[bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and Responsibilities
Deborah Brown
deborah at accessnow.org
Fri Feb 8 04:42:40 EST 2013
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>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list