From Andrew at global-partners.co.uk  Mon Jan  7 05:35:39 2013
From: Andrew at global-partners.co.uk (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 10:35:39 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] UNESCO WSIS plus 10
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399C585DF80207@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

Hi everyone!

UNESCO have provisionally allocated us a session at the WSIS plus 10 meeting in Paris in late February.  At the moment I've kept it vague but I need to nail it down in the next few days.   UNESCO is in the process of merging sessions (from current 54, they are looking to have 50 max - the list is attached).   Ours is the only session that doesn't have a 'theme' - we should think about how it fits with the proposed sub-themes as UNESCO will be grouping the meetings.   There are two similar proposed sessions which refer to the 'Taking stock' meeting from Baku (proposal 4 by CIS; proposal 13 by ICC BASIS) - see overview of proposals in attachment. The ones with same/similar topics and participants might be approached by UNESCO in an effort to merge them. They haven't mentioned our session explicitly.  If you have any views on a merger or specific focus let me know.

As this is UNESCO and they are broke, there is absolutely no travel support offered for anyone.  I'll have a go this week at seeing if there is interest in sponsoring any participation but can't guarantee funding at this stage - I'll do my best!

Could you let me know if:
You are definitely planning to attend and have financial support
Would like to attend but need financial support.

General:

 1.  Registration is now open - all panellists and participants should register as soon as possible. If you'd like to come but need support it might be worth registering now anyway.
 2.  For assistance with visas - send email to m.liouliou at unesco.org<mailto:m.liouliou at unesco.org>
If you could get back to me this week that would be helpful..

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 parminder
Sent: 26 December 2012 07:19
To: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] ISOC/USG WCIT Post Mortem


On Wednesday 26 December 2012 09:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
<snip>

But there are only so many resources that Best Bits members will want to continue to pour into telecommunications work, or into a negative agenda at the ITU just devoted to delineating the line between Internet and telecoms.

Unfortunately, behind delineating or blurring that line lies a sordid tale --- of huge implication to the governance of our communication realm

see for instance 'Internet Freedom'? AT&T's Verbal Jujitsu to Close Down Telecommunications in America'<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/internet-freedom-att_b_1869358.html>. and

Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network<http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/shutting-down-phone-system-gets-real-implicat>


 WCIT outcomes, whatever they may actually  be or not, will now be touted as having decisively sealed the issue that  Internet is not to be governed/ regulated by traditional telecom regulators in any way whatsoever (not even at the physical/ infrastructure level).... Such global norms are even more important in developing countries, which are still to see the net neutrality struggle begin... It may have been snuffed out even before in could begin. If telecom regulators dont enforce net neutrality, I dont see how it can be enforced at all.

Wishing a great 2013 to all!

parminder




--

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<http://www.consumersinternational.org/> | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't print this email unless necessary.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130107/cd06b616/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: UNESCO Proposals sorted by theme with description.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 79082 bytes
Desc: UNESCO Proposals sorted by theme with description.docx
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130107/cd06b616/attachment.docx>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Jan 17 23:35:23 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:35:23 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and
 Responsibilities
In-Reply-To: <CA+4KnA8bPNztb6KQAxuiiShfrWiVwtvvkDq3SER=YQ1F_0SFdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01c801cdf457$f76a3fc0$e63ebf40$@gmail.com> <50F763C0.5070907@ciroap.org> <CA+4KnA8bPNztb6KQAxuiiShfrWiVwtvvkDq3SER=YQ1F_0SFdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <50F8D10B.3010109@ciroap.org>

On 17/01/2013, at 10:11 PM, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote:
> These important points remind me that it may be useful to ensure we
> have a process/system for sharing all important information (are
> people comfortable that just posting to the list is the best way?);
> and it also reminds me that it would bve most useful to know who plans
> on attending which upcoming meetings -- I'm thinking particularly
> about the Paris WSIS+10, but it would be great to have a list for all
> major meetings.  Some of us have to decide where to invest money for
> travel, and knowing who will attend may indicate particular gaps in CS
> presence, or meetings where we'll have a critical mass attending who
> can discuss broader policy issues.

Actually I put together a system that is meant to achieve that:

http://a2knetwork.org/meetings/

Anyone who registers can list a meeting there and say whether they are
attending, and can post a short report there.  It supports multiple
reports, too, in the case that more than one delegation is attending. 
The main purpose is to identify where there are gaps - important
meetings that nobody is covering.  But it only works if enough people
use it, so please do.

There is also a very nice (nicer than mine, which was done on the cheap)
public calendar that American University has put up, but it only covers
IP meetings, and it doesn't have as much functionality in terms of
showing who is attending.  But anyway, it is useful for showing what is
coming up:

http://infojustice-calendar.org/

Both calendars have the ability to subscribe in your calendar software
such as Lightning, iCal, Outlook, Google Calendar, etc.

-- 

*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
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/> | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130118/14b569cd/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Fri Jan 18 16:49:41 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 22:49:41 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and
 Responsibilities
In-Reply-To: <50F8D10B.3010109@ciroap.org>
References: <01c801cdf457$f76a3fc0$e63ebf40$@gmail.com>
	<50F763C0.5070907@ciroap.org>
	<CA+4KnA8bPNztb6KQAxuiiShfrWiVwtvvkDq3SER=YQ1F_0SFdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<50F8D10B.3010109@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <20130118224941.556b0653@quill.bollow.ch>

Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> On 17/01/2013, at 10:11 PM, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Some of us have to decide where to
> > invest money for travel, and knowing who will attend may indicate
> > particular gaps in CS presence, or meetings where we'll have a
> > critical mass attending who can discuss broader policy issues.
> 
> Actually I put together a system that is meant to achieve that:
> 
> http://a2knetwork.org/meetings/
> 
> Anyone who registers can list a meeting there and say whether they are
> attending, and can post a short report there.  It supports multiple
> reports, too, in the case that more than one delegation is attending. 
> The main purpose is to identify where there are gaps - important
> meetings that nobody is covering.  But it only works if enough people
> use it, so please do.

