From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu May 9 00:19:35 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 12:19:35 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Moving this list to bestbits@lists.bestbits.net Message-ID: <518B23D7.9060701@ciroap.org> I am moving this list to our new domain. The new address of the list will be: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Please use that address from now on. Your subscription along with the list archives will be migrated to the new list automatically. Thanks to the Internet Governance Caucus for hosting our list until now. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri May 10 15:05:48 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 12:05:48 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society statement to the ITU Sec-Gen ahead of WTPF 2013 - PLEASE ENDORSE AND SHARE In-Reply-To: <518C5CFE.8010801@ciroap.org> References: <518C5CFE.8010801@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <02eb01ce4db1$6c0a2f40$441e8dc0$@gmail.com> Jeremy and all, Thanks for this and I recognize the limitations of time and attention which framed the participation in the development of this document however I'ld like to make a few comments on it as it stands and express some reservations on it and the process going forward. The overall document, as with the earlier document to which it refers and from which it draws, seems to be primarily (the earlier document exclusively) concerned with "process" matters and specifically with "opening up" the ITU meeting and documentation to broader scrutiny and participation specifically by Multi-stakeholders/civil society but presumably by others as well. It is hard to fault this as an objective. However, I do have some concerns about it being THE objective. This document belows differs I believe from the earlier (November) document by listing some of the substantive areas where CS might make a contribution and this also can not be faulted. However, in (dare I say what appears to be hastily) constructing this list and presumably indicating the areas where CS could make a useful and even "expert" contribution the authors on several occasions refer to the "cost" or "affordability" of access as an issue whereas those with a direct involvement in these matters are aware that "cost" is only one of a range of issues -- language, literacy, cost of devices, availability ("extension" not "expansion") of infrastructure, training, and so on -- which limit access by those with low incomes and this is not even to speak about inequalities in opportunities, supports and means to make effective use of the Internet once access is available. The list then goes on to include "development" as an issue--without indicating development of who, of what, where, how, why etc.etc. Thus while the "process" issues are well and extensively covered, the substance related section is dare I say, rather skimpy and even dangerously misleading. (A simple reference to the CS WSIS Declaration(s) would have helped to overcome these limitations. I have in other contexts recently had occasion to note that it was incumbent on those offering opinions "to do as they say" and I think that this should hold for CS/BB as stringently as it does to others and in this particular instance the outcome of not following transparent and inclusive processes of text development has I believe led to the creation of a document which I personally have significant reservations in signing onto and where I would most certainly not recommend to my (for example) community informatics colleagues as something to which they might want to adhere. One final point, while neither the WCIT nor it appears the WTPF are being framed in the context of WSIS +10 this latter meeting is likely to be of greatest significance as it will address the substantive issues of most direct concern to traditional CS -- access and use, content and language, human rights and free expression, equality and social justice -- if, of course, those looking to influence the WSIS +10 agenda allow for such a wide ranging discussion (rumours have it that the OECD countries are pushing for a very limited and mild "forward looking" celebratory agenda for WSIS +10 for example. Mike From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 7:36 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Civil society statement to the ITU Sec-Gen ahead of WTPF 2013 - PLEASE ENDORSE AND SHARE With the ITU's World Telecommunication and ICT Policy Forum (WTPF) coming up next week, I would like to encourage everyone to read and - if they agree with it - to endorse this statement, which a group of us who will be participating at WTPF have drafted collaboratively: http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013 Please forgive us for not having a broader drafting process this time, but it was mainly due to shortness of time. In any case, the text has been drafted consistently with the previous Best Bits statement to the ITU. Please feel free to reach out into other networks for endorsements, too. There are buttons on the page that will enable you to share automatically with Twitter and Facebook. I am currently working to overcome a technical limitation which means that individuals' names must be listed where an organisation has endorsed. I plan to keep working on this today, but didn't want to hold up distribution of the statement any longer. Thanks to Deborah, Joana and everyone else who helped to put this together so quickly. The full text is shown below: We reaffirm the goals and principles of the statement submitted to the ITU Secretariat in November 2012 in which we urged member states to implement inclusive and transparent ITU processes and uphold and protect the public interest and fundamental human rights. These fundamental human rights must be at the forefront of internet governance and ITU convenings, including the WTPF. Internet policy topics, including but not limited to affordable access, development, openness and access to knowledge, net neutrality, privacy, and security must be considered through the framework of human rights, in particular freedom of expression. We welcome progress made by the Secretary-General and the Informal Experts Group in achieving consensus on the six draft opinions. These begin to address important goals, including the expansion of key internet infrastructure in order to reduce costs for those in need; the reaffirmation of multistakeholder processes; and the promotion of transparent and inclusive enhanced cooperation. Rather than seeking to address additional issues, we urge the Secretary-General to move forward in engaging all stakeholders to implement these opinions. Unfortunately, we must object to the Secretary-General's report's framing of the debate on multistakeholderism. The WTPF has not yet achieved open and participatory internet policy making. In endeavoring to foster multistakeholder consensus, it is critical that the WTPF facilitate civil society's participation as an independent and authoritative voice. The ITU should, for this and future fora, bring all stakeholders together to work on implementing WTPF opinions at the national, regional, and global levels. This means creating spaces for civil society to express their views, for example through an online platform for comment that is part of the official WTPF record, through speaking rights as was done during the WSIS process, as well as providing for both remote participation and live webcasting of the WTPF meeting. Video, audio, and text transcripts will further enables participation by all, including persons with disabilities. Open and transparent participation will augment the critical efforts toward broadband connectivity, IXP promotion, enhanced cooperation, and IPv6 deployment that the WTPF is undertaking with these opinions. We look forward to working together with the ITU as it pursues these policies and institutes a multistakeholder structure that can achieve the goals articulated herein in a manner consistent with the public interest and fundamental human rights. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 - Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat May 11 23:26:02 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 11:26:02 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society statement to the ITU Sec-Gen ahead of WTPF 2013 - PLEASE ENDORSE AND SHARE In-Reply-To: <02eb01ce4db1$6c0a2f40$441e8dc0$@gmail.com> References: <518C5CFE.8010801@ciroap.org> <02eb01ce4db1$6c0a2f40$441e8dc0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <09D6C6FC-1200-4D75-B107-241413BAF56F@ciroap.org> On 11/05/2013, at 3:05 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > I have in other contexts recently had occasion to note that it was incumbent on those offering opinions "to do as they say" and I think that this should hold for CS/BB as stringently as it does to others and in this particular instance the outcome of not following transparent and inclusive processes of text development has I believe led to the creation of a document which I personally have significant reservations in signing onto and where I would most certainly not recommend to my (for example) community informatics colleagues as something to which they might want to adhere. I agree that we did not follow our own best practices this time and that as a matter of course, there will be deficiencies in the text as a result, some of which you have isolated. Most of us are operating on shoestring budgets and are juggling multiple responsibilities and deadlines. But that's no reason not to be self-critical where appropriate, so thanks for that. Let's all try and plan ahead better for next time. On a positive note, we are now up to 24 endorsements from a really good spread of countries from all world regions. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 12 02:43:48 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 12:13:48 +0530 Subject: Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Comments asking ICANN to deny application for .pharmacy registration In-Reply-To: <518F3093.30106@itforchange.net> References: <518F3093.30106@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <518F3A24.3000008@itforchange.net> On Thursday 14 March 2013 07:45 PM, Rashmi Rangnath wrote: > All: > > I thought many of you may be interested in this application that > Public Citizen filed opposing the National Association of Boards of > Pharmacy's (NABP) application for the .pharmacy TLD. Public Citizen is > concerned that the registration would allow the NABP to exclude > licensed pharmacies located in Canada from acquiring domain names > under .pharmacy. This would prevent access to affordable medicines for > many in the US. > > A link to Public Citizen's comments is here: > https://gtldcomment.icann.org/comments-feedback/applicationcomment/commentdetails/12145-- > I completely agree, Rashmi. However, you may want to go deeper into the roots of the issue. We should inquire from the civil society constituency engaged with the ICANN why did they not only allow but in fact supported giving all kind of generic names off as TLDs, (including closed generics) including those with such deep public interest implications as .pharmacy .... In fact, it is the government advisory committee (GAC) that recently gave some very important 'advices' to protect public interest. It advised that "strings that are linked to regulated or professional sectors should operate in a way that is consistent with applicable laws" and that the need to "establish a working relationship with the relevant regulatory, or industry self-­-regulatory, bodies, including developing a strategy to mitigate as much as possible the risks of