[bestbits] Call for endorsements: Civil Society proposal to open participation in the CWG-Internet at ITU

[Joana Varon]

Dear all,


Please, find bellow the final version of Civil Society proposal to open
participation in the Council Working Group on International-Related Public
Policy Issues.


Thanks a lot for all the inputs. Deborah and I have considered and adopted
all the proposed changes, as explained in the comments posted at the
working document. I hope you are happy with it


As the ITU Council will gather next week, the time frame is short, *we
shall try to deliver the text next Monday, 10th.* Though leaving it open
for endorsements at the platform.


So we suggest to already start the first round of endorsements through this
list while we take the time to submit the text at the Best Bits platform
for collecting more. Jeremy, are you fine with this? Can you help us to
upload the text?


Deborah is doing the follow up about who to reach at ITU to deliver it. But
we also think it's important to deliver it to governments. I'll mention the
existence of this process to the Brazilian Government at the Anatel's
meeting today and deliver it to them once we have more endorsements. Of
course, Access and CTS/FGV endorses it, do you?


All the best


Joana


-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)
@joana_varon




--------


Civil Society proposal to open participation in the Council Working Group
on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues

We acknowledge the outcome of the World Telecommunication Policy Forum,
which resulted in the adoption of six opinions that may begin to address
some important goals to foster an  environment that facilitates and
encourages the usage of ICTs, in particular the opinions that focus on
enabling environment for greater growth and development of broadband
connectivity; supporting capacity building for deployment of IPv6;
supporting the multi-stakeholder approach in Internet Governance and
operationalizing processes for enhanced cooperation.

We commend the steps taken by the ITU to show more openness and
inclusiveness in the WTPF process through the Informal Experts Group. We
believe that the multistakeholder nature of the IEG meetings and the
willingness of all stakeholders to work together, contributed to bringing
about the credible texts that were forwarded to the WTPF.

Nevertheless, more steps need to be taken to meet the goal of an open,
transparent, and multistakeholder debate, both in terms of openness and of
establishing a clear and transparent process for participation.

We believe that as a next step towards greater multistakeholder
participation in the ITU the IEG  model should be carried forward into the
ITU’s work more generally. As such we welcome the commitment by ITU
Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré to propose that the Council Working Group
on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet) “be
open to all stakeholders in the [same] format” as the IEG. We encourage him
to carry out his commitment and for Member States to give ample
consideration to this important step and to the advantages it would lend to
the work of CWG-Internet.

Opening up CWG-Internet is supported by many Member States of the ITU.  We
note the contribution of the United States of America (C13/69-E), which
proposes modifications to Council Resolutions 1336 and 1344,  to open
CWG-Internet, enabling participation by all stakeholders, conducting
meetings and deliberations in an open, transparent, and inclusive manner,
and ensuring that documents are freely accessible. We also note the
contributions of Sweden (C13/70-E and C13/71-E), which propose making all
documentation available in relation to CWG-Internet and Plenipotentiary
2014.

We support and encourage these proposals for opening CWG-Internet (which,
we argue, should extend also to other ITU bodies that consider
Internet-related public policy issues), to achieve open, transparent, and
multistakeholder processes. However, we firmly believe that the ITU should
continue to coordinate its work with that of relevant multistakeholder
Internet governance bodies rather than attempt to duplicate their
functions.

But  opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is not
sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of meanings,
sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and
consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and
participatory debate, some processes should be improved to maximize a
meaningful civil society participation.

In that sense, we observe that the modalities of participation and
contribution in the IEG and WTPF were not clear, and should be improved
upon.

   -

   Civil society was invited to join late in the process just before the
   final IEG meeting. Therefore, contributions from members of the IEG with a
   civil society background were limited to the final IEG meeting.
   Additionally, because of the late notice, only a few members from civil
   society were able to join, and in fact only one person was able to attend
   in person. In part, this was a result of the absence of financial means to
   support participation by civil society recognizing that civil society in
   these contexts has no external means of financial support.
   -

   Information docs from IEG members who were not members of the ITU were
   not considered for debate at the WTPF as they should have been in a truly
   inclusive process.
   -

   Members of civil society who did not join the IEG (for the above
   mentioned reasons) were not able to even submit information documents for
   the meeting. Amongst the documents that could not be submitted was a
   statement endorsed by 39 civil society groups and individuals from all
   regions at http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013/.
   -

   It was not clear that only IEG members would have participation rights
   at the WTPF, otherwise others may have joined.


Had these modalities been clearer we could have anticipated more
participation from all stakeholders around the world.

In order to improve multistakeholder participation we recommend:

   -

   Outlining clear procedures for inviting stakeholders to Council Working
   Groups, at least 90 days prior to the relevant meeting dates.
   -

   Issuing clear procedures for all the stakeholders to submit official
   documents for consideration.
   -

   Establishing mechanisms for remote participation, allowing not only
   remote participants to follow the debate, but also to request the floor.


But even improving multistakeholder processes within its structure, we
would like to recall that the ITU should continue to coordinate its work
with that of relevant multistakeholder Internet governance bodies, taking
advantage of those bodies’ expertise and not attempting to duplicate their
functions. These bodies include those devoted to technical issues (such as
ICANN, the IETF and the RIRs) and those dealing primarily with
non-technical issues (such as the Internet Governance Forum).

For all these processes, civil society can be a valuable and important
stakeholder in its own right, and we stand willing and able to participate.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130607/6ab56af9/attachment.htm>