belated submission, as was granted for the Best Bits statement to WCIT.
>>
>> Personally I am unlikely to have time to take the lead on a letter but I am supportive of the idea and would have comments to give on a draft if say you or Emma from CDT were to send some draft text.  The IGC has not successfully done a statement for a while, and Best Bits is in transition (watch this space), so probably it would probably not be under either of those umbrellas, but rather a generic civil society letter to which groups could sign on.
>>
>> I agree that the invitation to participate in the IEG is no substitute, though for those who can, good on them.  Avri said she is on the group and there is CDT, but unless you count ISOC (I don't), there is no other civil society that I know of.  Doubtless largely due to the lack of funding, as always (that's why I won't be there).
>>
>> --
>> 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 | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>
>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org
>>
>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>> south africa
>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>
>>
>
>
>  --
> Deborah Brown
> Policy Analyst
> Access | AccessNow.org
> E. deborah at accessnow.org
> S. deborah.l.brown
> T. deblebrown
> PGP 0x5EB4727D
>
>
>


-- 

-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/
 <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/goog_946507056> www.freenetfilm.org
@joana_varon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130207/30b20bab/attachment.htm>

From Lea at global-partners.co.uk  Thu Feb  7 05:05:46 2013
From: Lea at global-partners.co.uk (Lea Kaspar)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 10:05:46 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and
 Responsibilities
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTo7co5d6bBHvMSpZsE2qB0s5mdPnbDXwbsJO2ixRGLy2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <v4wqnoxd3og10noe7m3uapyg.1359633153085@email.android.com>
 <D25792DE-E584-4E55-A0DE-7806F0E86931@varonferraz.com>
 <5111600B.3030507@apc.org>
 <CALU7RQassXcDh_gCaXOs3M1z3qECkrVMABCG-Gn6xtb-_Fk1-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <511329FB.7000701@itforchange.net>
 <CALTAiTo7co5d6bBHvMSpZsE2qB0s5mdPnbDXwbsJO2ixRGLy2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399C69E9A29ADE@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

Dear Deborah et all,

There is a Best Bits session during the WSIS+10 in Paris scheduled for Wed, Feb 27 at 14:30 local time. Andrew will be moderating and remote participation should be possible. I've attached the latest agenda I have for the event as well as a description for the session.

Hope this helps,

Lea Kaspar, Project Manager
Global Partners & Associates

Direct: +44 (0)207 549 0337
Office: +44 (0)207 549 0350
Email: lea at global-partners.co.uk<mailto:lea at global-partners.co.uk>
Address: Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, London EC2A 4LT, UK

www.global-partners.co.uk<http://www.global-partners.co.uk/>


From: bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Joana Varon
Sent: 07 February 2013 04:31
To: parminder
Cc: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and Responsibilities

Dear Parminder,

Please, find it bellow. It is the letter to ITU Secretary General as a follow up of a previous one delivered by CS representatives during WCIT, on process/barriers faced by CS for participating and having a voice. Deborah and I gave an initial thought in this draft and raised some doubts/questions at the end. I believe it could be interesting if the group decides there is will to move further with it.

As previously suggested by Matthew, a second task could be an update on the best bits statement (during IEG or WSIS+10 at Paris?)

I'm also attending the Paris meeting and will be glad to join any Best Bits meeting if there is general will to convene as so.

For the very few fellows who were able to attend IEG, we are looking forward for any report or feedback, so, please, share links of any publication you might have or general comments. :)

Kind regards,

Joana

----
31 January, 2012

Open letter to ITU in ref. World Telecommunication Policy Forum (WTPF-13) preparation process

Dear Secretary General Touré,

Recalling Tunis Agenda (Paragraph 35, in particular) we, the undersigned members of civil society, write to urge International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to honor previous commitments expressed by the Secretary General to ensure meaningful and sustainable civil society participation in the preparatory process undertaken for the World Telecommunication Policy Forum (WTPF).


The civil society representatives who were in Dubai attending WCIT welcomed the opportunity to meet with you. On that occasion, those representatives shared with you the concerns expressed in a letter<https://docs.google.com/a/accessnow.org/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM> that gained the support of over 60 members of civil society globally. At that time, major challenges facing civil society included the lack of any official standing to the public comments solicited prior to WCIT at the ITU's invitation; the lack of access to and transparency of working groups, particularly the working groups of Committee 5, which dealt with substantive revisions to the ITRs; and the absence of mechanisms to support independent civil society participation. Similarly the Protect Global Internet Freedom<http://www.protectinternetfreedom.net/> statement signed by signed by 38,582 people and 1,519 organizations in 185 Countries requests the ITU to embrace transparency and multi-stakeholder participation. We welcome that you included the comments from the Public Views and Opinions page in an information note to members of the ITU, where you have recognized<http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-INF-0005%21%21MSW-E.pdf> the "benefits from a greater civil society engagement at ITU" and have committed "to take stock" and provide your membership with "some important recommendations" in line with the issue that civil society representatives raised.

Yet, as preparations are underway for the WTPF, civil society finds itself facing familiar barriers to participation:

1) There is no formal mechanism for civil society to independently make contributions to the preparatory process. We recognize that you have on a number of occasions encouraged member states to form multistakeholder delegations, but as representatives of civil society has expressed to you previously, civil society participation in national delegations cannot substitute for engagement with independent members of civil society. We request the  opportunity to submit comments on the SG's report and Member State opinions, similar to the Public Views and Opinions page for the WCIT, but with the guarantee that these opinions will be entered into the formal record.  We recognize that the deadline for contributions was 1 February 2013, but given these barriers, we request [???].

-Another meeting of the IEG? Public comment period? Funnel opinions through civil society members of IEG? Opportunity for civil society to comment on March 1 report


2) There are significant barriers to entry for meaningful participation in the May 2013 WTPF meeting. While we welcome that there is a formal process to apply to attend as a "public attendant", there is no indication that civil society representatives who attend will have speaking rights at the meeting.  As previously expressed in the Best Bits statement,<http://bestbits.igf-online.net/statement/> we call for the ITU to create spaces during WTPF for civil society to express their views, as was done during the WSIS process. We also request that the WTPF be live streamed to allow for civil society and members of the public to follow remotely. As we saw during the WCIT, there is significant interest among the Internet-using public in the policy and governance discussions that will be conducted during WTPF.