fraudulent, and other illegal, activities. " This should very much apply to .pharmacy..... and I think the relevant global regulatory body for this purpose should be the WHO... Public Citizen's referred comments also say that the TLD applicant plans to "maintain exclusionary plans for the domain" The GAC advice says that "the registration restrictions should be appropriate for the types of risks associated with the TLD. The registry operator should administer access in these kinds of registries in a transparent way that does not give an undue preference to any registrars or registrants, including itself, and shall not subject registrars or registrants to an undue disadvantage. " It isalsocategorical that exclusive registry access may be given only if serves a clear 'public interest goal'. (This covers, and hopefully puts the brakes on, closed generic TLD proposals like .book. .cloud, .music and .news). It is highly problematic that the so called multi stakeholder model completely failed to serve the public interest in this case, even with numerous committees etc having going into the issue. And this includes the civil society associated with ICANN.... Finally, governments had to step in to protect the public interest. What has happened deserves a very deep inquiry and reflections, especially by progressive civil society groups . What is touted as a multistakeholder model at the ICANN is highly ideology infested. It is its complete belief in free markets as being able to protect most if not all kinds of public interests, that has resulted in it becoming blind to the various very problematic aspects of the new TLD program that now the governments had to step in to point out... I think that the civil society individuals and groups that work closely with the ICANN, including on its various committees should also be answerable for this.... In some way, they are there to keep vigil on behalf of all civil society... Why did they not intervene in these deep transgressions into the public interest. parminder > > Best, > > Rashmi > > Rashmi Rangnath > Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney > Public Knowledge > 1818 N Street NW > Suite 410 > Washington, D.C. 20036 > 202 861 0020 > rrangnath at publicknowledge.org > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 12 09:45:59 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 19:15:59 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society statement to the ITU Sec-Gen ahead of WTPF 2013 - PLEASE ENDORSE AND SHARE In-Reply-To: <518CBD2F.4060700@ciroap.org> References: <518C5CFE.8010801@ciroap.org> <518CBC10.1000108@itforchange.net> <518CBD2F.4060700@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <518F9D17.4090509@itforchange.net> On Friday 10 May 2013 02:56 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 10/05/13 17:21, parminder wrote: > >> >> Why should civil society recommend that ITU takes up issues like >> Internet Exchanges and IPv6 adoption (subject matter of the >> 'opinions') and not for instance net neutrality, which is not among >> the subjects covered in the opinions. Why this artificial line about >> what Internet issues ITU may work on? > > There is a rationale for this but I'll let one of the others speak to it. There is no response of this. I would think any clarification sought on a public statement deserve to be responded to .... In any case, if what is meant by the statement "Rather than seeking to address additional issues, we urge the Secretary-General to move forward in engaging all stakeholders to implement these opinions." is that WTPF rather than address other issues.....move forward..... to implement these opinions...... I am willing to sign. Can someone please clarify whether the limitation is placed on WTPF and on ITU for all times to come.... Thanks. parminder PS: I do completely agree with Michael though that we should have put real development issues in. This would also be in keeping with the mandate bestbits gave itself going forward - to get substantive and develop a positive agenda, rather than reacting.... > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Sun May 12 10:46:15 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 10:46:15 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society statement to the ITU Sec-Gen ahead of WTPF 2013 - PLEASE ENDORSE AND SHARE In-Reply-To: <518F9D17.4090509@itforchange.net> References: <518C5CFE.8010801@ciroap.org> <518CBC10.1000108@itforchange.net> <518CBD2F.4060700@ciroap.org> <518F9D17.4090509@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, Let me try to provide some rationale for this, but others please feel free to jump in. On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:45 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 10 May 2013 02:56 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 10/05/13 17:21, parminder wrote: > > > > > > > Why should civil society recommend that ITU takes up issues like Internet > Exchanges and IPv6 adoption (subject matter of the 'opinions') and not for > instance net neutrality, which is not among the subjects covered in the > opinions. Why this artificial line about what Internet issues ITU may work > on? > > > There is a rationale for this but I'll let one of the others speak to it. > > [DB] I believe the issue here is whether or not to open up the draft > opinions rather than drawing an artificial line about what Issues the ITU > may work on. The fear is that by opening up the draft opinions, we might be > left with a less desirable outcome, this at least is my sense from the > discussions at the last informal experts group meeting and some of the > contributions made since the 6 draft opinions were published. The > additional issues put on the table for consideration by governments are not > net neutrality and development priorities, and at this point, it is > probably unrealistic that they would be taken on. So it's not that the ITU > shouldn't work on anything except what is in these 6 opinions, but that the > SG should engage all stakeholders moving forward in implementing them. This > could have been better articulated, but does this explanation make sense? > > There is no response of this. I would think any clarification sought on a > public statement deserve to be responded to .... > > In any case, if what is meant by the statement > > > "Rather than seeking to address additional issues, we urge the > Secretary-General to move forward in engaging all stakeholders to implement > these opinions." > > is that WTPF rather than address other issues.....move forward..... to > implement these opinions...... > [DB] Yes, specifically *engaging all stakeholders* to implement these > opinions > > I am willing to sign. > > Can someone please clarify whether the limitation is placed on WTPF and on > ITU for all times to come.... > > [DB] I'm pretty sure that the limitation is meant to apply only to the > draft opinions, not the WTPF itself or future ITU convenings, since the > previous paragraph reads: *These fundamental human rights must be at the > forefront of internet governance and ITU convenings, including the WTPF. > Internet policy topics, including but not limited to affordable access, > development, multilingualism, openness and access to knowledge, net > neutrality, privacy, and security must be considered through the framework > of human rights, in particular freedom of expression.* > > Thanks. parminder > > PS: I do completely agree with Michael though that we should have put real > development issues in. This would also be in keeping with the mandate > bestbits gave itself going forward - to get substantive and develop a > positive agenda, rather than reacting.... > +1 on this point and Jeremy's previous remarks on best practices. > Best, Deborah > > > > > > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Sun May 12 10:52:41 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 10:52:41 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society statement to the ITU Sec-Gen ahead of WTPF 2013 - PLEASE ENDORSE AND SHARE In-Reply-To: <518F9D17.4090509@itforchange.net> References: <518C5CFE.8010801@ciroap.org> <518CBC10.1000108@itforchange.net> <518CBD2F.4060700@ciroap.org> <518F9D17.4090509@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Having been involved in a number of the discussions about what the language in a short letter (that everyone seemed rushed to put together), I feel quite confident saying that the ENTIRE conversation and focus was about the WTPF, and NOT at all about the ultimate powers or actions of the ITU in the long run (others, please correct me if I'm wrong on that point!). So I believe Parminder is correct to read this as a limited set of demands from CSOs entirely related to the issues raised in the Secretary General's report and Opinions submitted to the WTPF. I take comfort in the reference to the November Best Bits statement and human rights language to preserve other fights for the future. On the question of "development agenda," I also believe we need more of a coordinated civil society push very soon; maybe we should have considered something stronger in this letter, but at this late date I don't think it would be practical to open that up. But I, for one, would certainly commit to pushing deeper development issues/engagement going forward On May 12, 2013, at 9:45 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 10 May 2013 02:56 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 10/05/13 17:21, parminder wrote: > > >> >>> >>> Why should civil society recommend that ITU takes up issues like Internet Exchanges and IPv6 adoption (subject matter of the 'opinions') and not for instance net neutrality, which is not among the subjects covered in the opinions. Why this artificial line about what Internet issues ITU may work on? >> >> There is a rationale for this but I'll let one of the others speak to it. > > There is no response of this. I would think any clarification sought on a public statement deserve to be responded to .... > > In any case, if what is meant by the statement > > "Rather than seeking to address additional issues, we urge the Secretary-General to move forward in engaging all stakeholders to implement these opinions." > > is that WTPF rather than address other issues.....move forward..... to implement these opinions...... > > I am willing to sign. > > Can someone please clarify whether the limitation is placed on WTPF and on ITU for all times to come.... > > Thanks. parminder > > PS: I do completely agree with Michael though that we should have put real development issues in. This would also be in keeping with the mandate bestbits gave itself going forward - to get substantive and develop a positive agenda, rather than reacting.... > > > > > >> >> -- >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sun May 12 12:22:59 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 09:22:59 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society statement to the ITU Sec-Gen ahead of WTPF 2013 - PLEASE ENDORSE AND SHARE In-Reply-To: References: <518C5CFE.8010801@ciroap.org> <518CBC10.1000108@itforchange.net> <518CBD2F.4060700@ciroap.org> <518F9D17.4090509@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <098201ce4f2c$ffdecd30$ff9c6790$@gmail.com> Hi Gene, A few additional comments. I have increasing concerns about the emerging movement (and related CS/BB? endorsement) of Multistakeholderism as the dominant modality for Internet Governance broadly understood. I've outlined my concerns in a couple of blogposts which some of you would have already seen, so I won't go into those arguments further except to say that the specific nature and definition of MSism is not clear to me and thus the endorsement of this as