[bestbits] First Draft: proposal to open CWG-Internet

[Deborah Brown]

Dear all,

Just to add to Joana's email, I've pasted the text below for those who are
having trouble accessing the Google doc or prefer not to use it. Please
feel free to also send comments and edits on this thread.

Looking forward to your feedback.

Best,
Deborah


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


[1. Review the WTPF, accepting that the 6 opinions were adopted]

We are satisfied with the outcome of the World Telecommunication Policy
Forum, which resulted in the adoption of six opinions that might begin to
address important goals to foster a democratic environment for promoting
the usage of ICTs, namely: the promotion of Internet Exchange Points
(IXPs), the support for an enabling environment for greater growth and
development of broadband connectivity, the support of IPv6 adoption in
transition from IPv4, the support for capacity building for deployment of
IPv6, the support for multistakeholderism in Internet Governance and the
support for operationalzing 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, were instrumental in
bringing about the credible texts that were forwarded to the WTPF.

Nevertheless, more steps should be taken [if the goal is] to truly have an
open, transparent, and multistakeholder debate, both in terms of openness
and of establishing a clear and transparent processes for participation.

[2. Remind of promises made by Touré at WCIT and WTPF]

In that context, 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 advantages it would lend to the work of
CWG-Internet.

[3. Recall the Sweden, US proposals]

We note the contribution of the United States of America, 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
documents are freely accessible.  [We also note the contributions of
Sweden, which propose making all documentation available in relation to
CWG-Internet and Plenipotentiary 2014.]

We support these proposals for opening CWG-Internet [and all bodies that
consider Internet-related public policy issues], to achieve open,
transparent, and multistakeholder decision-making.  [shall we mention
Brazilian proposal?]

[5. Maybe a summary of how the IEG and the opening of the participation has
done so far. // 4. Indicate that there were deficiencies in participation]

But  opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is not
sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used in a variety of meanings,
sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness. If the goal is
to achieve an open and inclusive 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 [in late January
   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. [Do we need to mention the challenge in securing funding
   that civil society faces?]
   -

   Information docs from IEG members who were not members of the ITU were
   not considered for debate at the WTPF- they should have been.
   -

   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. [Do we want to mention the Best Bits statement specifically
   here?]
   -

   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.

[6. Make some recommendations (modalities of inviting participation, remote
participation, etc.)]

In order to improve the multistakeholder participation we recommend:

   -

   Outlining clear procedures for inviting stakeholders for Council Working
   Groups that were previously closed. [Do we want to mention that we need
   some advance notice? How much?]
   -

   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 pose questions and
   statements
   -

   ...what else?




On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:00 AM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Good morning.
>
> As we have mentioned in the previous thread at best bits list on IGF and
> the Brazilian proposal on the role of States at WTPF, last Friday Deborah
> and I started a draft statement on a proposal to open participation in the
> Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy
> Issues. Please, find the link bellow:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/a/varonferraz.com/document/d/1voK2roE-W7aQ0lQl102cAJHThD4Da5-w8zRztniNTpI/edit?usp=sharing
>
> We have followed the structure proposed by Nnenna and have tried to
> address comments made in the tread. But this is just a first draft, please,
> feel free to add your comments, edits, ideas and so on.  Everybody is
> more then welcome to edit the text and we particularly need more inputs
> on the final part of it, about suggestions for recommendations on how to
> maximize meaningful civil society participation.
>
> Also, adapting Deborah's first proposal of timeline, we believe we should
> comply with the following dates, so we can deliver it to the ITU by the
> beginning of ITU Council 2013:
> - Preliminary draft text open for edits: 2 May- 6 June
> - Finalize text for sign on: 7 June
> - Send text to the SG/ITU and publish it: June 11 (beginning of ITU
> Council 2013)
>
> We hope it suits you all.
>
> Have a lovely beginning of the week.
>
> All the best,
>
> Joana
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) <http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/>
> @joana_varon
>



-- 
Deborah Brown
Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. deborah at accessnow.org
@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130603/c4d33eee/attachment.htm>