Additionally the vetting process is opaque, with no public guidelines for who is accepted as a public attendant. We call for the ITU to provide guidance on how the applications are admitted.

[also request information about the first-come, first-served basis -- how many public observer slots are there, are MS delegations limited in #?  opportunity for remote participation from additional public observers?]


[ 3) While some members of civil society have been invited to participate in the Informal Experts Group (IEG), this notice came too late in the process-- just a few weeks before the IEG's final meeting-- for most individuals to find the resources to travel to Geneva. Furthermore, participation in the final IEG meeting is not sufficient for meaningful participation in the WTPF process. We regret that this opportunity was not communicated earlier and more publicly, and call for civil society to be included earlier in the process in future ITU meetings.]


Sincerely,


Questions:
1) When was the IEG opened to civil society participation? Was it just that we didn't know to ask? [We have heard that the USG had sent a letter to the IEG Chair to request CS participation, waiting to hear back if that happened and when.]
2) Do members of the IEG have speaking rights at the WTPF May meeting? i.e. if civil society is on the IEG, then do they have the right to speak at the WTPF?
3) Is it possible to participate meaningfully in the IEG without attending in person, i.e. remote participation, contributions over email, etc.



On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:13 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
Dear All

Can the mentioned document be cut pasted here. It is difficult to access documents behind google walls, and they ask for log ins and then say you will be intimated if the owner allows access. Thanks, parminder

On Thursday 07 February 2013 12:31 AM, Deborah Brown wrote:
Dear Anriette and all,

I believe that the last thread on this chain was on 31 January, but it was a later email from Joana, which had the draft text for a letter that she and I had worked on for feedback from this group. I pasted that email below.

The letter has not been finalized and is very much open for edits and comments. You can send comments either on this email chain or in the google doc (linked below). We only ask that if you make edits directly into the google doc that you insert a comment noting/explaining your changes (other than editorial ones) to make the process manageable.

https://docs.google.com/a/accessnow.org/document/d/1qz4D839quE5vnY-XP-pgu3ENu3WArwIwm5_VgxukgaE/edit

On a related note, I have joined the IEG and am participating remotely. There may be a consolidated draft text on the multistakeholder framework available tomorrow, which I can share with the list if it is of interest.

I'm planning to attend the Paris meeting, as is my colleague Raegan MacDonald who is Brussels-based. If there is a date for a BestBits meeting around WSIS+10 could someone please send the information around?

Best regards,
Deborah


Joana Varon via<http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&ctx=mail&answer=1311182> lists.igcaucus.org<http://lists.igcaucus.org>


Jan 31 (6 days ago)


to governance, mshears, bestbits, jeremy


Dear all,

I think some people of the governance list felt off from this thread because people that replied were not in both lists, if so, please, refer to the exchange of mensages bellow.

Basically, some of us are willing to draft to communications to ITU: 1) adaptation of the best bits statement (on the content of WTPF documents), 2) follow-up on the letter to the SG during WCIT (on process/barriers faced by civil society).

With that in mind, Deborah Brown and I have drafted the following text for the item 2 (follow-up letter to SG). (Is it right that CDT is working on the first draft for number 1?)

We hope that the draft bellow is useful and if you think so, could you please add comments until Monday?

As Jeremy have mentioned, let us try to ask for special dispensation to contribute and try to submit both letters (or just this one) with CS signatures during next week meeting. Would those attending next week's IEG meeting (Matthew, Avri?) support this letter and agree to deliver it in Geneva?

Hope it helps!

Kind regards,

Joana
--


Joana Varon Ferraz
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/
<https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/goog_946507056>www.freenetfilm.org<http://www.freenetfilm.org/>
@joana_varon


--------

31 January, 2012



Open letter to ITU in ref. World Telecommunication Policy Forum (WTPF-13) preparation process



Dear Secretary General Touré,



Recalling Tunis Agenda (Paragraph 35, in particular) we, the undersigned members of civil society, write to urge International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to honor previous commitments expressed by the Secretary General in order to recognize the importance of ensuring meaningful and sustainable civil society participation in the preparatory process undertaken for the World Telecommunication Policy Forum (WTPF).



The few civil society representatives who were in Dubai attending WCIT welcomed the opportunity to meet with you. On that occasion, we shared with you the concerns expressed in a  letter<https://docs.google.com/a/accessnow.org/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM> that gained the support of over 60 members of civil society globally. At that time, main issues were: the lack of any official standing to the public comments solicited prior to WCIT at the ITU's invitation; the lack of access to and transparency of working groups, particularly the working groups of Committee 5; and the absence of mechanisms to encourage independent civil society participation. We welcome that you included the public comments in an information note to members of the ITU, where you haverecognized<http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-INF-0005%21%21MSW-E.pdf> the "benefits from a greater civil society engagement at ITU" and have committed "to take stock" and provide your membership with "some important recommendations" in line with the issue that civil society representatives raised.



Yet, as preparations are underway for the WTPF, civil society finds itself facing familiar barriers to participation:



1) There is no formal mechanism for civil society to independently make contributions to the preparatory process. We recognize that you have on a number of occasions encouraged member states to form multistakeholder delegations, but as representatives of civil society has expressed to you previously, civil society participation in national delegations cannot substitute for engagement with independent members of civil society. We request the  opportunity to submit comments on the SG's report and Member State opinions, similar to the Public Views and Opinions page for the WCIT, but with the guarantee that these opinions will be entered into the formal record.  We recognize that the deadline for contributions was 1 February 2013, but given these barriers.



2) There are significant barriers to entry for meaningful participation in the May 2013 WTPF meeting. While we welcome that there is a formal process to apply to attend as a "public attendant", there is no indication that civil society representatives who attend will have speaking rights at the meeting. As previously expressed in the Best Bits statement,<http://bestbits.igf-online.net/statement/> we call for the ITU to create spaces during WTPF for civil society to express their views, as was done during the WSIS process. We also request that the WTPF be live streamed to allow for civil society and members of the public to follow remotely.



Additionally the vetting process is opaque, with no public guidelines for who is accepted as a public attendant. We call for the ITU to provide guidance on how the applications admitted.



[ 3) While some members of civil society have been invited to participate in the Informal Experts Group (IEG), this notice came too late in the process-- just a few weeks before the IEG's final meeting-- for most individuals to find the resources to travel to Geneva. Furthermore, participation in the final IEG meeting is not sufficient for meaningful participation in the WTPF process. We regret that this opportunity was not communicated earlier and more publicly, and call for civil society to be included earlier in the process in future ITU meetings.]

