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

[jam at globalilluminators.org]

Hi,

Please add my endorsement on behalf of Global Illuminators International.

regards
-- 
Farooq Ahmed Jam
Executive Director
Global Illuminators
Contact: +60102546571
E-mail:jam at globalilluminators.org
Weblink: www.globalilluminators.org


Quoting Deborah Brown <deborah at accessnow.org>:

> Hi Nnnenna, and all,
>
> Since the text is not up on the Best Bits site yet, the plan is to endorse
> by mail for now. Then if Jeremy posts it to bestbits.net, he will notify
> the list and we can transfer the email endorsement to the site.
>
> Apologies for confusion!
>
> Best,
> Deborah
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Joana
>>
>> Apologies I did not have enough time to look the text over.  The text is
>> not yet up on bestbits.net
>>
>> Or are we endorsing by mail?
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Nnenna
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Deborah Brown
> Policy Analyst
> Access | AccessNow.org
> E. deborah at accessnow.org
> @deblebrown
> PGP 0x5EB4727D
>