in the statement is in some sense to give a blank cheque to those currently promoting MSism for whatever purpose, as well as to those who are most enabled by current MS processes. I think, as a matter of urgency CS/BB needs to clarify precisely what is meant by MS/MSism in the CS/BB context and indicate that this is what is being endorsed rather than some other -- dare I say -- "status quo" definition. I've indicated in one of my aforementioned blogposts what I think should be our definition for Multistakeholder processes but I'm sure that this would/could/should be further refined by discussion within CS/BB. Further, as I outlined in another blogpost the matter of how stakeholders are defined/self-defined, the barriers/rules for participation/inclusion and so on remain extremely murky and subject I believe to considerable abuse particularly when seen as being such a fundamental element in highly significant decision making processes. Again until this is clarified and some structures of formalization, accountability and transparency are put into place I would strongly urge CS/BB to reserve its endorsement. While I fully agree with the concerns/initiatives with respect to "opening" up ITU processes particularly for CS, I have some concerns when this seems to be the dominant priority by those initiating the statement. As I`ve argued in other contexts discussions around "opening", while on the surface appearing from a CS perspective to be self-evidently aligned with traditional CS norms of democratic practice and social justice; in fact, unless they are accompanied by equal calls for a broad base of inclusion including significant measures to support such inclusion result in a process of further empowering the already empowered (those who are in a position to use such openness in their own interests because of the availability of the human and financial resources to support the use of/derive benefits from such an "opening") . With respect to a "development agenda" I see the need for this as part of the larger process of re-engaging with the overall WSIS/"Information Society" (IS) agenda coming out of the WSIS summits and going into WSIS +10. If anything our efforts would be most usefully focused in that direction as I believe, based on my experience at the WSIS + 10 forum in Paris in February that there is a very strong move afoot in certain quarters to ensure that the broader IS issues including a review/assessment of what has been accomplished in the WSIS agenda to date, what has not been accomplished, and what new elements should be added to that agenda for the next period, are sidelined in favour of what I called in my commentary on that event , "happy talk" about the benefits that have been achieved and the associated benefits yet to be realized. Mike From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Gene Kimmelman Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:53 AM To: parminder Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Civil society statement to the ITU Sec-Gen ahead of WTPF 2013 - PLEASE ENDORSE AND SHARE Having been involved in a number of the discussions about what the language in a short letter (that everyone seemed rushed to put together), I feel quite confident saying that the ENTIRE conversation and focus was about the WTPF, and NOT at all about the ultimate powers or actions of the ITU in the long run (others, please correct me if I'm wrong on that point!). So I believe Parminder is correct to read this as a limited set of demands from CSOs entirely related to the issues raised in the Secretary General's report and Opinions submitted to the WTPF. I take comfort in the reference to the November Best Bits statement and human rights language to preserve other fights for the future. On the question of "development agenda," I also believe we need more of a coordinated civil society push very soon; maybe we should have considered something stronger in this letter, but at this late date I don't think it would be practical to open that up. But I, for one, would certainly commit to pushing deeper development issues/engagement going forward On May 12, 2013, at 9:45 AM, parminder wrote: On Friday 10 May 2013 02:56 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 10/05/13 17:21, parminder wrote: Why should civil society recommend that ITU takes up issues like Internet Exchanges and IPv6 adoption (subject matter of the 'opinions') and not for instance net neutrality, which is not among the subjects covered in the opinions. Why this artificial line about what Internet issues ITU may work on? There is a rationale for this but I'll let one of the others speak to it. There is no response of this. I would think any clarification sought on a public statement deserve to be responded to .... In any case, if what is meant by the statement "Rather than seeking to address additional issues, we urge the Secretary-General to move forward in engaging all stakeholders to implement these opinions." is that WTPF rather than address other issues.....move forward..... to implement these opinions...... I am willing to sign. Can someone please clarify whether the limitation is placed on WTPF and on ITU for all times to come.... Thanks. parminder PS: I do completely agree with Michael though that we should have put real development issues in. This would also be in keeping with the mandate bestbits gave itself going forward - to get substantive and develop a positive agenda, rather than reacting.... -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 - Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 12 13:42:36 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 23:12:36 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society statement to the ITU Sec-Gen ahead of WTPF 2013 - PLEASE ENDORSE AND SHARE In-Reply-To: References: <518C5CFE.8010801@ciroap.org> <518CBC10.1000108@itforchange.net> <518CBD2F.4060700@ciroap.org> <518F9D17.4090509@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <518FD48C.60804@itforchange.net> Dear Deborah and Gene, Thanks for your clarifications. That makes the limited purpose of the statement amply clear as refering to the WPTF and its opinions alone. While I fully share Michael's reservations and misgivings, my organisation will sign this with the hope that 1. We will strive to at least try to develop statements together and not present them to BB members after they are closed (like we want ITU to not do such things with the CS) 2. As Michael says, define what we mean by multistakeholderism, something which we are always pushing for. Believe me, even within this group a lot of people mean very different things with this term. 3. This time really begin framing a positive agenda, which includes development, and issues of social and economic justice centrally. Thanks parminder On Sunday 12 May 2013 08:22 PM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > Having been involved in a number of the discussions about what the > language in a short letter (that everyone seemed rushed to put > together), I feel quite confident saying that the ENTIRE conversation > and focus was about the WTPF, and NOT at all about the ultimate powers > or actions of the ITU in the long run (others, please correct me if > I'm wrong on that point!). So I believe Parminder is correct to read > this as a limited set of demands from CSOs entirely related to the > issues raised in the Secretary General's report and Opinions submitted > to the WTPF. I take comfort in the reference to the November Best > Bits statement and human rights language to preserve other fights for > the future. > > On the question of "development agenda," I also believe we need more > of a coordinated civil society push very soon; maybe we should have > considered something stronger in this letter, but at this late date I > don't think it would be practical to open that up. But I, for one, > would certainly commit to pushing deeper development issues/engagement > going forward > On May 12, 2013, at 9:45 AM, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Friday 10 May 2013 02:56 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> On 10/05/13 17:21, parminder wrote: >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> Why should civil society recommend that ITU takes up issues like >>>> Internet Exchanges and IPv6 adoption (subject matter of the >>>> 'opinions') and not for instance net neutrality, which is not among >>>> the subjects covered in the opinions. Why this artificial line >>>> about what Internet issues ITU may work on? >>> >>> There is a rationale for this but I'll let one of the others speak >>> to it. >> >> There is no response of this. I would think any clarification sought >> on a public statement deserve to be responded to .... >> >> In any case, if what is meant by the statement >> >> "Rather than seeking to address additional issues, we urge the >> Secretary-General to move forward in engaging all stakeholders to >> implement these opinions." >> >> is that WTPF rather than address other issues.....move forward..... >> to implement these opinions...... >> >> I am willing to sign. >> >> Can someone please clarify whether the limitation is placed on WTPF >> and on ITU for all times to come.... >> >> Thanks. parminder >> >> PS: I do completely agree with Michael though that we should have put >> real development issues in. This would also be in keeping with the >> mandate bestbits gave itself going forward - to get substantive and >> develop a positive agenda, rather than reacting.... >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >>> Lumpur, Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >>> | >>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice >>> . Don't >>> print this email unless necessary. >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Sun May 12 15:20:40 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 15:20:40 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society statement to the ITU Sec-Gen ahead of WTPF 2013 - PLEASE ENDORSE AND SHARE Message-ID: <0nn2pucltmi4gv3p7h8yvbuq.1368385947475@email.android.com> Michael,  this all makes sense to me. Can you suggest some process for making progress or resolving definitions?  Then more far reaching issues?  I'd love to see broader consensus by IGF in Bali. Or should the goal be to prepare for a full debate there?  My sense so far is that people are signing on to statements that are more about what NOT to accept as good process and policy.  So there's plenty of room to to develop the more positive agenda. -------- Original message -------- From: michael gurstein Date: To: 'Gene Kimmelman' ,'parminder' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] Civil society statement to the ITU Sec-Gen ahead of WTPF 2013 - PLEASE ENDORSE AND SHARE Hi Gene,   A few additional comments…   I have increasing concerns about the emerging movement (and related CS/BB? endorsement) of Multistakeholderism as the dominant modality for Internet Governance broadly understood… I've outlined my concerns in a couple of blogposts which some of you would have already seen, so I won't go into those arguments further except to say that the specific nature and definition of MSism is not clear to me and thus the endorsement of this as in the statement is in some sense to give a blank cheque to those currently promoting MSism for whatever purpose, as well as to those who are most enabled by current MS processes.  I think, as a matter of urgency CS/BB needs to clarify precisely what is meant by MS/MSism in the CS/BB context and indicate that this is what is being endorsed rather than some other -- dare I say -- "status quo" definition.  