Sincerely,


Questions:

1) When was the IEG opened to civil society participation? Was it just that we didn't know to ask? [We have heard that the USG had sent a letter to the IEG Chair to request CS participation, waiting to hear back if that happened and when.]

2) Do members of the IEG have speaking rights at the WTPF May meeting? i.e. if civil society is on the IEG, then do they have the right to speak at the WTPF?

3) Is it possible to participate meaningfully in the IEG without attending in person, i.e. remote participation, contributions over email, etc.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
Dear all

Apologies for silence in this discussion.

A few of us from APC (staff and members) are planning to be in Paris. Lillian Nalwoga from CIPESA in Uganda has some support. Valeria Betancourt and myself are still looking for support but am planning to be there if at all possible.

Was the statement finished? I have not had BestBits mail since 31 January.

And do we have a date scheduled yet for meeting in Paris around WSIS +10?

Regards

Anriette


On 31/01/2013 18:37, Joana Varonferraz wrote:

Let's do it, Mathew.



Are you already coordinating with CDT to adapt best bits statement?



I'm between meetings but I can start a draft of the follow up on the letter to SG. Deborah, from Access, might help. Anyone who has a little time to help is more then welcome. We will start it in about 2 hours.



Lets try to have both drafts by the end of the day and try not to be so creative, just departuring from the points and views of previous consensus, as these letters will be just follow ups from previous "achievements", right?



Best



Joana



--- ~ --- ~ --- ~

Joana Varon Ferraz

Researcher

Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV)

www.freenetfilm.org<http://www.freenetfilm.org>





On 31/01/2013, at 09:52, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com><mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote:



I agree also on this approach





-------- Original message --------

From: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org><mailto:mshears at cdt.org>

Date:

To: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org,Jeremy<mailto:bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org,Jeremy> Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org><mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>,joana at varonferraz.com<mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>

Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and Responsibilities







I agree with Joana and Jeremy - there are two communications we should do pretty quickly:



1) take the Best Bits WCIT statement and adapt it - or at least the first part on transparency and access, etc. - to the WTPF.  I personally don't see the participation challenges for civil society being much less than they were at the WCIT - which is ironic because the WTPF is not a treaty-making conference - and the IEG is not adequate by any means (I am on the IEG and will be attending next week).  I'm sure CDT would be happy to take a first cut at this text.



2) follow-up on the letter to the SG and the meeting we had in Dubai in which participation in the WTPF was discussed.



If there is agreement on text on 1 above I can raise points from it or read it in the IEG meeting next week for Best Bits.



While I understand the Brazilian telecoms regulator's view there are a number of points in the SG's 4th report that refer to multistakeholderism in Internet governance issues and there are two opinions submitted so far that take positions I believe are contrary to civil society's interests in terms of stakeholder participation and enhanced cooperation.   I think civil society messaging on these issues is as important for the WTPF as it was for the WCIT.



And finally, who on this list is going to the UNESCO WSIS/IGF meeting at the end of February?  Thought it might be good to have a gathering during that week to compare notes on WSIS+10/IGF and discuss WTPF?



Best



Matthew









On 31/01/2013 09:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

On 31/01/13 05:15, Joana Varon wrote:

Sorry for the late reply after the sympathy some have expressed on drafting a letter highlighting the promises of Dr Touré at the WCIT SC meeting. I was approaching the Brazilian government for support on our demand for space and participation of civil society organizations on ITU processes.



Though showing solidarity with the cause, Brazilian government (or our               telecom regulatory agency responsible for representing the country at ITU) has signaled that WTPF is not the proper sphere to submit extensive contribution regarding CS participation, the plenipotentiary would be so. So, as far as I know, Brazil will submit a contribution to WTPF only generally speaking about openness and transparency, but not presenting a particular proposal for change in the mechanisms for civil society participation.



In that sense, they have also addressed the existence of Informal Experts Group for WTPF, highlighting that:

...

Well, this is surely not satisfactory, so, with that in mind, I wonder if we should go for that joined CS letter focusing on WTPF and stressing previous commitments from the Secretary General, do we still have time? Or, for the ones how are more aware of UN bodies internal procedures, do we have to wait the loooong time for the plenipot? What could we grasp right now?



(I'm quoting almost your whole message because I intend on forwarding my reply to the wcit12 list too, as an almost identical discussion is going on there.)



The deadline for comments on the Secretary General's report is tomorrow, so we may be hard pressed to do anything by then!  Having said that, we could ask for special dispensation to contribute a belated submission, as was granted for the Best Bits statement to WCIT.



Personally I am unlikely to have time to take the lead on a letter but I am supportive of the idea and would have comments to give on a draft if say you or Emma from CDT were to send some draft text.  The IGC has not successfully done a statement for a while, and Best Bits is in transition (watch this space), so probably it would probably not be under either of those umbrellas, but rather a generic civil society letter to which groups could sign on.



I agree that the invitation to participate in the IEG is no substitute, though for those who can, good on them.  Avri said she is on the group and there is CDT, but unless you count ISOC (I don't), there is no other civil society that I know of.  Doubtless largely due to the lack of funding, as always (that's why I won't be there).



--

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<tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599>



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. Don't print this email unless necessary.




--

------------------------------------------------------

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
Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. deborah at accessnow.org<mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>
S. deborah.l.brown
T. deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D




--

--

Joana Varon Ferraz
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/
<https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/goog_946507056>www.freenetfilm.org<http://www.freenetfilm.org>
@joana_varon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130207/b1ca04d6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft WSIS+10 schedule 11_01 ver2.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 78848 bytes
Desc: Draft WSIS+10 schedule 11_01 ver2.xls
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130207/b1ca04d6/attachment.xls>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2013_WSIS_plus_10_Event_Session_description odt.odt
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 137992 bytes
Desc: 2013_WSIS_plus_10_Event_Session_description odt.odt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130207/b1ca04d6/attachment.obj>

From mshears at cdt.org  Thu Feb  7 10:06:30 2013
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:06:30 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] ITU WTPF IEG
In-Reply-To: <5113BD8C.9020100@cdt.org>
References: <5113BD8C.9020100@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <5113C2F6.5070900@cdt.org>


All,

A few quick words from Geneva.  For reference please see:

http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/ieg.aspx

Yesterday the Chair decided that the comments to the Secretary General's 
4th draft report that were submitted for this meeting will be left to 
the SG to decide on how to incorporate (rather than deliberated by the 
IEG).  This was based upon the Chair's belief that there was not enough 
time to review the new set of comments in detail and that the focus of 
this meeting of the IEG should be on the draft opinions.

