[bestbits] Update on Civil Society proposal to open participation in CWG-Internet

[michael gurstein]

While agreeing with Gene's overall comments I'm wondering whether the ITU
(or the HRC--given Sir Nigel's rather formalized response to Anne's quite
(IMHO) appropriate query) is the appropriate venue for Civil Society
initiatives in this emerging constellation of issues.  

 

What we are seeing is the establishment of a global surveillance system
based on and through the Internet with multiple (and not necessarily
collaborating) participants but centred in the US NSA and its close ally the
UK's GCHQ. When combined with the revelations concerning the putting in
place by the US of a global system for the offensive use of the Internet for
the whole range of potential war-like actions; the broad recognition that
the "Internet Freedom" initiatives of the US and its immediate allies in the
various global governance fora were rather more concerned with Freedom "to"
(do whatever it wanted with the Internet) as opposed to Freedom "from"
(interventions in support of the range of human rights as defined by the
UDHR, for example); the enlistment (with how much willingness on their part
is still unclear) of the major (US) Internet corporations in these overall
initiatives and strategies; it's suborning of huge swaths of Civil Society
in support of various elements of these processes; and as we await further
revelations and the overall necessity to see these as global assaults
requiring global responses -- the ITU seems rather too narrow a forum for
the kind of very broadly based coalition of forces and initiatives that
seems the necessary and appropriate response.

 

Where exactly to focus the efforts of a coalition of the unwilling, of those
of us (all of us) who are "fair game" in this building of the mechanisms of
the 1984 dystopia is something that we need to consider and whether any of
the specialized agencies or even the UN itself, with its overall dominance
by the existing powers, its focus on the modality of increasingly (in an
internetworked world) less relevant structures of national boundaries, and
its deep incapacity to absorb civil society as a relevant actor; is the
appropriate venue, is I think, a subject to be discussed rather than
assumed.

 

Mike

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Gene Kimmelman
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 5:22 PM
To: Deborah Brown
Cc: <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update on Civil Society proposal to open
participation in CWG-Internet

 

Maybe it is time for civil society to walk away from this process and refuse
to accept it as legitimate?  At a moment when events make it crystal clear
that we need global discussion of critical human rights principles and norms
for governments (and companies) to follow, how can we keep banging our heads
against the ITU wall of resistance?  Maybe an appeal to the UN could shake
things up, boycotting the ITU process until we are given a full voice at the
table?

 

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Deborah Brown <deborah at accessnow.org>
wrote:

Dear all, 

 

Unfortunately the proposal to open up the ITU Council Working Group on
Internet Related Public Policy Issues was not agreed on at the recent ITU
Council meeting, which concluded late last week. It seems that although some
Council members were supportive of the idea in principle, they choose not to
be very vocal, and others simply opposed it. 

 

The Secretary General has said that he will consult a group of experts
outside the CWG but no direct participation from civil society will be
permitted. I'm trying to find out more details on how the Secretary General
will conduct these consultations, as well as when the next CWG-Internet
meeting will be, which I will pass along to this list. 

For your information Sweden made the following statement. 

"Sweden notes that the proposal is that the Council does not approve
proposals to enable participation by all stakeholders in the work of the CWG
Internet.

Sweden further note that there is no proposal to authorize public access to
ITU documents related to the Council Working Group on international
Internet-related public policy issues (CWG Internet).  We need clarification
on how stakeholders should be able to participate in the debate if they do
not have access to all documents.

Sweden is of the view that openness and transparency is important and is one
of the basic principles to be applied in ITU and open participation and
public access to documents would help to promote ITU as a transparent and
open organization and to improve its public image.

Sweden is further of the view that many issues discussed at ITU meetings are
of interest both to the membership and to non-members including the general
public and that there is a need to take full account of the interests of all
stakeholders. 

Sweden fully support the existing multistakeholder model for internet
governance and the need to involve all stakeholders, both member states and
other stakeholders, in the discussions related to Internet issues, also in
ITU.

Sweden therefore is of the view that the group should be open to all
stakeholders and not only one group of stakeholders."

Best, 
Deborah  

 

 

Deborah Brown

Senior Policy Analyst

Access | AccessNow.org <http://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/20130626/30a7ef40/attachment.htm>