So this is intended for all of civil society, rather than just the
Consumer Movement, to use?

If yes, then I would suggest that that should be made clearer on the
website.

Greetings,
Norbert



From jeremy at ciroap.org  Mon Jan 21 02:35:33 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 15:35:33 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and
 Responsibilities
In-Reply-To: <20130118224941.556b0653@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <01c801cdf457$f76a3fc0$e63ebf40$@gmail.com> <50F763C0.5070907@ciroap.org> <CA+4KnA8bPNztb6KQAxuiiShfrWiVwtvvkDq3SER=YQ1F_0SFdA@mail.gmail.com> <50F8D10B.3010109@ciroap.org> <20130118224941.556b0653@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <50FCEFC5.8010008@ciroap.org>

On 19/01/13 05:49, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>> Actually I put together a system that is meant to achieve that:
>>
>> http://a2knetwork.org/meetings/
>>
>> Anyone who registers can list a meeting there and say whether they are
>> attending, and can post a short report there.  It supports multiple
>> reports, too, in the case that more than one delegation is attending. 
>> The main purpose is to identify where there are gaps - important
>> meetings that nobody is covering.  But it only works if enough people
>> use it, so please do.
> So this is intended for all of civil society, rather than just the
> Consumer Movement, to use?
>
> If yes, then I would suggest that that should be made clearer on the
> website.

It was originally mainly for CI's consumer group members, but it is
clear that it won't be useful unless it is open to others.  In the
longer term I need to look at spinning it off to a more broadly based
network, and making it much nicer like the infojustice-calendar one.  I
already put in place a simple Internet governance calendar system for
the IGC (http://www.igcaucus.org/calendar), but it hasn't been much used
and could also be wrapped into the above.  I am trying to get funding to
support the Best Bits network, mainly as a travel fund for events, but
some Web development work such as this will also be included.

-- 

*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
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130121/96356616/attachment.htm>

From kstouray at gmail.com  Tue Jan 22 21:29:44 2013
From: kstouray at gmail.com (Katim S. Touray)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 02:29:44 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and
 Responsibilities
In-Reply-To: <50FCEFC5.8010008@ciroap.org>
References: <01c801cdf457$f76a3fc0$e63ebf40$@gmail.com>
	<50F763C0.5070907@ciroap.org>
	<CA+4KnA8bPNztb6KQAxuiiShfrWiVwtvvkDq3SER=YQ1F_0SFdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<50F8D10B.3010109@ciroap.org>
	<20130118224941.556b0653@quill.bollow.ch>
	<50FCEFC5.8010008@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CAJhHpNupp0kTqmBBZ7qOuf-ejirD62P31UxddtAAZKh9_XqbfQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

As promised a few days ago, here's the link to my CircleID article on
WCIT-12 and multi-stakeholderism:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130122_much_ado_about_wcit_12_and_multi_stakeholderism/

Katim


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

>  On 19/01/13 05:49, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>
>  Actually I put together a system that is meant to achieve that:
> http://a2knetwork.org/meetings/
>
> Anyone who registers can list a meeting there and say whether they are
> attending, and can post a short report there.  It supports multiple
> reports, too, in the case that more than one delegation is attending.
> The main purpose is to identify where there are gaps - important
> meetings that nobody is covering.  But it only works if enough people
> use it, so please do.
>
>  So this is intended for all of civil society, rather than just the
> Consumer Movement, to use?
>
> If yes, then I would suggest that that should be made clearer on the
> website.
>
>
> It was originally mainly for CI's consumer group members, but it is clear
> that it won't be useful unless it is open to others.  In the longer term I
> need to look at spinning it off to a more broadly based network, and making
> it much nicer like the infojustice-calendar one.  I already put in place a
> simple Internet governance calendar system for the IGC (
> http://www.igcaucus.org/calendar), but it hasn't been much used and could
> also be wrapped into the above.  I am trying to get funding to support the
> Best Bits network, mainly as a travel fund for events, but some Web
> development work such as this will also be included.
>
>
> --
>
> *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<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130123/96db4f17/attachment.htm>

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Jan 22 22:26:49 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:26:49 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and
 Responsibilities
In-Reply-To: <CAJhHpNupp0kTqmBBZ7qOuf-ejirD62P31UxddtAAZKh9_XqbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01c801cdf457$f76a3fc0$e63ebf40$@gmail.com>
 <50F763C0.5070907@ciroap.org>
 <CA+4KnA8bPNztb6KQAxuiiShfrWiVwtvvkDq3SER=YQ1F_0SFdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <50F8D10B.3010109@ciroap.org>
 <20130118224941.556b0653@quill.bollow.ch>
 <50FCEFC5.8010008@ciroap.org>
 <CAJhHpNupp0kTqmBBZ7qOuf-ejirD62P31UxddtAAZKh9_XqbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130123032649.GA16191@hserus.net>

Katim S. Touray [23/01/13 02:29 +0000]:
>As promised a few days ago, here's the link to my CircleID article on
>WCIT-12 and multi-stakeholderism:
>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130122_much_ado_about_wcit_12_and_multi_stakeholderism/

Thanks. There are a few issues here I would differ with.