The Chair also decided, given the diversity of views on specific issues 
reflected in the opinions, that the drafts would be put into clusters by 
subject and that there would be a convener for each whose responsibility 
would be to find a common and agreed text. /See the latest doc on the 
IEG page on convenors/agenda./ (Note that there are 3 clusters embracing 
multistakeholderism/role of governments/enhanced cooperation, the first 
two of which may be merged.)

Today the clusters have been working on these new revised common 
opinions.  As of 1500 hours GVA, two are ready for plenary review - IXPs 
and Capacity building for IPv6 (available on the IEG site).  Two draft 
opinions (one from UK and one from Iran) on /inclusivity of 
communications for all/ are "no longer being pursued" (effectively 
withdrawn) due to fundamental differences on the text between various 
parties.  Other opinions will not likely be ready for full review until 
tomorrow (certainly the case for the opinion on enhanced cooperation 
where I have been).

Matthew











-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130207/372eedcb/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Feb  7 18:59:41 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 05:29:41 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] The Political Economy of Cyberspace Masters of the
 Internet
In-Reply-To: <E072C739-66DA-4D9C-A01C-470DDCF721FB@igc.org>
References: <E072C739-66DA-4D9C-A01C-470DDCF721FB@igc.org>
Message-ID: <51143FED.8000903@itforchange.net>




The Political Economy of Cyberspace Masters of the Internet
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/07/masters-of-the-internet/
FEBRUARY 07, 2013

The Political Economy of Cyberspace
Masters of the Internet
by DAN SCHILLER
The geopolitics of the Internet broke open during the first half of 
December at an international conference in Dubai convened by 
the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a UN affiliate agency 
with 193 national members. At these meetings, states (thronged 
by corporate advisors) forge agreements to enable international 
communications via cables and satellites. These gatherings, however 
boring and bureaucratic, are crucial because of the enormous importance 
of networks in the operation of the transnational political economy.

The December 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications 
(WCIT) in Dubai produced a major controversy: should ITU members vest 
the agency with oversight responsibilities for the Internet, 
responsibilities comparable to those it has exercised for decades for 
other forms of international communication?

The United States said no, and the US position won out: the new ITU 
treaty document did not grant the agency a formal role in what has come 
to be called ?global Internet governance?. However, a majority of 
countries voted to attach a resolution ?invit[ing] member states 
to elaborate on their respective position on international 
Internet-related technical, development and public policy issues within 
the mandate of the ITU at various ITU fora.? Objecting to ?even symbolic 
global oversight?, as a New York Times writer put it (1), the US refused 
to sign the treaty and walked away. So did France, Germany, Japan, 
India, Kenya, Colombia, Canada, Britain and other nations. However, more 
than two-thirds of the attending countries ? 89 all told ? endorsed the 
document. (And some of the nations that did not sign may accept 
the treaty later.)

To understand what is at stake we need to make our way through the 
rhetorical smog. For months prior to the WCIT, the Euro-American press 
trumpeted warnings that this was to be an epochal clash between 
upholders of an open Internet and would-be government usurpers, led by 
authoritarian states like Russia, Iran and China. The terms of reference 
were set so rigidly that one European telecom company executive called 
it a campaign of ?propaganda warfare? (2).

Freedom of expression is no trifling issue. No matter where we live, 
there is reason for worry that the Internet?s relative openness is 
being usurped, corroded or canalised. This does not necessarily imply 
armies of state censors or ?great firewalls?. The US National 
Security Agency, for example, sifts wholesale through electronic 
transmissions transiting satellite and cable networks, through its 
extensive ?listening posts? and its gigantic new data centre at 
Bluffdale Utah (3); and the US government has gone after a true 
proponent of freedom of expression ? WikiLeaks ? in deadly earnest. US 
Internet companies such as Facebook and Google have transformed the Web 
into a ?surveillance engine? to vacuum up commercially profitable data 
about users? behaviour.

Interests Concealed

Even during the 1970s, the rhetoric of ?free flow of information? had 
long functioned as a central tenet of US foreign policy. During the era 
of decolonisation and cold war the doctrine purported to be a shining 
beacon, lighting the world?s way to emancipation from imperialism 
and state repression. Today it continues to paint deep-seated economic 
and strategic interests in an appealing language of universal 
human rights. ?Internet freedom?, ?freedom to connect?, ?net freedom? ? 
terms circulated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and 
Google executives together in the run-up to the WCIT ? are today?s 
version of the longstanding ?free flow? precept. But just as before, 
?Internet freedom? is a red herring. Calculatingly manipulative, it 
tells us to entrust a fundamental human right to a pair of powerfully 
self-interested social actors: corporations and states.

The deliberations at the WCIT were multifaceted, and encompassed 
crosscutting issues. One was the terms of trade between 
Internet services like Google and the companies that transport their 
voluminous data streams ? network operators and ISPs like Verizon, 
Deutsche Telekom or Free. This business fight harbours implications for 
a more general and important policy issue: who should pay for the 
continual modernisations of network infrastructure on which recurrent 
augmentations and enhancements of Internet service depend. Xavier 
Niel?s bold attack on Google?s French revenues, when he implemented an 
ad-blocker as his Free network?s default setting, placed this issue 
in bold relief before the public. But the terms of trade in the global 
Internet industry are also important because any general edict that 
content providers must pay network operators ? Niel?s goal, similar to 
that of other telecom companies ? would carry grave consequences for 
the Net Neutrality policies which have been so vital for Internet users.

Until now, this power has been wielded disproportionately by the US (4). 
During the 1990s, when the web-centric Internet exploded onto the world 
stage, the US made intense efforts to institutionalise its management 
role. Domain names led by dotcom, and numerical web addresses and 
network identifiers, need to be unique for the system to operate; and 
the ability to assign them in turn establishes a point from which 
institutional power may be projected over the extraterritorial Internet. 
Management of these critical Internet resources is exercised by a US 
agency, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), under contract 
to the US Department of Commerce. The IANA operates ostensibly as a unit 
of a separate, and seemingly more accountable, California-based 
non-profit called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 
Numbers (ICANN). Technical standards for the Internet are developed by 
the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Architecture 
Board (IAB) within another non-profit corporation, the Internet Society. 
The composition and funding of these organisations render them more 
responsive to US preferences than to users? demands (5).

