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

[Joana Varon]

Pity. Brazil was partially sympathetic to our request. When I've sent our
proposal to the Brazilian representatives, the answer was that they
supported the idea of opening documents and working groups related to
Internet and Plenipot. Nevertheless, Anatel considered that all the
interested stakeholders should become associate members of ITU. o.0 I could
do the follow up on the Brazilian position remotely (as the protests here
are also taking some part of my time), but I'll reach them to ask about
next steps on the Brazilian proposal on the roles of States in this
situation of closed debate.

Also, besides the CWG-Internet, there is the *CWG on WSIS: implementation
of outcomes,* in which the Chairman is from Russia and one of the
vice-chairman from Saudi Arabia. They just had an extraordinary meeting in
the 20, working on this concept note on the Open Preparatory Process for
the WSIS+10 High-Level Event/Extended Version of the WSIS Forum 2014):
http://www.itu.int/council/groups/wsis/docs/June-2013/WSIS10-MPP-Preparatory-Process.pdf

I believe its a bit late to be off, even though sometimes it seams that we
are still only looking to them from outside, through the window...

cheers

joana




On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:24 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>



-- 

-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) <http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/>
@joana_varon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130626/15865d38/attachment.htm>