Some of the problem here doesn't involve the fact that governments have a
role in internet governance - it involves an objection to the ITU allowing
scope creep into its mandate, to cover issues that more countries than just
the USA (so hardly "exceptionalism" or "unilateralism") have differed with.

As for Africa and its lack of participation in internet governance
structures, part of it has to do with capacity building for government,
industry and civil society stakeholders, while monopoly and competition
policy issues some due to geography, given africa's landlocked nature and
difficult terrain that makes slow and expensive satellite connectivity a
necessity, some due to government monopolies on the Internet and telecom,
while others can be laid to the door of various other factors, such as a
lack of stable government, cutting off the Internet to prevent opponents
from organizing themselves using it (as in Syria, and before that in
Qaddafi's Libya ..). 

I am afraid this can't all be blamed on US exceptionalism, and while there
is a substantial amount of aid in material, capacity building etc that can
be (and is) provided by local and international NGOs who set up ISP
exchange points, hold training workshops etc, a substantial local effort is
also needed before you will see the situation improve.

On the DoC / NTIA oversight of ICANN / IANA, it has been mostly hands off,
only stepping in where there have been cases where DoC appears to feel that
there are governance issues involved. Or have you seen them try to revoke
.cu, .sy, .kp just because Cuba, Syria and North Korea are in the state
department's OFAC blacklist of entities American firms are forbidden to
trade with?

I'll post the same thing on circleid to kickstart the discussion there.

thanks
suresh



From joana at varonferraz.com  Wed Jan 30 16:15:55 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 19:15:55 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and
 Responsibilities
In-Reply-To: <50FCEFC5.8010008@ciroap.org>
References: <01c801cdf457$f76a3fc0$e63ebf40$@gmail.com> <50F763C0.5070907@ciroap.org>
 <CA+4KnA8bPNztb6KQAxuiiShfrWiVwtvvkDq3SER=YQ1F_0SFdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <50F8D10B.3010109@ciroap.org> <20130118224941.556b0653@quill.bollow.ch> <50FCEFC5.8010008@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTrZhvQx+-8iKxyWuaECfniGCA-NOYk5nRH4BKUJS_4THQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Wolfgang, Anriette, Deborah, Jeremy and all,

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:

"At its session in 2012, the Council agreed that all relevant stakeholders
should participate in the work of the IEG so as to contribute their unique
perspective to the preparatory process, based on the roles and
responsibilities that the stakeholders may have under Paragraph 35 of the
Tunis Agenda (2005). Consequently, participation in the work of the IEG
will be open to stakeholders in accordance with Council decision, taking
into account Decision 562 and the need to maintain a balanced group of
experts, and also room and seating capacity for IEG meetings at ITU
headquarters in Geneva. Relevant stakeholders are invited to express their
interest in participating in the work of the IEG by completing a *request
form. <http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Documents/request%20form.docx>"*

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

http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Documents/request%20form.docx


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?




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



On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

>  On 19/01/13 05:49, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>
>  Actually I put together a system that is meant to achieve that:
> http://a2knetwork.org/meetings/
>
> Anyone who registers can list a meeting there and say whether they are
> attending, and can post a short report there.  It supports multiple
> reports, too, in the case that more than one delegation is attending.
> The main purpose is to identify where there are gaps - important
> meetings that nobody is covering.  But it only works if enough people
> use it, so please do.
>
>  So this is intended for all of civil society, rather than just the
> Consumer Movement, to use?
>
> If yes, then I would suggest that that should be made clearer on the
> website.
>
>
> It was originally mainly for CI's consumer group members, but it is clear
> that it won't be useful unless it is open to others.  In the longer term I
> need to look at spinning it off to a more broadly based network, and making
> it much nicer like the infojustice-calendar one.  I already put in place a
> simple Internet governance calendar system for the IGC (
> http://www.igcaucus.org/calendar), but it hasn't been much used and could
> also be wrapped into the above.  I am trying to get funding to support the
> Best Bits network, mainly as a travel fund for events, but some Web
> development work such as this will also be included.
>
>
> --
>
> *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<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>


-- 

--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130130/dafdc923/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Jan 31 04:01:15 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:01:15 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and
 Responsibilities
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTrZhvQx+-8iKxyWuaECfniGCA-NOYk5nRH4BKUJS_4THQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01c801cdf457$f76a3fc0$e63ebf40$@gmail.com> <50F763C0.5070907@ciroap.org> <CA+4KnA8bPNztb6KQAxuiiShfrWiVwtvvkDq3SER=YQ1F_0SFdA@mail.gmail.com> <50F8D10B.3010109@ciroap.org> <20130118224941.556b0653@quill.bollow.ch> <50FCEFC5.8010008@ciroap.org> <CALTAiTrZhvQx+-8iKxyWuaECfniGCA-NOYk5nRH4BKUJS_4THQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <510A32DB.9020508@ciroap.org>

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
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130131/835891fc/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Thu Jan 31 06:04:46 2013
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 11:04:46 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and
 Responsibilities
In-Reply-To: <510A32DB.9020508@ciroap.org>
References: <01c801cdf457$f76a3fc0$e63ebf40$@gmail.com> <50F763C0.5070907@ciroap.org> <CA+4KnA8bPNztb6KQAxuiiShfrWiVwtvvkDq3SER=YQ1F_0SFdA@mail.gmail.com> <50F8D10B.3010109@ciroap.org> <20130118224941.556b0653@quill.bollow.ch> <50FCEFC5.8010008@ciroap.org> <CALTAiTrZhvQx+-8iKxyWuaECfniGCA-NOYk5nRH4BKUJS_4THQ@mail.gmail.com> <510A32DB.9020508@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <510A4FCE.3070308@cdt.org>