The leading global commercial Internet sites are not operated by Chinese 
or Russian, let alone by Kenyan or Mexican capital. As everyone knows, 
it is Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple and Amazon that have built up 
the dotcom services used by people all over the world. And a widening 
array of commodification projects and corporate commodity chains 
continues to be predicated on cross-border flows of Internet data; 
today?s ongoing transition schillerdigito ?cloud computing? services 
will further widen this dependence. The Internet?s unbalanced control 
structure provides an essential basis for US corporate and military 
supremacy in cyberspace. While the US government exercises an outsized 
role, other states possess scant opportunity ? individually or 
collectively ? to regulate the system. By instituting various technical 
and legal measures, of course, they may exercise sovereignty over their 
domestic Internets; but even when they stake out these merely national 
jurisdictions, they are assailed by US policymakers. Milton Mueller 
aptly captures this asymmetry in observing that, as it is presently 
constituted, the Internet embodies a US policy of ?unilateral globalism? 
(6).

Property logic

Exercising this management function has permitted the US to instil 
property-logic at the heart of Internet system development ? through 
ICANN. Although it is a complex, semi-autonomous institution, ICANN?s 
power over the Domain Name System was deployed to confer 
extraterritorial advantages on corporate trademark owners and other 
property interests ? over the protests of non-commercial organisations 
which, despite being represented within ICANN, found themselves unable 
to prevail over Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble and other big companies. And 
ICANN used private contract law to bind to its rules the far-flung 
organisations which administer generic and country code top-level 
domains worldwide. National providers of various Internet applications 
control their domestic markets in a number of countries, including 
Russia, China and the Republic of Korea. Yet the transnational Internet 
services ? the most profitable and strategic points in this 
extraterritorial system ? are citadels built by US capital and state power.

Nearly from the outset, other nations have resisted their subordinate 
status. As signs that the US was not about to relinquish its 
control grew, so did opposition. It helped prompt a series of 
high-profile meetings ? the World Summit on the Information Society, 
organised by the ITU and held in Geneva and Tunis between 2003 and 2005.

This World Summit was an explicit precursor of the 2012 clash in Dubai, 
in that it established at least a small beachhead for states 
(beside that of the US) in global Internet governance. ICANN?s 
?Government Advisory Committee?, charged with providing input to the 
organisation?s ?multi-stakeholder? process, grants governments the same 
formal status as corporations and civil society groups. Many states 
actually might have been content with this curious arrangement, but for 
one glaring fact. For all the crowing about bottom-up diversity and 
multi-stakeholderism, global Internet governance was not an egalitarian, 
or even a pluralist, enterprise. It was patent that stakeholder 
number one was the US Executive Branch.

The demise of the unipolar moment, followed by the plunge into what has 
become a long world depression, greatly accentuated and widened 
interstate conflict over the political economy of cyberspace. Other 
governments continued to look for a point of leverage, from which they 
could attempt to open up global Internet coordination and management. In 
2010-11 they even appealed directly to the US Department of Commerce, 
when it began a proceeding to evaluate its contract renewal with IANA 
for the management of Internet addresses. Quite extraordinarily, several 
countries and one international organisation ? the ITU ? submitted 
formal comments. The government of Kenya proposed a ?transition? away 
from management of the IANA functions by the US Department of Commerce, 
and toward a multilateral government-centred regime. US control should 
be modified by globalising the arrangements for the entire 
institutional superstructure that had been built up around Internet 
names and addresses. India, Mexico, Egypt and China made strikingly 
similar submissions.

Dan Schiller is professor at the University of Illinois 
(Urbana-Champaign) and author of ?Digital Capitalism: Networking the 
Global Market Systems? (MIT Press, Cambridge, US, 2000)

Notes.

(1) Eric Pfanner, ?Message, if murky, from U.S. to world?, The New York 
Times, 15 December 2012.

(2) Rachel Sanderson and Daniel Thomas, ?US under fire after telecoms 
treaty talks fail?, Financial Times, London, 17 December 2012.

(3) James Bamford, ?The NSA is Building the Country?s Biggest Spy 
Center?, Wired, San Francisco, April 2012.

(4) Dwayne Winseck, ?Big New Global Threat to the Internet or Paper 
Tiger? The ITU and Global Internet Regulation?, 10 June 
2012; dwmw.wordpress.com

(5) Harold Kwalwasser, ?Internet Governance?,Cyberpower and National 
Security, National Defense University Press-Potomac 
Press, Washington-Dulles, 2009.

(6) Milton L Mueller, Networks and States: the Global Politics of 
Internet Governance, MIT Press, Cambridge (Massachusetts), 2010.

(7) L Gordon Crovitz, ?America?s first big digital defeat?,The Wall 
Street Journal, New York, 17 December 2012.

The US responded by ratcheting up the rhetoric of ?Internet freedom? as 
an attempt to repel the escalating threat to its management control. No 
doubt it has intensified its bilateral lobbying to induce some of the 
dissenting states to come back into the fold. The effects became evident 
at the WCIT, when India and Kenya joined the US in rejecting the treaty.

What will happen now? It?s certain that US government agencies and 
leading units of Internet capital such as Google will continue to 
project all the power at their disposal to strengthen the US-centric 
Internet, and to discredit its opponents. The political challenge to the 
US?s ?global unilateralism?, however, now has broken into the open ? 
where it is certain to remain. A Wall Street Journal editorialist did 
not hesitate to call Dubai ?America?s first big digital defeat? (7).

This article appears in the excellent Le Monde Diplomatique, whose 
English language edition can be found at mondediplo.com. This full 
text appears by agreement with Le Monde Diplomatique. CounterPunch 
features two or three articles from LMD every month.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130208/8137e811/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 1035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130208/8137e811/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 23939 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130208/8137e811/attachment.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------

=======================================
APC Forum is a meeting place for the APC community - people and        institutions who are or have been involved in collaboration with
APC, and share the APC vision - a world in which all people have easy, equal and affordable access to the creative potential of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to improve their lives and create more
democratic and egalitarian societies.

