[bestbits] [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and Responsibilities

[William Drake]

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>