[bestbits] AW: [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and Responsibilities

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"]

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