_______________________________________________
apc.forum mailing list
apc.forum at lists.apc.org
http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/apc.forum


From deborah at accessnow.org  Fri Feb  8 04:42:40 2013
From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 04:42:40 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and
 Responsibilities
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTo7co5d6bBHvMSpZsE2qB0s5mdPnbDXwbsJO2ixRGLy2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <v4wqnoxd3og10noe7m3uapyg.1359633153085@email.android.com>
	<D25792DE-E584-4E55-A0DE-7806F0E86931@varonferraz.com>
	<5111600B.3030507@apc.org>
	<CALU7RQassXcDh_gCaXOs3M1z3qECkrVMABCG-Gn6xtb-_Fk1-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<511329FB.7000701@itforchange.net>
	<CALTAiTo7co5d6bBHvMSpZsE2qB0s5mdPnbDXwbsJO2ixRGLy2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALU7RQZwa52JrYao1cjxocM+WLR5+R9DpSGJBaXqrLc+9ANoJg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Thank you to those who have reviewed and commented on the draft letter to
the ITU. Could I ask that all comments be submitted by *Monday, 11 February
by 12 noon UTC? *We will then work to incorporate all changes and send
around an updated draft early next week.

Best regards,
Deborah
*
*
*
*
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> Dear Parminder,
>
> Please, find it bellow. It is the letter to ITU Secretary General as a
> follow up of a previous one delivered by CS representatives during WCIT, on
> process/barriers faced by CS for participating and having a voice. Deborah
> and I gave an initial thought in this draft and raised some
> doubts/questions at the end. I believe it could be interesting if thegroup
> decides there is will to move further with it.
>
> As previously suggested by Matthew, a second task could be an update on
> the best bits statement (during IEG or WSIS+10 at Paris?)
>
> I'm also attending the Paris meeting and will be glad to join any Best
> Bits meeting if there is general will to convene as so.
>
> For the very few fellows who were able to attend IEG, we are looking
> forward for any report or feedback, so, please, share links of any
> publication you might have or general comments. :)
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Joana
>
>
> ----
> 31 January, 2012
>
> Open letter to ITU in ref. World Telecommunication Policy Forum (WTPF-13)
> preparation process
>
> Dear Secretary General Touré,
>
> Recalling Tunis Agenda (Paragraph 35, in particular) we, the undersigned
> members of civil society, write to urge International Telecommunication
> Union (ITU) to honor previous commitments expressed by the Secretary
> General to ensure meaningful and sustainable civil society participation in
> the preparatory process undertaken for the World Telecommunication Policy
> Forum (WTPF).
>
> The civil society representatives who were in Dubai attending WCIT
> welcomed the opportunity to meet with you. On that occasion, those
> representatives shared with you the concerns expressed in a letter<https://docs.google.com/a/accessnow.org/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM>that gained the support of over 60 members of civil society globally. At
> that time, major challenges facing civil society included the lack of any
> official standing to the public comments solicited prior to WCIT at the
> ITU’s invitation; the lack of access to and transparency of working groups,
> particularly the working groups of Committee 5, which dealt with
> substantive revisions to the ITRs; and the absence of mechanisms to support
> independent civil society participation. Similarly the Protect Global
> Internet Freedom <http://www.protectinternetfreedom.net/> statement
> signed by signed by 38,582 people and 1,519 organizations in 185 Countries
> requests the ITU to embrace transparency and multi-stakeholder
> participation. We welcome that you included the comments from the Public
> Views and Opinions page in an information note to members of the ITU, where
> you have recognized<http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-INF-0005%21%21MSW-E.pdf>the “benefits
> from a greater civil society engagement at ITU” and have committed “to
> take stock” and provide your membership with “some important
> recommendations” in line with the issue that civil society representatives
> raised.
>
> Yet, as preparations are underway for the WTPF, civil society finds itself
> facing familiar barriers to participation:
>
> 1) There is no formal mechanism for civil society to independently make
> contributions to the preparatory process. We recognize that you have on a
> number of occasions encouraged member states to form multistakeholder
> delegations, but as representatives of civil society has expressed to you
> previously, civil society participation in national delegations cannot
> substitute for engagement with independent members of civil society. We
> request the  opportunity to submit comments on the SG’s report and Member
> State opinions, similar to the Public Views and Opinions page for the WCIT,
> but with the guarantee that these opinions will be entered into the formal
> record.  We recognize that the deadline for contributions was 1 February
> 2013, but given these barriers, we request [???].
>
> -Another meeting of the IEG? Public comment period? Funnel opinions
> through civil society members of IEG? Opportunity for civil society to
> comment on March 1 report
>
> 2) There are significant barriers to entry for meaningful participation in
> the May 2013 WTPF meeting. While we welcome that there is a formal process
> to apply to attend as a “public attendant”, there is no indication that
> civil society representatives who attend will have speaking rights at the
> meeting.  As previously expressed in the Best Bits statement,<http://bestbits.igf-online.net/statement/>we call for the ITU to create spaces during WTPF for civil society to
> express their views, as was done during the WSIS process. We also request
> that the WTPF be live streamed to allow for civil society and members of
> the public to follow remotely. As we saw during the WCIT, there is
> significant interest among the Internet-using public in the policy and
> governance discussions that will be conducted during WTPF.
>
> Additionally the vetting process is opaque, with no public guidelines for
> who is accepted as a public attendant. We call for the ITU to provide
> guidance on how the applications are admitted.
>
> [also request information about the first-come, first-served basis -- how
> many public observer slots are there, are MS delegations limited in #?
>  opportunity for remote participation from additional public observers?]
>
> [ 3) While some members of civil society have been invited to participate
> in the Informal Experts Group (IEG), this notice came too late in the
> process-- just a few weeks before the IEG’s final meeting-- for most
> individuals to find the resources to travel to Geneva. Furthermore,
> participation in the final IEG meeting is not sufficient for meaningful
> participation in the WTPF process. We regret that this opportunity was not
> communicated earlier and more publicly, and call for civil society to be
> included earlier in the process in future ITU meetings.]
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Questions:
> 1) When was the IEG opened to civil society participation? Was it just
> that we didn’t know to ask? [We have heard that the USG had sent a letter
> to the IEG Chair to request CS participation, waiting to hear back if that
> happened and when.]
> 2) Do members of the IEG have speaking rights at the WTPF May meeting?
> i.e. if civil society is on the IEG, then do they have the right to speak