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 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org> | 
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational 
> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130131/52698a81/attachment.htm>

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Thu Jan 31 06:52:33 2013
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 06:52:33 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and
 Responsibilities
Message-ID: <v4wqnoxd3og10noe7m3uapyg.1359633153085@email.android.com>

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.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130131/5159aa6f/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Thu Jan 31 11:37:51 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varonferraz)
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:37:51 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and
 Responsibilities
In-Reply-To: <v4wqnoxd3og10noe7m3uapyg.1359633153085@email.android.com>
References: <v4wqnoxd3og10noe7m3uapyg.1359633153085@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <D25792DE-E584-4E55-A0DE-7806F0E86931@varonferraz.com>

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.
>> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130131/4e2cef55/attachment.htm>

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Mon Jan  7 11:50:27 2013
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 17:50:27 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] UNESCO WSIS plus 10
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399C585DF80207@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399C585DF80207@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <6290BF0B-D6FE-40AE-B9E8-9F531CCBC33A@uzh.ch>

Hi

The process UNESCO is following is rather different from ITU's practice with its annual May WSIS Forums.  The good news there is that Janis and Co. should be fairly open to any formulation that doesn't cause problems for them.  So just as a starting point: are we wedded to the placemarker framing, "A public interest internet:  what can WSIS plus 10 deliver? A view from civil society" and should try to evolve something that maps with the current text, "The meeting will examine a range of views as to how WSIS plus 10 can tackle the Internet governance issues such as affordable and equitable access and net neutrality without compromising the development of a public interest internet"?  If so that takes us down one path.  

Or would people be open to a more fundamental reimagination of the thing?  Our Baku meeting was organized around two pillars, WCIT and principles.  Wolfgang has proposed a principles session, but there's nothing directly related to the other bit that brought us together.  It obviously wouldn't help UNESCO for us to propose something sensitive like why WCIT and/or the ITU imploded, but we could make a constructive contribution by taking stock of where the global dialogue and policy processes relating to IG and its contact points with telecom are today, post-WCIT, bridging to the WTPF's agenda in May (public participation and transparency there still unclear, BTW).  This would be very timely and attract more attention than a lot of the more obviously Action Line-oriented session.  Moreover, it would help those of us who will be involved in the IGF consultation and MAG meeting to follow, in that anything that frames clear and pressing questions could be drawn upon in pressing for a new and more vigorous IGF agenda (at long last, there seems to be a growing recognition of the need in the MAG).  So in short, CS could play an important role here in fostering some much needed dialogue on "hot button" items that link together what's just happened and what's coming next…

Best,

Bill

On Jan 7, 2013, at 11:35 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:

> Hi everyone!
>  
> UNESCO have provisionally allocated us a session at the WSIS plus 10 meeting in Paris in late February.  At the moment I’ve kept it vague but I need to nail it down in the next few days.   UNESCO is in the process of merging sessions (from current 54, they are looking to have 50 max – the list is attached).   Ours is the only session that doesn't have a 'theme' - we should think about how it fits with the proposed sub-themes as UNESCO will be grouping the meetings.   There are two similar proposed sessions which refer to the 'Taking stock' meeting from Baku (proposal 4 by CIS; proposal 13 by ICC BASIS) - see overview of proposals in attachment. The ones with same/similar topics and participants might be approached by UNESCO in an effort to merge them. They haven't mentioned our session explicitly.  If you have any views on a merger or specific focus let me know.
>  
> As this is UNESCO and they are broke, there is absolutely no travel support offered for anyone.  I’ll have a go this week at seeing if there is interest in sponsoring any participation but can’t guarantee funding at this stage – I’ll do my best!
>  
> Could you let me know if:
> You are definitely planning to attend and have financial support
> Would like to attend but need financial support.
>  
> General:
> Registration is now open – all panellists and participants should register as soon as possible. If you’d like to come but need support it might be worth registering now anyway.
> For assistance with visas – send email to m.liouliou at unesco.org 
> If you could get back to me this week that would be helpful..
>  
> 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 parminder
> Sent: 26 December 2012 07:19
> To: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] ISOC/USG WCIT Post Mortem
>  
>  
> On Wednesday 26 December 2012 09:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> <snip>
>  
> But there are only so many resources that Best Bits members will want to continue to pour into telecommunications work, or into a negative agenda at the ITU just devoted to delineating the line between Internet and telecoms.
> 
> Unfortunately, behind delineating or blurring that line lies a sordid tale --- of huge implication to the governance of our communication realm
> 
> see for instance 'Internet Freedom'? AT&T's Verbal Jujitsu to Close Down Telecommunications in America'. and 
> 
> Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network 
> 
> 
>  WCIT outcomes, whatever they may actually  be or not, will now be touted as having decisively sealed the issue that  Internet is not to be governed/ regulated by traditional telecom regulators in any way whatsoever (not even at the physical/ infrastructure level).... Such global norms are even more important in developing countries, which are still to see the net neutrality struggle begin... It may have been snuffed out even before in could begin. If telecom regulators dont enforce net neutrality, I dont see how it can be enforced at all.
> 
> Wishing a great 2013 to all! 
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> 
>  
> -- 
> 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.
> 
>  
>  
> <UNESCO Proposals sorted by theme with description.docx>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130107/bb9df2ef/attachment.htm>

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Thu Jan 31 13:46:13 2013
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:46:13 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and
 Responsibilities
In-Reply-To: <510A4FCE.3070308@cdt.org>
References: <01c801cdf457$f76a3fc0$e63ebf40$@gmail.com> <50F763C0.5070907@ciroap.org> <CA+4KnA8bPNztb6KQAxuiiShfrWiVwtvvkDq3SER=YQ1F_0SFdA@mail.gmail.com> <50F8D10B.3010109@ciroap.org> <20130118224941.556b0653@quill.bollow.ch> <50FCEFC5.8010008@ciroap.org> <CALTAiTrZhvQx+-8iKxyWuaECfniGCA-NOYk5nRH4BKUJS_4THQ@mail.gmail.com> <510A32DB.9020508@ciroap.org> <510A4FCE.3070308@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <A82BEFF9-4441-4DC8-87BA-A8A4A90CD9DC@uzh.ch>

Hi Matt

On Jan 31, 2013, at 3:04 AM, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

> 
> 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.