I've indicated in one of my aforementioned blogposts what I think should be our definition for Multistakeholder processes but I'm sure that this would/could/should be further refined by discussion within CS/BB.   Further, as I outlined in another blogpost the matter of how stakeholders are defined/self-defined, the barriers/rules for participation/inclusion and so on remain extremely murky and subject I believe to considerable abuse particularly when seen as being such a fundamental element in highly significant decision making processes. Again until this is clarified and some structures of formalization, accountability and transparency are put into place I would strongly urge CS/BB to reserve its endorsement.   While I fully agree with the concerns/initiatives with respect to "opening" up ITU processes particularly for CS, I have some concerns when this seems to be the dominant priority by those initiating the statement.  As I`ve argued in other contexts discussions around "opening", while on the surface appearing from a CS perspective to be self-evidently aligned with traditional CS norms of democratic practice and social justice; in fact, unless they are accompanied by equal calls for a broad base of inclusion including significant measures to support such inclusion result in a process of further empowering the already empowered (those who are in a position to use such openness in their own interests because of the availability of the human and financial resources to support the use of/derive benefits from such an "opening") .   With respect to a  "development agenda" I see the need for this as part of the larger process of re-engaging with the overall WSIS/"Information Society" (IS) agenda coming out of the WSIS summits and going into WSIS +10.  If anything our efforts would be most usefully focused in that direction as I believe, based on my experience at the WSIS + 10 forum in Paris in February that there is a very strong move afoot in certain quarters to ensure that the broader IS issues including a review/assessment of what has been accomplished in the WSIS agenda to date, what has not been accomplished, and what new elements should be added to that agenda for the next period, are sidelined in favour of what I called in my commentary on that event, "happy talk" about the benefits that have been achieved and the associated benefits yet to be realized.   Mike   From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Gene Kimmelman Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:53 AM To: parminder Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Civil society statement to the ITU Sec-Gen ahead of WTPF 2013 - PLEASE ENDORSE AND SHARE   Having been involved in a number of the discussions about what the language in a short letter (that everyone seemed  rushed to put together), I feel quite confident saying that the ENTIRE conversation and focus was about the WTPF, and NOT at all about the ultimate powers or actions of the ITU in the long run (others, please correct me if I'm wrong on that point!).  So I believe Parminder is correct to read this as a limited set of demands from CSOs entirely related to the issues raised in the Secretary General's report and Opinions submitted to the WTPF.  I take comfort in the reference to the November Best Bits statement and human rights language to preserve other fights for the future.   On the question of "development agenda," I also believe we need more of a coordinated civil society push very soon; maybe we should have considered something stronger in this letter, but at this late date I don't think it would be practical to open that up.  But I, for one, would certainly commit to pushing deeper development issues/engagement going forward On May 12, 2013, at 9:45 AM, parminder wrote:   On Friday 10 May 2013 02:56 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 10/05/13 17:21, parminder wrote: Why should civil society recommend that ITU takes up issues like Internet Exchanges and IPv6 adoption (subject matter of the 'opinions') and not for instance net neutrality, which is not among the subjects covered in the opinions. Why this artificial line about what Internet issues ITU may work on? There is a rationale for this but I'll let one of the others speak to it. There is no response of this. I would think any clarification sought on a public statement deserve to be responded to .... In any case, if what is meant by the statement "Rather than seeking to address additional issues, we urge the Secretary-General to move forward in engaging all stakeholders to implement these opinions." is that WTPF rather than address other issues.....move forward..... to implement these opinions...... I am willing to sign. Can someone please clarify whether the limitation is placed on WTPF and on ITU for all times to come.... Thanks. parminder PS: I do completely agree with Michael though that we should have put real development issues in. This would also be in keeping with the mandate bestbits gave itself going forward - to get substantive and develop a positive agenda, rather than reacting....   -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.     -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon May 13 09:49:05 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 19:19:05 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Comments asking ICANN to deny application for .pharmacy registration In-Reply-To: <5157ADF9.9060202@apc.org> References: <5157ADF9.9060202@apc.org> Message-ID: <5190EF51.7070102@itforchange.net> On Sunday 31 March 2013 09:01 AM, joy wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi Rashmi - for those who are following this, here is the link to the > ICANN independent objector's recent comment on closed generics: > http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-issue-of-closed-generic-gtlds/ It is surprising to what elegantly logical length people can go to shirk responsibility.... It seems to be written all over the report that 'closed generic' TLDs are bad for public interest, but it is amusing how the Independent Objector (IO) wriggles out of the responsibility of having to do anything about them. But ok, let me give the IO the benefit of doubt... If the IO is indeed right that he cant object as per the limited criteria laid by ICANN for objections, than ICANN has to be wrong, Wrong in developing inappropriately limited criteria which can be grounds for objection against TLD allocation... Both cant be right! In fact, it is really surprising the extent to which people within what is called as the ICANN community seem to agree that 'closed generic' TLDs are not quite right but still insist that it is somehow someone else's responsibility to do something about it... All kinds of 'technical' reasons are given why nothing can be done, including that it is too late to do anything.... Saving the ICANN boat from being rocked appears to be a bigger concern than protecting public interest. This over zealous in-group solidarity is one of 'ICANN community's' biggest failings. parminder > it is also worth looking at the opinions given in relation to > "controversial" gTLD applications such as dotgay and dotislam among > others: > http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/home/ > Regards > Joy > > On 15/03/2013 3:15 a.m., Rashmi Rangnath wrote: >> All: >> >> I thought many of you may be interested in this application that >> Public Citizen filed opposing the National Association of Boards of >> Pharmacy's (NABP) application for the .pharmacy TLD. Public Citizen >> is concerned that the registration would allow the NABP to exclude >> licensed pharmacies located in Canada from acquiring domain names >> under .pharmacy. This would prevent access to affordable medicines >> for many in the US. >> >> A link to Public Citizen's comments is here: >> https://gtldcomment.icann.org/comments-feedback/applicationcomment/commentdetails/12145-- >> >> >> Best, >> >> Rashmi >> >> Rashmi Rangnath Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff >> Attorney Public Knowledge 1818 N Street NW Suite 410 Washington, >> D.C. 20036 202 861 0020 rrangnath at publicknowledge.org >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRV635AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq8egH/2hQ1/NvJsIH1ru5F6hqOM19 > pUOTD9uEXYeONEO0oUOWiI/dQluR7aI4kWvFLOMtTlMklDtqfE7uAg1Q/sxZfTtC > yRms/I7BtyoeN7yyvEVF7hB+vZoxnQRdCDPAIqNCIuemHeR8cVI0SuTnIqvGkwTs > lbk/zlGXgtF3G5BUIW0t+uAkLlvz3KytxoEO70NsghZ6TUEXtPCRLjGNmmL9LfJO > H/BcvuEz2hSjaxhUlGeUAsr1mWoNJy2h2kgGJWyQFakjQDe/o7LYAg58zNQnZiDX > hWoGipCzvEWq24ykwc3kIU34Q/w8kJgt2oph9sVUloughyqabI4pFt+uie77Bmc= > =X6RY > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu May 9 22:35:42 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 10:35:42 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society statement to the ITU Sec-Gen ahead of WTPF 2013 - PLEASE ENDORSE AND SHARE Message-ID: <518C5CFE.8010801@ciroap.org> With the ITU's World Telecommunication and ICT Policy Forum (WTPF) coming up next week, I would like to encourage everyone to read and - if they agree with it - to endorse this statement, which a group of us who will be participating at WTPF have drafted collaboratively: http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013 Please forgive us for not having a broader drafting process this time, but it was mainly due to shortness of time. In any case, the text has been drafted consistently with the previous Best Bits statement to the ITU. Please feel free to reach out into other networks for endorsements, too. There are buttons on the page that will enable you to share automatically with Twitter and Facebook. I am currently working to overcome a technical limitation which means that individuals' names must be listed where an organisation has endorsed. I plan to keep working on this today, but didn't want to hold up distribution of the statement any longer. Thanks to Deborah, Joana and everyone else who helped to put this together so quickly. The full text is shown below: We reaffirm the goals and principles of the statement submitted to the ITU Secretariat in November 2012 in which we urged member states to implement inclusive and transparent ITU processes and uphold and protect the public interest and fundamental human rights. These fundamental human rights must be at the forefront of internet governance and ITU convenings, including the WTPF. Internet policy topics, including but not limited to affordable access, development, openness and access to knowledge, net neutrality, privacy, and security must be considered through the framework of human rights, in particular freedom of expression. We welcome progress made by the Secretary-General and the Informal Experts Group in achieving consensus on the six draft opinions. These begin to address important goals, including the expansion of key internet infrastructure in order to reduce costs for those in need; the reaffirmation of multistakeholder processes; and the promotion of transparent and inclusive enhanced cooperation. Rather than seeking to address additional issues, we urge the Secretary-General to move forward in engaging all stakeholders to implement these opinions. Unfortunately, we must object to the Secretary-General's report's framing of the debate on multistakeholderism. The WTPF has not yet achieved open and participatory internet policy making. In endeavoring to foster multistakeholder consensus, it is critical that the WTPF facilitate civil society's participation as an independent and authoritative voice. The ITU should, for this and future fora, bring all stakeholders together to work on implementing WTPF opinions at the national, regional, and global levels. This means creating spaces for civil society to express their views, for example through an online platform for comment that is part of the official WTPF record, through speaking rights as was done during the WSIS process, as well as providing for both remote participation and live webcasting of the WTPF meeting. Video, audio, and text transcripts will further enables participation by all, including persons with disabilities. Open and transparent participation will augment the critical efforts toward broadband connectivity, IXP promotion, enhanced cooperation, and IPv6 deployment that the WTPF is undertaking with these opinions. We look forward to working together with the ITU as it pursues these policies and institutes a multistakeholder structure that can achieve the goals articulated herein in a manner consistent with the public interest and fundamental human rights. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue May 14 01:12:18 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 07:12:18 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Our statement hits the news Message-ID: <8B4121C1-3B33-4AAF-9332-3A41C4C823F9@ciroap.org> Even before we officially deliver it (which will be done this morning), our statement has hit the news (alarmist headline notwithstanding): http://www.zdnet.com/uns-itu-pursues-internet-control-again-this-week-7000015259/ -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Tue May 14 11:30:56 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 08:30:56 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Our statement hits the news In-Reply-To: <8B4121C1-3B33-4AAF-9332-3A41C4C823F9@ciroap.org> References: <8B4121C1-3B33-4AAF-9332-3A41C4C823F9@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <015701ce50b8$0f047d00$2d0d7700$@gmail.com> Jeremy, I must say that reading the article and reflecting on its timing and content rather gives me further reservations about the referenced statement. Is it the intention of BB to so evidently be align(able) with one side in the emerging Internet Governance "Cold War"? Perhaps the author of the article being pointed to misread/misinterpreted the statement but that the statement could be misread in this way should give some cause for concern I would have thought. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 10:12 PM To: Subject: [bestbits] Our statement hits the news Even before we officially deliver it (which will be done this morning), our statement has hit the news (alarmist headline notwithstanding): http://www.zdnet.com/uns-itu-pursues-internet-control-again-this-week-700001 5259/ -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 - Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue May 14 11:42:06 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 17:42:06 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Our statement hits the news In-Reply-To: <015701ce50b8$0f047d00$2d0d7700$@gmail.com> References: <8B4121C1-3B33-4AAF-9332-3A41C4C823F9@ciroap.org> <015701ce50b8$0f047d00$2d0d7700$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2F39A8B3-41C8-4E5E-B45D-00B28740A8C3@ciroap.org> Her reporting on WCIT was along similar lines; I commented (critically) on it to her at the time. I don't think our statement influenced her take on the issues, it is an established position of the market for which she is writing. I hope that we can influence the tech media over the longer term to be a bit more nuanced; for my part I am writing for an Asian tech publication to provide a more balanced view. Others can do the same - online tech publications often accept guest articles. We can only do so much to control how our statements are used, though. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' On 14 May, 2013, at 5:30 PM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Jeremy, > > I must say that reading the article and reflecting on its timing and content rather gives me further reservations about the referenced statement. > > Is it the intention of BB to so evidently be align(able) with one side in the emerging Internet Governance "Cold War"? > > Perhaps the author of the article being pointed to misread/misinterpreted the statement but that the statement could be misread in this way should give some cause for concern I would have thought. > > M > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm > Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 10:12 PM > To: > Subject: [bestbits] Our statement hits the news > > Even before we officially deliver it (which will be done this morning), our statement has hit the news (alarmist headline notwithstanding): > > http://www.zdnet.com/uns-itu-pursues-internet-control-again-this-week-7000015259/ > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Tue May 14 12:19:45 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 09:19:45 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Our statement hits the news In-Reply-To: <2F39A8B3-41C8-4E5E-B45D-00B28740A8C3@ciroap.org> References: <8B4121C1-3B33-4AAF-9332-3A41C4C823F9@ciroap.org> <015701ce50b8$0f047d00$2d0d7700$@gmail.com> <2F39A8B3-41C8-4E5E-B45D-00B28740A8C3@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <01b601ce50be$e21d6a70$a6583f50$@gmail.com> Jeremy, With respect, the issue is not that an attack dog acted as an attack dog, that is to be expected. Rather the issue is that the statement was written in such a way that it could be understood (and was understood) to be supportive of her attack dog position. M From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 8:42 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Subject: Re: [bestbits] Our statement hits the news Her reporting on WCIT was along similar lines; I commented (critically) on it to her at the time. I don't think our statement influenced her take on the issues, it is an established position of the market for which she is writing. I hope that we can influence the tech media over the longer term to be a bit more nuanced; for my part I am writing for an Asian tech publication to provide a more balanced view. Others can do the same - online tech publications often accept guest articles. We can only do so much to control how our statements are used, though. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' On 14 May, 2013, at 5:30 PM, "michael gurstein" wrote: Jeremy, I must say that reading the article and reflecting on its timing and content rather gives me further reservations about the referenced statement. Is it the intention of BB to so evidently be align(able) with one side in the emerging Internet Governance "Cold War"? Perhaps the author of the article being pointed to misread/misinterpreted the statement but that the statement could be misread in this way should give some cause for concern I would have thought. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 10:12 PM To: Subject: [bestbits] Our statement hits the news Even before we officially deliver it (which will be done this morning), our statement has hit the news (alarmist headline notwithstanding): http://www.zdnet.com/uns-itu-pursues-internet-control-again-this-week-7000015259/ -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed May 15 01:51:26 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 07:51:26 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Our statement hits the news In-Reply-To: <01b601ce50be$e21d6a70$a6583f50$@gmail.com> References: <8B4121C1-3B33-4AAF-9332-3A41C4C823F9@ciroap.org> <015701ce50b8$0f047d00$2d0d7700$@gmail.com> <2F39A8B3-41C8-4E5E-B45D-00B28740A8C3@ciroap.org> <01b601ce50be$e21d6a70$a6583f50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <13C3934E-72A7-4A63-9F12-91913BC37C6C@ciroap.org> On 14/05/2013, at 6:19 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > With respect, the issue is not that an attack dog acted as an attack dog, that is to be expected. > > Rather the issue is that the statement was written in such a way that it could be understood (and was understood) to be supportive of her attack dog position. Here's a slightly better news article that references our statement, from the ever-reliable Monika Emert: http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/05/14/world-telecom-policy-forum-healing-the-split-or-fueling-a-telecom-policy-cold-war/ I've just tweeted this as _BestBits. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meier-hahn at internetundgesellschaft.de Wed May 15 08:40:51 2013 From: meier-hahn at internetundgesellschaft.de (Uta Meier-Hahn) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 14:40:51 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Our statement hits the news In-Reply-To: <13C3934E-72A7-4A63-9F12-91913BC37C6C@ciroap.org> References: <8B4121C1-3B33-4AAF-9332-3A41C4C823F9@ciroap.org> <015701ce50b8$0f047d00$2d0d7700$@gmail.com> <2F39A8B3-41C8-4E5E-B45D-00B28740A8C3@ciroap.org> <01b601ce50be$e21d6a70$a6583f50$@gmail.com> <13C3934E-72A7-4A63-9F12-91913BC37C6C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: May I invite you to have a look at our recently launched Internet Policy Review at http://policy-review.info? We just published an article on the WTPF as well. Best regards from Berlin! Uta 5th World Telecom Policy Forum – stepping stone to changes in the internet governance arena? 15 May 2013 by Monika Ermert on WTPF 818 official participants – government and sector members – 8 “guests” and some 50 members of the public are currently discussing internet related policy issues at the 5th World Telecom Policy Conference in Geneva (WTPF). While only non-binding “opinions” on “internet related public policy issues” are on the agenda, the conference is seen as a stepping stone towards potential changes in the future mandate of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the role of governments in internet governance. During the World Conference on International Telecommunication (WCIT) these very issues caused a split in the membership of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) over the level of state control necessary. Can the breach be closed this week in Geneva or will it widen even more? The WTPF has a big advantage in bringing opposing views together: it is of a non-binding nature. The six prepared opinions it intends to pass, are the following: Draft opinion 1: Promoting Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) as a long term solution to advance connectivity Draft opinion 2: Fostering an enabling environment for the greater growth and development of broadband connectivity Draft opinion 3: Supporting Capacity Building for the deployment of IPv6 Draft opinion 4: In Support of IPv6 Adoption and Transition from IPv4 Draft opinion 5: Supporting Multi-stakeholderism in Internet Governance Draft opinion 6: On supporting operationalising the Enhanced Cooperation Process They are mere commitments and not treaty obligations. With the acknowledgment of the importance of IXPs, especially in the developing countries (the whole of Africa has only 26 exchange points at this point), the need for much more broadband connectivity and high-level support for the transition to the new internet protocol IPv6, the parties should be able to find a lot of common ground. Several non-governmental organisations have applauded the focus on supporting the infrastructure of the network and commitments may be easy to agree on by many stakeholders on these issues. This should put the participants into a conciliable state of mind for the more controversial negotiations that remain below the surface, headmost the controversies around the role of the ITU. ITU Secretary General, Hamadoun Touré, underlined during the opening press conference of the 5th WTPF that he expected consensus results would be possible in the non-treaty “low pressure environment”. Controversies over the multi stakeholder model and ITU role continue Reading thought the 50 pages report of the