> at the WTPF?
> 3) Is it possible to participate meaningfully in the IEG without attending
> in person, i.e. remote participation, contributions over email, etc.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:13 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
>>  Dear All
>>
>> Can the mentioned document be cut pasted here. It is difficult to access
>> documents behind google walls, and they ask for log ins and then say you
>> will be intimated if the owner allows access. Thanks, parminder
>>
>>
>>  On Thursday 07 February 2013 12:31 AM, Deborah Brown wrote:
>>
>> Dear Anriette and all,
>>
>>  I believe that the last thread on this chain was on 31 January, but it
>> was a later email from Joana, which had the draft text for a letter that
>> she and I had worked on for feedback from this group. I pasted that email
>> below.
>>
>>  The letter has not been finalized and is very much open for edits and
>> comments. You can send comments either on this email chain or in the google
>> doc (linked below). We only ask that if you make edits directly into the
>> google doc that you insert a comment noting/explaining your changes (other
>> than editorial ones) to make the process manageable.
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/a/accessnow.org/document/d/1qz4D839quE5vnY-XP-pgu3ENu3WArwIwm5_VgxukgaE/edit
>>
>>  On a related note, I have joined the IEG and am participating remotely.
>> There may be a consolidated draft text on the multistakeholder framework
>> available tomorrow, which I can share with the list if it is of interest.
>>
>> I'm planning to attend the Paris meeting, as is my colleague Raegan
>> MacDonald who is Brussels-based. If there is a date for a BestBits meeting
>> around WSIS+10 could someone please send the information around?
>>
>>  Best regards,
>>  Deborah
>>
>>
>>       Joana Varon via<http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&ctx=mail&answer=1311182>
>>  lists.igcaucus.org
>>     Jan 31 (6 days ago)
>>
>>        to governance, mshears, bestbits, jeremy
>>        Dear all,
>>
>>  I think some people of the governance list felt off from this thread
>> because people that replied were not in both lists, if so, please, refer to
>> the exchange of mensages bellow.
>>
>>  Basically, some of us are willing to draft to communications to ITU: 1)
>> adaptation of the best bits statement (on the content of WTPF documents),
>> 2) follow-up on the letter to the SG during WCIT (on process/barriers faced
>> by civil society).
>>
>>  With that in mind, Deborah Brown and I have drafted the following text
>> for the item 2 (follow-up letter to SG). (Is it right that CDT is working
>> on the first draft for number 1?)
>>
>>  We hope that the draft bellow is useful and if you think so, could you
>> please add comments until Monday?
>>
>>  As Jeremy have mentioned, let us try to ask for special dispensation to
>> contribute and try to submit both letters (or just this one) with CS
>> signatures during next week meeting. Would those attending next week's IEG
>> meeting (Matthew, Avri?) support this letter and agree to deliver it in
>> Geneva?
>>
>>  Hope it helps!
>>
>>  Kind regards,
>>
>>  Joana
>> --
>>
>>
>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)
>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/
>>  <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/goog_946507056>www.freenetfilm.org
>> @joana_varon
>>
>>
>>
>>  --------
>>
>> 31 January, 2012
>>
>>
>>  Open letter to ITU in ref. World Telecommunication Policy Forum
>> (WTPF-13) preparation process
>>
>>
>>  Dear Secretary General Touré,
>>
>>
>>  Recalling Tunis Agenda (Paragraph 35, in particular) we, the
>> undersigned members of civil society, write to urge International
>> Telecommunication Union (ITU) to honor previous commitments expressed by
>> the Secretary General in order to recognize the importance of ensuring
>> meaningful and sustainable civil society participation in the preparatory
>> process undertaken for the World Telecommunication Policy Forum (WTPF).
>>
>>
>>  The few civil society representatives who were in Dubai attending WCIT
>> welcomed the opportunity to meet with you. On that occasion, we shared with
>> you the concerns expressed in a  letter<https://docs.google.com/a/accessnow.org/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM> that
>> gained the support of over 60 members of civil society globally. At that
>> time, main issues were: the lack of any official standing to the public
>> comments solicited prior to WCIT at the ITU’s invitation; the lack of
>> access to and transparency of working groups, particularly the working
>> groups of Committee 5; and the absence of mechanisms to encourage
>> independent civil society participation. We welcome that you included the
>> public comments in an information note to members of the ITU, where you have
>> recognized<http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-INF-0005%21%21MSW-E.pdf> the
>> “*benefits from a greater civil society engagement at ITU” and have *committed
>> “*to take stock” and provide your membership with “some important
>> recommendations” in line with the issue that civil society representatives
>> raised. *
>>
>>
>>  Yet, as preparations are underway for the WTPF, civil society finds
>> itself facing familiar barriers to participation:
>>
>>
>>  1) There is no formal mechanism for civil society to independently make
>> contributions to the preparatory process. We recognize that you have on a
>> number of occasions encouraged member states to form multistakeholder
>> delegations, but as representatives of civil society has expressed to you
>> previously, civil society participation in national delegations cannot
>> substitute for engagement with independent members of civil society. We
>> request the  opportunity to submit comments on the SG’s report and Member
>> State opinions, similar to the Public Views and Opinions page for the WCIT,
>> but with the guarantee that these opinions will be entered into the formal
>> record.  We recognize that the deadline for contributions was 1 February
>> 2013, but given these barriers.
>>
>>
>>  2) There are significant barriers to entry for meaningful participation
>> in the May 2013 WTPF meeting. While we welcome that there is a formal
>> process to apply to attend as a “public attendant”, there is no indication
>> that civil society representatives who attend will have speaking rights at
>> the meeting. As previously expressed in the Best Bits statement,<http://bestbits.igf-online.net/statement/> we
>> call for the ITU to create spaces during WTPF for civil society to express
>> their views, as was done during the WSIS process. We also request that the
>> WTPF be live streamed to allow for civil society and members of the public
>> to follow remotely.
>>
>>
>>  Additionally the vetting process is opaque, with no public guidelines
>> for who is accepted as a public attendant. We call for the ITU to provide
>> guidance on how the applications admitted.
>>
>>
>>  [ 3) While some members of civil society have been invited to
>> participate in the Informal Experts Group (IEG), this notice came too late
>> in the process-- just a few weeks before the IEG’s final meeting-- for most
>> individuals to find the resources to travel to Geneva. Furthermore,
>> participation in the final IEG meeting is not sufficient for meaningful
>> participation in the WTPF process. We regret that this opportunity was not
>> communicated earlier and more publicly, and call for civil society to be
>> included earlier in the process in future ITU meetings.]
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>>  *Questions:*
>>