I think the staff vetting process for admission and lack of recognition of stakeholders is objectionable enough to merit note, but the question of speaking rights probably merits greater emphasis now.  At the 2009 Lisbon meeting, leaving it to the discretion of session chairs meant no chance to speak.  The chairs ought to be urged to at least provide a WSIS-style 5 minutes for statements at the end of each session.  I've raised this with USG but don't know that they will press it at the IEG meeting…maybe you and Avri can get in some ears there?
> 
> 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?

I'm there all week. Wolfgang's here in LA for ICANN with me and said he'd be, and I assume the same for Anriette and others from the MAG CS contingent.  Other Best Bits folks are listed on the day 3 program…surely there will be enough of us around to join if you want to organize.

Bill

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130131/58ed33de/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Thu Jan 31 17:37:47 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 20:37:47 -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: <CALTAiTrB84pF0nBk_zms8h_H4A28aOoSv0i4c5rcQN3qPF+6kw@mail.gmail.com>

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 Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Joana Varonferraz <joana at varonferraz.com>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<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
>


--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130131/8d544a53/attachment.htm>

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Mon Jan  7 12:05:06 2013
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 12:05:06 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] UNESCO WSIS plus 10
Message-ID: <s4t0ottqbj134uoprh1wj4gk.1357578097573@email.android.com>

I prefer Bill's first formulation to promote a very concrete discussion if CS needs. However the conversation could easily lead to some fundamental rethinking of institutional roles that best serve CS goals.William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:Hi

The process UNESCO is following is rather different from ITU's practice with its annual May WSIS Forums.  The good news there is that Janis and Co. should be fairly open to any formulation that doesn't cause problems for them.  So just as a starting point: are we wedded to the placemarker framing, "A public interest internet:  what can WSIS plus 10 deliver? A view from civil society" and should try to evolve something that maps with the current text, "The meeting will examine a range of views as to how WSIS plus 10 can tackle the Internet governance issues such as affordable and equitable access and net neutrality without compromising the development of a public interest internet"?  If so that takes us down one path.  

Or would people be open to a more fundamental reimagination of the thing?  Our Baku meeting was organized around two pillars, WCIT and principles.  Wolfgang has proposed a principles session, but there's nothing directly related to the other bit that brought us together.  It obviously wouldn't help UNESCO for us to propose something sensitive like why WCIT and/or the ITU imploded, but we could make a constructive contribution by taking stock of where the global dialogue and policy processes relating to IG and its contact points with telecom are today, post-WCIT, bridging to the WTPF's agenda in May (public participation and transparency there still unclear, BTW).  This would be very timely and attract more attention than a lot of the more obviously Action Line-oriented session.  Moreover, it would help those of us who will be involved in the IGF consultation and MAG meeting to follow, in that anything that frames clear and pressing questions could be drawn upon in pressing for a new and more vigorous IGF agenda (at long last, there seems to be a growing recognition of the need in the MAG).  So in short, CS could play an important role here in fostering some much needed dialogue on "hot button" items that link together what's just happened and what's coming next…

Best,

Bill

On Jan 7, 2013, at 11:35 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:

Hi everyone!
 
UNESCO have provisionally allocated us a session at the WSIS plus 10 meeting in Paris in late February.  At the moment I’ve kept it vague but I need to nail it down in the next few days.   UNESCO is in the process of merging sessions (from current 54, they are looking to have 50 max – the list is attached).   Ours is the only session that doesn't have a 'theme' - we should think about how it fits with the proposed sub-themes as UNESCO will be grouping the meetings.   There are two similar proposed sessions which refer to the 'Taking stock' meeting from Baku (proposal 4 by CIS; proposal 13 by ICC BASIS) - see overview of proposals in attachment. The ones with same/similar topics and participants might be approached by UNESCO in an effort to merge them. They haven't mentioned our session explicitly.  If you have any views on a merger or specific focus let me know.
 
As this is UNESCO and they are broke, there is absolutely no travel support offered for anyone.  I’ll have a go this week at seeing if there is interest in sponsoring any participation but can’t guarantee funding at this stage – I’ll do my best!
 
Could you let me know if:
You are definitely planning to attend and have financial support
Would like to attend but need financial support.
 
General:
Registration is now open – all panellists and participants should register as soon as possible. If you’d like to come but need support it might be worth registering now anyway.
For assistance with visas – send email to m.liouliou at unesco.org 
If you could get back to me this week that would be helpful..
 
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 parminder
Sent: 26 December 2012 07:19
To: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] ISOC/USG WCIT Post Mortem
 
 
On Wednesday 26 December 2012 09:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
<snip>
 
But there are only so many resources that Best Bits members will want to continue to pour into telecommunications work, or into a negative agenda at the ITU just devoted to delineating the line between Internet and telecoms.