ITU Secretary General, it becomes clear that the ITU has tapped into advice from the experts at the organisations for internet naming and numbering management. Issues like IPv4 address transfers, community discussions over secure routing or domain name system security extensions (DNSSEC) are listed as “problem issues”. At the same time, the ITU Secretary General clearly invites member states to take their concerns and input on these issues, not only to the relevant organisations, but also to the ITU. Some observers see this as a friendly form of a hostile take-over. After the report was released, calls from both sides about a possible foul play only grew. US Congress pushed for a tiny piece of legislation to “affirm the policy of the United States regarding internet governance“ positioning itself against "increased government control over the internet“ and an undermining of the “current multi stakeholder model”, the joint responsibility of all stakeholders for the development and management of the internet. On the other side, former “ITU hawk“ Richard Hill, now a consultant and a member of the Informal Expert Group that prepared the draft opinions, twists the knife in the inconsistent position of the “hands-off-the-internet“-camp, namely the US government keeping some of its privileges in oversight over internet resources like the central root zone of the Domain Name System (DNS). US academic Milton Mueller, professor at Syracuse University’s School of Information Studies, added some more fuel to the fire by declaring that the debate about the cherished multi stakeholder model was flawed and devoid of meaning as long as it would not strive to limit “the power of nation-states to interfere unduly with the use and operation of the internet, and empowers individuals worldwide to govern themselves.“ Governments' and ITU's future role Defining what multi stakeholder means and what the roles of governments are in it, can be expected to be the most controversial point over the course of this week. The Russian Federation, Brazil and several civil society members have contributed statements to this issue. Russia for example reiterated its proposals for a much stronger national grip on internet governance. The Russian attempt to introduce “national segments of the internet“, where the respective governments could have their say on global resources, had been one of the most extremist during the failed WCIT-12 conference and provided for a lot of discussions there. Related to this is the future mandate of the ITU in internet governance, a topic that will become key when the Plenipotentiary Conference (PP14) will decide on the future tasks and budget of the ITU for the coming four years. For many observers, the non-binding WTPF's relevance this week mainly is this: how member states position themselves in that regard. Much more work has to be done with regard to opening ITU processes, civil society coalition Best Bits wrote in a short statement published on the eve of the WTPF. “It looks a lot like parties are eager to have an agreement here,” Wolfgang Kleinwächter, professor for International Communication Policy at the University of Aarhus and another member of the WTPF Informal Expert Group wrote after the opening session in Geneva. “We have to watch closely, for sure, but so far it does not look that bad.“ http://policyreview.info/articles/news/5th-world-telecom-policy-forum-%E2%80%93-stepping-stone-changes-internet-governance-arena/129 Uta Meier-Hahn | Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin | Doktorandenprogramm Alexander von Humboldt Institut für Internet und Gesellschaft gGmbH Bebelplatz 1 · 10099 Berlin T +49 30 20 93-3490 · F +49 30 20 93-3435 · www.hiig.de · Gesellschaftssitz Berlin | Amtsgericht Berlin Charlottenburg | HRB 140911B Steuer-ID 27/601/54619 | Geschäftsführung: Dr. Jeanette Hofmann · Prof. Dr. Dr. Ingolf Pernice · Prof. Dr. Dr. Thomas Schildhauer · Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulz · Dr. Karina Preiß Am 15.05.2013 um 07:51 schrieb Jeremy Malcolm: > On 14/05/2013, at 6:19 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> With respect, the issue is not that an attack dog acted as an attack dog, that is to be expected. >> >> Rather the issue is that the statement was written in such a way that it could be understood (and was understood) to be supportive of her attack dog position. > > Here's a slightly better news article that references our statement, from the ever-reliable Monika Emert: > > http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/05/14/world-telecom-policy-forum-healing-the-split-or-fueling-a-telecom-policy-cold-war/ > > I've just tweeted this as _BestBits. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu May 16 07:30:02 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 13:30:02 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Last day of WTPF - drafting concluding statement Message-ID: <6C0FD917-89F7-4712-806C-9962AA8FE2AC@ciroap.org> A group of us are here in Geneva for the WTPF, including Valeria from APC, Anja from Internet Democracy Project, Emma and Matthew from CDT, Joana from FGV, Deborah from Access, Lea and Gene from Global Partners, Wolfgang, Avri, Bill Drake and I apologise if I have forgotten any others. As you may have read elsewhere, the draft opinions for the WTPF were adopted with almost no changes, and a late proposed opinion by Brazil on operationalising the role of governments in Internet governance, was discussed but in the end not agreed, and may go to the CWG-Internet for further action. Today we will have the opportunity to deliver a closing statement at the plenary. Because of the need for this to respond to the event as it developed, this has been written on the fly over lunchtime today (with Matthew taking the lead), so I hope you will understand the limitations that we are operating under here. But if you are online now and would like a link to view and edit the document, please email myself or Matthew and we will send you the link to a Google Doc. I won't paste the text here simply because it is still changing as we speak, and it would become inaccurate within just a few minutes. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Thu May 16 08:42:46 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 05:42:46 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Last day of WTPF - drafting concluding statement In-Reply-To: <6C0FD917-89F7-4712-806C-9962AA8FE2AC@ciroap.org> References: <6C0FD917-89F7-4712-806C-9962AA8FE2AC@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <06a301ce5232$e5b993f0$b12cbbd0$@gmail.com> Interesting. I just followed up on Jeremy's invitation. made a comment. and was subsequently tossed out of the discussion and am now denied access to making any further comments. Any explanation for this? (BTW, here is my comment. Without having been able to follow the WTPF discussions in great depth and also without following the discussion here except recently I'm noting in the document continuing reference to a "multistakeholder model"... and moreover to "multistakeholder processes" etc. Can anyone point me to a clear articulation of what is meant by the "multistakeholder model". Further if we are to be ascribing so fulsomely to the multistakeholder process should we not also be asking for some rather clearer articulation of the nature of the internal processes of the various stakeholders whom we are accepting as peers in these processes if only to understand the basis from which they are making their interventions. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 4:30 AM To: Subject: [bestbits] Last day of WTPF - drafting concluding statement A group of us are here in Geneva for the WTPF, including Valeria from APC, Anja from Internet Democracy Project, Emma and Matthew from CDT, Joana from FGV, Deborah from Access, Lea and Gene from Global Partners, Wolfgang, Avri, Bill Drake and I apologise if I have forgotten any others. As you may have read elsewhere, the draft opinions for the WTPF were adopted with almost no changes, and a late proposed opinion by Brazil on operationalising the role of governments in Internet governance, was discussed but in the end not agreed, and may go to the CWG-Internet for further action. Today we will have the opportunity to deliver a closing statement at the plenary. Because of the need for this to respond to the event as it developed, this has been written on the fly over lunchtime today (with Matthew taking the lead), so I hope you will understand the limitations that we are operating under here. But if you are online now and would like a link to view and edit the document, please email myself or Matthew and we will send you the link to a Google Doc. I won't paste the text here simply because it is still changing as we speak, and it would become inaccurate within just a few minutes. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 - Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Thu May 16 08:47:20 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 14:47:20 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Last day of WTPF - drafting concluding statement In-Reply-To: <06a301ce5232$e5b993f0$b12cbbd0$@gmail.com> References: <6C0FD917-89F7-4712-806C-9962AA8FE2AC@ciroap.org> <06a301ce5232$e5b993f0$b12cbbd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: The document was closed to all who had been working at a point so that it would not be in flux as we entered the meeting. michael gurstein wrote: >Interesting. I just followed up on Jeremy's invitation. made a comment. >and >was subsequently tossed out of the discussion and am now denied access >to >making any further comments. Any explanation for this? > > > >( Avri Doria From nnenna75 at gmail.com Thu May 16 08:51:39 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 12:51:39 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Last day of WTPF - drafting concluding statement In-Reply-To: <06a301ce5232$e5b993f0$b12cbbd0$@gmail.com> References: <6C0FD917-89F7-4712-806C-9962AA8FE2AC@ciroap.org> <06a301ce5232$e5b993f0$b12cbbd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Michael Matthew has lost Internet connection and only has a .doc You were not tossed out, editing finished so the doc could be pulled. Plenary is underway and unfotuntely text has to go out. Bes regards Nnenna On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:42 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Interesting… I just followed up on Jeremy's invitation… made a comment… > and was subsequently tossed out of the discussion and am now denied access > to making any further comments. Any explanation for this?**** > > ** ** > > (BTW, here is my comment…**** > > *Without having been able to follow the WTPF discussions in great depth > and also without following the discussion here except recently I'm noting > in the document continuing reference to a "multistakeholder model"... and > moreover to "multistakeholder processes" etc. Can anyone point me to a > clear articulation of what is meant by the "multistakeholder model". > Further if we are to be ascribing so fulsomely to the multistakeholder > process should we not also be asking for some rather clearer articulation > of the nature of the internal processes of the various stakeholders whom we > are accepting as peers in these processes if only to understand the basis > from which they are making their interventions.