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

[Deborah Brown]

Hi all,

A number of the documents that will be considered at next week's Council
meeting are now up on WCITLeaks (http://wcitleaks.org/). I've included the
links for the contributions referenced in the statement below.

US contribution: http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S13-CL-C-0069!!MSW-E.pdf

Sweden contribution on CWG-Internet:
http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S13-CL-C-0070!!MSW-E.pdf

Sweden contribution on Plenipot 14:
http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S13-CL-C-0071!!MSW-E.pdf

Best,
Deborah


On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> Yep, the idea is have the endorsements from this list through email and
> once it is on at the bestbits site, with the endorsements we have already
> collected, we spread the link and call for support at the other lists.
> On 7 Jun 2013 18:35, "Deborah Brown" <deborah at accessnow.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>


-- 
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/20130607/5b5cae92/attachment.htm>