Unfortunately, behind delineating or blurring that line lies a sordid tale --- of huge implication to the governance of our communication realm

see for instance 'Internet Freedom'? AT&T's Verbal Jujitsu to Close Down Telecommunications in America'. and 

Shutting Down The Phone System Gets Real: The Implications of AT&T Upgrading To An All IP Network 


 WCIT outcomes, whatever they may actually  be or not, will now be touted as having decisively sealed the issue that  Internet is not to be governed/ regulated by traditional telecom regulators in any way whatsoever (not even at the physical/ infrastructure level).... Such global norms are even more important in developing countries, which are still to see the net neutrality struggle begin... It may have been snuffed out even before in could begin. If telecom regulators dont enforce net neutrality, I dont see how it can be enforced at all.

Wishing a great 2013 to all! 

parminder



 
-- 
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.

 
 
<UNESCO Proposals sorted by theme with description.docx>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130107/c9b78120/attachment.htm>

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Tue Jan  8 19:36:33 2013
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 06:06:33 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] UNESCO WSIS plus 10
In-Reply-To: <6290BF0B-D6FE-40AE-B9E8-9F531CCBC33A@uzh.ch>
References: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399C585DF80207@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <6290BF0B-D6FE-40AE-B9E8-9F531CCBC33A@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <50ECBB91.1060504@cis-india.org>

William Drake [2013-01-07 22:20]:
> Wolfgang has proposed a principles session, but there's
> nothing directly related to the other bit that brought us together.

On a side-note, the current *draft* schedule for Day 3 has

 * Wolfgang's proposal ("Internet Governance Principles: Towards a
Multistakeholder and Universal Framework of Commitments"),
 * Global Partners proposal ("A public interest internet:  what can WSIS
plus 10 deliver? A view from civil society"), and the
 * CIS proposal ("WGIG+8: Stock-Taking, Mapping, and Going Forward")

all slotted for the same time.

Regards,
Pranesh

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director
Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130109/b5f1ca15/attachment.sig>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Jan 16 21:36:48 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:36:48 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and
 Responsibilities
In-Reply-To: <01c801cdf457$f76a3fc0$e63ebf40$@gmail.com>
References: <01c801cdf457$f76a3fc0$e63ebf40$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <50F763C0.5070907@ciroap.org>

On 17/01/13 10:11, michael gurstein wrote:
> In going through the FOURTH DRAFT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL'S REPORT for the
> Fifth World Telecommunication/Information and Communication Technology
> Policy Forum 2013 (WTPF) http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/report-sg.aspx
> I came across this, below as the definition of multi-stakeholderism as
> (presumably) currently understood in various UN fora (it is what was used, I
> believe at WSIS... note particularly d) iii. below... 

That part is all well and good, but the part that worries me (sorry if
you already heard from me about this on another list) is the treatment
of "The Multi-stakeholder Model" in the draft, in which it is correctly
stated that "A divergence in opinion is observed in the implementation
of the WSIS multistakeholder model in the current Internet governance
ecosystem", but that this is a divergence between only two views, one of
which is that "the current governance of the Internet is sufficiently
multistakeholder and inclusive in terms of involvement of all
stakeholder groups" (attributed to Cisco, UK, USA and ISOC), and the
second (attributed to Saudi Arabia and Sudan and Algeria!) that "with
regards to international Internet-related public policy, the role of one
stakeholder – Governments – has not been allowed to evolve according to
WSIS principles".

What about the third, missing view - that the current governance of the
Internet is NOT sufficiently multistakeholder and inclusive in terms of
involvement of all stakeholder groups, but that rather than governments
being left out, it is civil society!  We can point to so many examples
of this, beginning at the ITU itself.

I think the report needs to be changed to correct this erroneous
characteristion of the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. 
However the ITU is only receiving submissions from members (there is an
open platform for general comments, but they won't be received as direct
inputs to the SG's report).  We will therefore need to put in our
submission either through a friendly government (those who were members
of delegations at WCIT will already have these connections), or through
a sector member.  Consumers International has applied for sector
membership, but our application does not come up for consideration until
June.  We do have a CI member who is a sector member, but is there
anyone else on this list who also is (and who is less status-quoist than
ISOC)?  If not I will work with my member on some text.

-- 

*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
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130117/d7d00f8e/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Wed Jan 16 22:55:18 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 01:55:18 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and
 Responsibilities
In-Reply-To: <50F763C0.5070907@ciroap.org>
References: <01c801cdf457$f76a3fc0$e63ebf40$@gmail.com> <50F763C0.5070907@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTo7K6utLtUgmsqes_XXJWtsVoUVcLjbkG49ydK-JmPHVg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Jeremy and all,

Regarding your observation and the fact that a couple of civil society
representatives were able to have a meeting with Mr Toure during the WCIT
and managed to deliver to him our statement that reinforced some points of
the best bits statement, including demands for an open participation of CS
in ITU processes, isn't it the time to recall him of our *"Civil Society
statement on the new ITRs and the future of multi-stakeholder engagement*"
and try to ask for the changes he has promised to try to make during our
meeting?

Please, correct me if it seams too naive, but if we go again through these
alternative channels to submit our comments and so on( such as CS being
part of government delegation - it's own or other "friendly" governements,
or just engaging with sector members), we will just repeat the quite
frustrating (lack of) participation scenery of WCIT at WTPF.