* > > ** ** > > M**** > > ** ** > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Malcolm > *Sent:* Thursday, May 16, 2013 4:30 AM > *To:* > > *Subject:* [bestbits] Last day of WTPF - drafting concluding statement**** > > ** ** > > A group of us are here in Geneva for the WTPF, including Valeria from APC, > Anja from Internet Democracy Project, Emma and Matthew from CDT, Joana from > FGV, Deborah from Access, Lea and Gene from Global Partners, > Wolfgang, Avri, Bill Drake and I apologise if I have forgotten any others. > As you may have read elsewhere, the draft opinions for the WTPF were > adopted with almost no changes, and a late proposed opinion by Brazil on > operationalising the role of governments in Internet governance, was > discussed but in the end not agreed, and may go to the CWG-Internet for > further action. **** > > ** ** > > Today we will have the opportunity to deliver a closing statement at the > plenary. Because of the need for this to respond to the event as it > developed, this has been written on the fly over lunchtime today (with > Matthew taking the lead), so I hope you will understand the limitations > that we are operating under here. But if you are online now and would like > a link to view and edit the document, please email myself or Matthew < > mshears at cdt.org> and we will send you the link to a Google Doc. I won't > paste the text here simply because it is still changing as we speak, and it > would become inaccurate within just a few minutes.**** > > ** ** > > -- **** > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599**** > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013**** > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational**** > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary.**** > > ** ** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu May 9 23:09:50 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 11:09:50 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Soft launch of new Best Bits website! Message-ID: <518C64FE.9090500@ciroap.org> Today we are soft-launching the new Best Bits website at http://bestbits.net. Big thanks to Deborah from Access, Lea from Global Partners and others who have been working on this with me! Here are some of the major new features (so far): * An event calendar at http://bestbits.net/events/. New events can be added directly to this calendar, but we also subscribe to (currently six) calendars from other groups like Access, Fight for the Future and the Internet Governance Project. Events automatically imported from those calendars can be revealed by selecting "Events from other calendars" from the "Categories" drop-down menu. * A fully-functional events calendar can also be embedded in other websites, in a number of different formats. You can also choose to embed or subscribe to just certain categories of events - for example, just IGF and ICANN events. Let me know if you want more information about this great feature! * We are officially abolishing the hierarchy between "Lead organisers" and "Other supporting organisations" that used to be shown on the website. Any civil society organisation that has participated in the Best Bits network can now have their logo displayed as an organiser/supporter. So please email me your logo, or a link to it, if you would like yours added. * Whereas previously the website was designed to highlight a single event, there are now multiple event pages available from a drop-down menu on the right of every page. Having said that, there are still some changes to be made (such as removal of the countdown ticker from the top right corner). * We now have a Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus account! The Twitter account is _BestBits (with a leading underscore). The Facebook page is https://www.facebook.com/bestbits.net (events from the calendar can be published to Facebook automatically, though we haven't done that yet). The Google Plus community is at https://plus.google.com/communities/104087848331196964155. There are still some features to be added (many of these are due to constructive comments received): * It will be possible to RSVP for events, so that you can see who else is planning to cover an event, such as the WTPF, for example. Funding options will also be shown.* * Events in the calendar will soon be able to be linked to dedicated pages elsewhere on the site (eg. with a statement, full agenda, etc).* * It will be possible to upload briefing documents for any event, and reports following from any event, and for these to be listed alongside the event and on the front page.* * We will be adding some background information pages for each institution (eg. ITU, ICANN, IGF) and for each issue area (eg. human rights, standards). * We want a brighter, friendlier looking background for the page, and to redo the theme for the calendar page, with a clearer division between months. * There are some other bugs with the calendar; mainly, you can't set your timezone when viewing or adding events, which may mean times are represented wrongly. * We need to find some 400x400 icons for events that fall into the categories of "non-institutional forums" and "events from other calendars". * For now, you can just add comments on the event to approximate for this functionality. Any volunteers who would like to help us work on the site are more than welcome, no matter whether or not you are technically skilled or have an eye for design - we can easily find something for you to do, such as helping add details to events. We are soon going to be establishing a loose, geographically-inclusive steering committee for Best Bits, and part of its work will be to establish a roster for such ongoing work. I hope you like the new website and look forward to receiving your comments! -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu May 16 08:57:51 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 18:27:51 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Last day of WTPF - drafting concluding statement In-Reply-To: <06a301ce5232$e5b993f0$b12cbbd0$@gmail.com> References: <6C0FD917-89F7-4712-806C-9962AA8FE2AC@ciroap.org> <06a301ce5232$e5b993f0$b12cbbd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5194D7CF.9090401@itforchange.net> + 1 to Micheal's comment. You need to especially clarify what does participating in all policy processes in "a full and equal manner" mean. This kind of stuff cannot be employed loosely... It must pass the democracy text. Do you really mean that a google of ICC rep at IG policy processes should have voting rights, as gov reps are likely to have. Yes or No. Otherwise what does full and equal manner of participation mean... Please clarify. Parminder On Thursday 16 May 2013 06:12 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Interesting... I just followed up on Jeremy's invitation... made a > comment... and was subsequently tossed out of the discussion and am > now denied access to making any further comments. Any explanation for > this? > > (BTW, here is my comment... > > /Without having been able to follow the WTPF discussions in great > depth and also without following the discussion here except recently > I'm noting in the document continuing reference to a "multistakeholder > model"... and moreover to "multistakeholder processes" etc. Can anyone > point me to a clear articulation of what is meant by the > "multistakeholder model". Further if we are to be ascribing so > fulsomely to the multistakeholder process should we not also be asking > for some rather clearer articulation of the nature of the internal > processes of the various stakeholders whom we are accepting as peers > in these processes if only to understand the basis from which they are > making their interventions./ > > M > > *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Malcolm > *Sent:* Thursday, May 16, 2013 4:30 AM > *To:* > *Subject:* [bestbits] Last day of WTPF - drafting concluding statement > > A group of us are here in Geneva for the WTPF, including Valeria from > APC, Anja from Internet Democracy Project, Emma and Matthew from CDT, > Joana from FGV, Deborah from Access, Lea and Gene from Global > Partners, Wolfgang, Avri, Bill Drake and I apologise if I have > forgotten any others. As you may have read elsewhere, the draft > opinions for the WTPF were adopted with almost no changes, and a late > proposed opinion by Brazil on operationalising the role of governments > in Internet governance, was discussed but in the end not agreed, and > may go to the CWG-Internet for further action. > > Today we will have the opportunity to deliver a closing statement at > the plenary. Because of the need for this to respond to the event as > it developed, this has been written on the fly over lunchtime today > (with Matthew taking the lead), so I hope you will understand the > limitations that we are operating under here. But if you are online > now and would like a link to view and edit the document, please email > myself or Matthew > and we > will send you the link to a Google Doc. I won't paste the text here > simply because it is still changing as we speak, and it would become > inaccurate within just a few minutes. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Thu May 16 08:58:17 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 05:58:17 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Last day of WTPF - drafting concluding statement In-Reply-To: References: <6C0FD917-89F7-4712-806C-9962AA8FE2AC@ciroap.org> <06a301ce5232$e5b993f0$b12cbbd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <06b401ce5235$11b3bf60$351b3e20$@gmail.com> So, if you are going to deny access when a comment is made, close off discussion, and provide no response to a comment... Why bother to send the invitation at all... there being roughly 40 minutes from the invitation going out to my being denied further access to comment (I didn't make any intervention into the text... my comment being an attempt to get further context prior to attempting to make a comment in the text itself... M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 5:47 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] Last day of WTPF - drafting concluding statement The document was closed to all who had been working at a point so that it would not be in flux as we entered the meeting. michael gurstein wrote: >Interesting. I just followed up on Jeremy's invitation. made a comment. >and >was subsequently tossed out of the discussion and am now denied access >to making any further comments. Any explanation for this? > > > >( Avri Doria From parminder at itforchange.net Thu May 16 09:05:19 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 18:35:19 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Last day of WTPF - drafting concluding statement In-Reply-To: <5194D7CF.9090401@itforchange.net> References: <6C0FD917-89F7-4712-806C-9962AA8FE2AC@ciroap.org> <06a301ce5232$e5b993f0$b12cbbd0$@gmail.com> <5194D7CF.9090401@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5194D98F.5080002@itforchange.net> And of course the proposed statement is employing a very one sided meaning and implication of enhanced cooperation, not at all as it is meant in the Tunis Agenda.... Enhanced cooperation in Tunis agenda is among governments to enable them to fulfil their public policy roles, in consultation with all stakeholders.... As all of the best democracies do or should do (if anyone has any instance of any democracy going beyond this, except referendums which I welcome, pl give an example) parminder On Thursday 16 May 2013 06:27 PM, parminder wrote: > > + 1 to Micheal's comment. > > You need to especially clarify what does participating in all policy > processes in "a full and equal manner" mean. > > This kind of stuff cannot be employed loosely... It must pass the > democracy text. Do you really mean that a google of ICC rep at IG > policy processes should have voting rights, as gov reps are likely to > have. Yes or No. > > Otherwise what does full and equal manner of participation mean... > > Please