>> 1) When was the IEG opened to civil society participation? Was it just
>> that we didn’t know to ask? [We have heard that the USG had sent a letter
>> to the IEG Chair to request CS participation, waiting to hear back if that
>> happened and when.]
>>
>> 2) Do members of the IEG have speaking rights at the WTPF May meeting?
>> i.e. if civil society is on the IEG, then do they have the right to speak
>> at the WTPF?
>>
>> 3) Is it possible to participate meaningfully in the IEG without
>> attending in person, i.e. remote participation, contributions over email,
>> etc.
>>   On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:
>>
>>>  Dear all
>>>
>>> Apologies for silence in this discussion.
>>>
>>> A few of us from APC (staff and members) are planning to be in Paris.
>>> Lillian Nalwoga from CIPESA in Uganda has some support. ValeriaBetancourt and myself are still looking for supportbut am planning to be there if at all possible.
>>>
>>> Was the statement finished? I have not had BestBits mail since 31
>>> January.
>>>
>>> And do we have a date scheduled yet for meeting in Paris around WSIS
>>> +10?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   On 31/01/2013 18:37, Joana Varonferraz wrote:
>>>
>>> Let's do it, Mathew.
>>>
>>> Are you already coordinating with CDT to adapt best bits statement?
>>>
>>> I'm between meetings but I can start a draft of the follow up on the letter to SG. Deborah, from Access, might help. Anyone who has a little time to help is more then welcome. We will start it in about 2 hours.
>>>
>>> Lets try to have both drafts by the end of the day and try not to be so creative, just departuring from the points and views of previous consensus, as these letters will be just follow ups from previous "achievements", right?
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Joana
>>>
>>> --- ~ --- ~ --- ~
>>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>>> Researcher
>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV)www.freenetfilm.org
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31/01/2013, at 09:52, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com> <genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  I agree also on this approach
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> <mshears at cdt.org>
>>> Date:
>>> To: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org,Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> <jeremy at ciroap.org>,joana at varonferraz.com
>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and Responsibilities
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with Joana and Jeremy - there are two communications we should do pretty quickly:
>>>
>>> 1) take the Best Bits WCIT statement and adapt it - or at least the first part on transparency and access, etc. - to the WTPF.  I personally don't see the participation challenges for civil society being much less than they were at the WCIT - which is ironic because the WTPF is not a treaty-making conference - and the IEG is not adequate by any means (I am on the IEG and will be attending next week).  I'm sure CDT would be happy to take a first cut at this text.
>>>
>>> 2) follow-up on the letter to the SG and the meeting we had in Dubai in which participation in the WTPF was discussed.
>>>
>>> If there is agreement on text on 1 above I can raise points from it or read it in the IEG meeting next week for Best Bits.
>>>
>>> While I understand the Brazilian telecoms regulator's view there are a number of points in the SG's 4th report that refer to multistakeholderism in Internet governance issues and there are two opinions submitted so far that take positions I believe are contrary to civil society's interests in terms of stakeholder participation and enhanced cooperation.   I think civil society messaging on these issues is as important for the WTPF as it was for the WCIT.
>>>
>>> And finally, who on this list is going to the UNESCO WSIS/IGF meeting at the end of February?  Thought it might be good to have a gathering during that week to compare notes on WSIS+10/IGF and discuss WTPF?
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31/01/2013 09:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 31/01/13 05:15, Joana Varon wrote:
>>>
>>>  Sorry for the late reply after the sympathy some have expressed on drafting a letter highlighting the promises of Dr Touré at the WCIT SC meeting. I was approaching the Brazilian government for support on our demand for space and participation of civil society organizations on ITU processes.
>>>
>>> Though showing solidarity with the cause, Brazilian government (or our               telecom regulatory agency responsible for representing the country at ITU) has signaled that WTPF is not the proper sphere to submit extensive contribution regarding CS participation, the plenipotentiary would be so. So, as far as I know, Brazil will submit a contribution to WTPF only generally speaking about openness and transparency, but not presenting a particular proposal for change in the mechanisms for civil society participation.
>>>
>>> In that sense, they have also addressed the existence of Informal Experts Group for WTPF, highlighting that:
>>> ...
>>> Well, this is surely not satisfactory, so, with that in mind, I wonder if we should go for that joined CS letter focusing on WTPF and stressing previous commitments from the Secretary General, do we still have time? Or, for the ones how are more aware of UN bodies internal procedures, do we have to wait the loooong time for the plenipot? What could we grasp right now?
>>>
>>>
>>>  (I'm quoting almost your whole message because I intend on forwarding my reply to the wcit12 list too, as an almost identical discussion is going on there.)
>>>
>>> The deadline for comments on the Secretary General's report is tomorrow, so we may be hard pressed to do anything by then!  Having said that, we could ask for special dispensation to contribute a belated submission, as was granted for the Best Bits statement to WCIT.
>>>
>>> Personally I am unlikely to have time to take the lead on a letter but I am supportive of the idea and would have comments to give on a draft if say you or Emma from CDT were to send some draft text.  The IGC has not successfully done a statement for a while, and Best Bits is in transition (watch this space), so probably it would probably not be under either of those umbrellas, but rather a generic civil society letter to which groups could sign on.
>>>
>>> I agree that the invitation to participate in the IEG is no substitute, though for those who can, good on them.  Avri said she is on the group and there is CDT, but unless you count ISOC (I don't), there is no other civil society that I know of.  Doubtless largely due to the lack of funding, as always (that's why I won't be there).
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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 | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>>
>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>>> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org
>>>
>>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>>> south africa
>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> Deborah Brown
>> Policy Analyst
>> Access | AccessNow.org
>> E. deborah at accessnow.org
>> S. deborah.l.brown
>> T. deblebrown
>> PGP 0x5EB4727D
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/
>  <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/goog_946507056> www.freenetfilm.org
> @joana_varon
>



-- 
Deborah Brown
Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. deborah at accessnow.org
S. deborah.l.brown
T. deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130208/685823fb/attachment.htm>