Maybe Wolfgang, Avri or other fellows that have attended WCIT could have
some thoughts to add on this.

best,

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

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Date: Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and Responsibilities
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Cc: "<bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org>" <bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org>


 On 17/01/13 10:11, michael gurstein wrote:

In going through the FOURTH DRAFT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL'S REPORT for the
Fifth World Telecommunication/Information and Communication Technology
Policy Forum 2013 (WTPF) http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/report-sg.aspx
I came across this, below as the definition of multi-stakeholderism as
(presumably) currently understood in various UN fora (it is what was used, I
believe at WSIS... note particularly d) iii. below...


That part is all well and good, but the part that worries me (sorry if you
already heard from me about this on another list) is the treatment of "The
Multi-stakeholder Model" in the draft, in which it is correctly stated that
"A divergence in opinion is observed in the implementation of the WSIS
multistakeholder model in the current Internet governance ecosystem", but
that this is a divergence between only two views, one of which is that "the
current governance of the Internet is sufficiently multistakeholder and
inclusive in terms of involvement of all stakeholder groups" (attributed to
Cisco, UK, USA and ISOC), and the second (attributed to Saudi Arabia and
Sudan and Algeria!) that "with regards to international Internet-related
public policy, the role of one stakeholder – Governments – has not been
allowed to evolve according to WSIS principles".

What about the third, missing view - that the current governance of the
Internet is NOT sufficiently multistakeholder and inclusive in terms of
involvement of all stakeholder groups, but that rather than governments
being left out, it is civil society!  We can point to so many examples of
this, beginning at the ITU itself.

I think the report needs to be changed to correct this erroneous
characteristion of the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance.
However the ITU is only receiving submissions from members (there is an
open platform for general comments, but they won't be received as direct
inputs to the SG's report).  We will therefore need to put in our
submission either through a friendly government (those who were members of
delegations at WCIT will already have these connections), or through a
sector member.  Consumers International has applied for sector membership,
but our application does not come up for consideration until June.  We do
have a CI member who is a sector member, but is there anyone else on this
list who also is (and who is less status-quoist than ISOC)?  If not I will
work with my member on some text.

-- 

*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<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
Don't print this email unless necessary.

____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130117/995982ca/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Thu Jan 17 05:24:32 2013
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:24:32 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and
 Responsibilities
In-Reply-To: <50F763C0.5070907@ciroap.org>
References: <01c801cdf457$f76a3fc0$e63ebf40$@gmail.com> <50F763C0.5070907@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <BE570FC8-81F4-48B5-9F75-8294BF3228A9@uzh.ch>

Hi Jeremy

> On Jan 17, 2013, at 3:36 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> What about the third, missing view - that the current governance of the Internet is NOT sufficiently multistakeholder and inclusive in terms of involvement of all stakeholder groups, but that rather than governments being left out, it is civil society!  We can point to so many examples of this, beginning at the ITU itself.
> 
> I think the report needs to be changed to correct this erroneous characteristion of the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance.  However the ITU is only receiving submissions from members (there is an open platform for general comments, but they won't be received as direct inputs to the SG's report).  We will therefore need to put in our submission either through a friendly government (those who were members of delegations at WCIT will already have these connections), or through a sector member.  Consumers International has applied for sector membership, but our application does not come up for consideration until June.  We do have a CI member who is a sector member, but is there anyone else on this list who also is (and who is less status-quoist than ISOC)?  If not I will work with my member on some text.

The US State Dept. held a long call yesterday preparing for the WTPF Informal Group of Experts meeting 6-8 February.  Among the things we discussed was the draft report's game playing with regard to multistakeholderism, e.g. the conflation by definition of MS and the "WSIS model" of MS, the assertions that the ITU is thereby fully MS, etc., and there was agreement that these concerns should be raised in the IEG with an eye to the next round of edits.  As to CS being left out of the current governance of the Internet, if you could specify which institutions and issues you mean and maybe even suggest a sentence, this could be raised as well on next week's call.  

If anyone can be in Geneva then, I'd encourage applying to join the IEG.  There's been no CS participation, and while ITU approved me it looks like I can't change a flight to attend.  There's a number of points in the draft report where independently stated CS perspectives would be helpful.  This is even more true of the draft Opinions that will be negotiated at the WTPF itself (including the Saudi proposal putting ITU in charge of enhanced cooperation), although these apparently won't be dissected in the IEG in detail.

BTW I still think IGC and other CS networks should write a letter to ITU seeking the right to participate at the WTPF without having to do the staff vetted beauty contest...

Cheers

Bill





From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu Jan 17 05:43:04 2013
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:43:04 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] AW: [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and
 Responsibilities
References: <01c801cdf457$f76a3fc0$e63ebf40$@gmail.com>
 <50F763C0.5070907@ciroap.org>
 <CALTAiTo7K6utLtUgmsqes_XXJWtsVoUVcLjbkG49ydK-JmPHVg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013314B4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi Joana and all
 
there is another PrepMeeting for the WTPF in February in Geneva.
http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/ieg.aspx
 
It is important to raise this question in this meeting. I have no idea whether this meeting (February 6 - 8, 2013 in the ITU HQ) is open. If not we should send a letter to like minded governments and to the ITU SG before February 6 and to push for a clear response to our request for equal participation in the WTPF, independent from national governmental delegations. 
 
Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Joana Varon
Gesendet: Do 17.01.2013 04:55
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm
Cc: <bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org>
Betreff: Re: [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and Responsibilities


Dear Jeremy and all, 

Regarding your observation and the fact that a couple of civil society representatives were able to have a meeting with Mr Toure during the WCIT and managed to deliver to him our statement that reinforced some points of the best bits statement, including demands for an open participation of CS in ITU processes, isn't it the time to recall him of our "Civil Society statement on the new ITRs and the future of multi-stakeholder engagement" and try to ask for the changes he has promised to try to make during our meeting? 

Please, correct me if it seams too naive, but if we go again through these alternative channels to submit our comments and so on( such as CS being part of government delegation - it's own or other "friendly" governements, or just engaging with sector members), we will just repeat the quite frustrating (lack of) participation scenery of WCIT at WTPF. 

Maybe Wolfgang, Avri or other fellows that have attended WCIT could have some thoughts to add on this. 

best, 

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


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Date: Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and Responsibilities
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Cc: "<bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org>" <bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org>



On 17/01/13 10:11, michael gurstein wrote:


	In going through the FOURTH DRAFT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL'S REPORT for the
	Fifth World Telecommunication/Information and Communication Technology
	Policy Forum 2013 (WTPF) http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/report-sg.aspx
	I came across this, below as the definition of multi-stakeholderism as
	(presumably) currently understood in various UN fora (it is what was used, I
	believe at WSIS... note particularly d) iii. below... 


That part is all well and good, but the part that worries me (sorry if you already heard from me about this on another list) is the treatment of "The Multi-stakeholder Model" in the draft, in which it is correctly stated that "A divergence in opinion is observed in the implementation of the WSIS multistakeholder model in the current Internet governance ecosystem", but that this is a divergence between only two views, one of which is that "the current governance of the Internet is sufficiently multistakeholder and inclusive in terms of involvement of all stakeholder groups" (attributed to Cisco, UK, USA and ISOC), and the second (attributed to Saudi Arabia and Sudan and Algeria!) that "with regards to international Internet-related public policy, the role of one stakeholder - Governments - has not been allowed to evolve according to WSIS principles".

What about the third, missing view - that the current governance of the Internet is NOT sufficiently multistakeholder and inclusive in terms of involvement of all stakeholder groups, but that rather than governments being left out, it is civil society!  We can point to so many examples of this, beginning at the ITU itself.

I think the report needs to be changed to correct this erroneous characteristion of the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance.  However the ITU is only receiving submissions from members (there is an open platform for general comments, but they won't be received as direct inputs to the SG's report).  We will therefore need to put in our submission either through a friendly government (those who were members of delegations at WCIT will already have these connections), or through a sector member.  Consumers International has applied for sector membership, but our application does not come up for consideration until June.  We do have a CI member who is a sector member, but is there anyone else on this list who also is (and who is less status-quoist than ISOC)?  If not I will work with my member on some text.


-- 


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 <http://www.consumersinternational.org/>  | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't print this email unless necessary.


____________________________________________________________
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





From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Thu Jan 17 09:11:53 2013
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:11:53 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and
 Responsibilities
In-Reply-To: <50F763C0.5070907@ciroap.org>
References: <01c801cdf457$f76a3fc0$e63ebf40$@gmail.com>
	<50F763C0.5070907@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CA+4KnA8bPNztb6KQAxuiiShfrWiVwtvvkDq3SER=YQ1F_0SFdA@mail.gmail.com>

These important points remind me that it may be useful to ensure we have a
process/system for sharing all important information (are people
comfortable that just posting to the list is the best way?); and it also
reminds me that it would bve most useful to know who plans on attending
which upcoming meetings -- I'm thinking particularly about the Paris
WSIS+10, but it would be great to have a list for all major meetings.  Some
of us have to decide where to invest money for travel, and knowing who will
attend may indicate particular gaps in CS presence, or meetings where we'll
have a critical mass attending who can discuss broader policy issues.

So to start, I'd love to know who plans on coming to the Paris meeting.
Thanks!

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

>  On 17/01/13 10:11, michael gurstein wrote:
>
> In going through the FOURTH DRAFT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL'S REPORT for the
> Fifth World Telecommunication/Information and Communication Technology
> Policy Forum 2013 (WTPF) http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/report-sg.aspx
> I came across this, below as the definition of multi-stakeholderism as
> (presumably) currently understood in various UN fora (it is what was used, I
> believe at WSIS... note particularly d) iii. below...
>
>
> That part is all well and good, but the part that worries me (sorry if you
> already heard from me about this on another list) is the treatment of "The
> Multi-stakeholder Model" in the draft, in which it is correctly stated that
> "A divergence in opinion is observed in the implementation of the WSIS
> multistakeholder model in the current Internet governance ecosystem", but
> that this is a divergence between only two views, one of which is that "the
> current governance of the Internet is sufficiently multistakeholder and
> inclusive in terms of involvement of all stakeholder groups" (attributed to
> Cisco, UK, USA and ISOC), and the second (attributed to Saudi Arabia and
> Sudan and Algeria!) that "with regards to international Internet-related
> public policy, the role of one stakeholder – Governments – has not been
> allowed to evolve according to WSIS principles".
>
> What about the third, missing view - that the current governance of the
> Internet is NOT sufficiently multistakeholder and inclusive in terms of
> involvement of all stakeholder groups, but that rather than governments
> being left out, it is civil society!  We can point to so many examples of
> this, beginning at the ITU itself.
>
> I think the report needs to be changed to correct this erroneous
> characteristion of the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance.
> However the ITU is only receiving submissions from members (there is an
> open platform for general comments, but they won't be received as direct
> inputs to the SG's report).  We will therefore need to put in our
> submission either through a friendly government (those who were members of
> delegations at WCIT will already have these connections), or through a
> sector member.  Consumers International has applied for sector membership,
> but our application does not come up for consideration until June.  We do
> have a CI member who is a sector member, but is there anyone else on this
> list who also is (and who is less status-quoist than ISOC)?  If not I will
> work with my member on some text.
>
> --
>
> *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<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130117/dd2c9201/attachment.htm>