clarify. > > Parminder > > > > On Thursday 16 May 2013 06:12 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> Interesting... I just followed up on Jeremy's invitation... made a >> comment... and was subsequently tossed out of the discussion and am >> now denied access to making any further comments. Any explanation for >> this? >> >> (BTW, here is my comment... >> >> /Without having been able to follow the WTPF discussions in great >> depth and also without following the discussion here except recently >> I'm noting in the document continuing reference to a >> "multistakeholder model"... and moreover to "multistakeholder >> processes" etc. Can anyone point me to a clear articulation of what >> is meant by the "multistakeholder model". Further if we are to be >> ascribing so fulsomely to the multistakeholder process should we not >> also be asking for some rather clearer articulation of the nature of >> the internal processes of the various stakeholders whom we are >> accepting as peers in these processes if only to understand the basis >> from which they are making their interventions./ >> >> M >> >> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy >> Malcolm >> *Sent:* Thursday, May 16, 2013 4:30 AM >> *To:* >> *Subject:* [bestbits] Last day of WTPF - drafting concluding statement >> >> A group of us are here in Geneva for the WTPF, including Valeria from >> APC, Anja from Internet Democracy Project, Emma and Matthew from CDT, >> Joana from FGV, Deborah from Access, Lea and Gene from Global >> Partners, Wolfgang, Avri, Bill Drake and I apologise if I have >> forgotten any others. As you may have read elsewhere, the draft >> opinions for the WTPF were adopted with almost no changes, and a late >> proposed opinion by Brazil on operationalising the role of >> governments in Internet governance, was discussed but in the end not >> agreed, and may go to the CWG-Internet for further action. >> >> Today we will have the opportunity to deliver a closing statement at >> the plenary. Because of the need for this to respond to the event as >> it developed, this has been written on the fly over lunchtime today >> (with Matthew taking the lead), so I hope you will understand the >> limitations that we are operating under here. But if you are online >> now and would like a link to view and edit the document, please email >> myself or Matthew > and we >> will send you the link to a Google Doc. I won't paste the text here >> simply because it is still changing as we speak, and it would become >> inaccurate within just a few minutes. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >> Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice >> . Don't >> print this email unless necessary. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Thu May 16 09:07:10 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 13:07:10 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Last day of WTPF - drafting concluding statement In-Reply-To: <06b401ce5235$11b3bf60$351b3e20$@gmail.com> References: <6C0FD917-89F7-4712-806C-9962AA8FE2AC@ciroap.org> <06a301ce5232$e5b993f0$b12cbbd0$@gmail.com> <06b401ce5235$11b3bf60$351b3e20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Michael You were not the only one: 1. Who made comments 2. Who may have suggested edits 3. Who was denied access at the beginning of plenary 4. Who got an invite after lunch (30-40 minutes before plenary) I was not in the original drafting committee because I am only participating remotely.. The difference might have been that I have been closely following and most of the views DO EMBODY already known and agreed principles. Best Nnenna On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:58 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > So, if you are going to deny access when a comment is made, close off > discussion, and provide no response to a comment... Why bother to send the > invitation at all... there being roughly 40 minutes from the invitation > going out to my being denied further access to comment (I didn't make any > intervention into the text... my comment being an attempt to get further > context prior to attempting to make a comment in the text itself... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 5:47 AM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: RE: [bestbits] Last day of WTPF - drafting concluding statement > > The document was closed to all who had been working at a point so that it > would not be in flux as we entered the meeting. > > michael gurstein wrote: > > >Interesting. I just followed up on Jeremy's invitation. made a comment. > >and > >was subsequently tossed out of the discussion and am now denied access > >to making any further comments. Any explanation for this? > > > > > > > >( > Avri Doria > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu May 16 09:28:07 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 15:28:07 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Last day of WTPF - drafting concluding statement In-Reply-To: <06b401ce5235$11b3bf60$351b3e20$@gmail.com> References: <6C0FD917-89F7-4712-806C-9962AA8FE2AC@ciroap.org> <06a301ce5232$e5b993f0$b12cbbd0$@gmail.com> <06b401ce5235$11b3bf60$351b3e20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 16/05/2013, at 2:58 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > So, if you are going to deny access when a comment is made, close off discussion, and provide no response to a comment... Why bother to send the invitation at all... there being roughly 40 minutes from the invitation going out to my being denied further access to comment (I didn't make any intervention into the text... my comment being an attempt to get further context prior to attempting to make a comment in the text itself... In the circumstances we did the best we could... sorry that we couldn't do more. Limitations aside, let's give some credit to the folks here for their hard work. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Thu May 16 09:34:40 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 06:34:40 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Last day of WTPF - drafting concluding statement In-Reply-To: References: <6C0FD917-89F7-4712-806C-9962AA8FE2AC@ciroap.org> <06a301ce5232$e5b993f0$b12cbbd0$@gmail.com> <06b401ce5235$11b3bf60$351b3e20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <06e001ce523a$26af8160$740e8420$@gmail.com> As I've mentioned in earlier emails, I had problems with the earlier document and might have been interested in making sympathetic additions to this one but as it was, the invitation to contribute was apparently only for the form. And I'm wondering why those of us not in attendance were presented with a more or less complete document 40 minutes or less before it needed to be presented and particularly after some comments had already been made concerning the inability to participate in the earlier process. I would have thought given the concerns expressed that those moving this forward would have at least attempted at a broader base of inclusion for this latter instance. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 6:07 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Avri Doria; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Last day of WTPF - drafting concluding statement Dear Michael You were not the only one: 1. Who made comments 2. Who may have suggested edits 3. Who was denied access at the beginning of plenary 4. Who got an invite after lunch (30-40 minutes before plenary) I was not in the original drafting committee because I am only participating remotely.. The difference might have been that I have been closely following and most of the views DO EMBODY already known and agreed principles. Best Nnenna On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:58 PM, michael gurstein wrote: So, if you are going to deny access when a comment is made, close off discussion, and provide no response to a comment... Why bother to send the invitation at all... there being roughly 40 minutes from the invitation going out to my being denied further access to comment (I didn't make any intervention into the text... my comment being an attempt to get further context prior to attempting to make a comment in the text itself... M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 5:47 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] Last day of WTPF - drafting concluding statement The document was closed to all who had been working at a point so that it would not be in flux as we entered the meeting. michael gurstein wrote: >Interesting. I just followed up on Jeremy's invitation. made a comment. >and >was subsequently tossed out of the discussion and am now denied access >to making any further comments. Any explanation for this? > > > >( Avri Doria -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Thu May 16 09:41:38 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 16:41:38 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] Last day of WTPF - drafting concluding statement Message-ID: I support nnenna. I have been participating remotely. Not easy. And . without the efforts  of those in Geneva it would have been impossible. These processes are imperfect. Under the circumstances I think the people on site have done their best to be inclusive.  Anriette Sent from Samsung MobileNnenna Nwakanma wrote:Dear Michael You were not the only one: Who made comments Who may have suggested edits Who was denied access at the beginning of plenary Who got an invite after lunch (30-40 minutes before plenary) I was not in the original drafting committee because I am only participating remotely.. The difference might have been that I have been closely following and most of the views DO EMBODY already known and agreed principles. Best Nnenna On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:58 PM, michael gurstein wrote: So, if you are going to deny access when a comment is made, close off discussion, and provide no response to a comment... Why bother to send the invitation at all... there being roughly 40 minutes from the invitation going out to my being denied further access to comment (I didn't make any intervention into the text... my comment being an attempt to get further context prior to attempting to make a comment in the text itself... M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 5:47 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] Last day of WTPF - drafting concluding statement The document was closed to all who had been working at a point so that it would not be in flux as we entered the meeting. michael gurstein wrote: >Interesting. I just followed up on Jeremy's invitation. made a comment. >and >was subsequently tossed out of the discussion and am now denied access >to making any further comments. Any explanation for this? > > > >( Avri Doria -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Thu May 16 15:11:30 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 12:11:30 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society statement to the ITU Sec-Gen ahead of WTPF 2013 - PLEASE ENDORSE AND SHARE In-Reply-To: <0nn2pucltmi4gv3p7h8yvbuq.1368385947475@email.android.com> References: <0nn2pucltmi4gv3p7h8yvbuq.1368385947475@email.android.com> Message-ID: <094801ce5269$352d2d80$9f878880$@gmail.com> Gene and all, I've been thinking a lot about the important challenge that you posed below. I'm afraid that I don't have any easy answers as I think that defining "multistakeholder processes" or "multistakeholderism" is more than a semantic or simple linguistic activity but rather will involve identifying the "multistakeholderism that want" in parallel to defining the "web that we want". In that context I can only refer back to my blogpost "In Defense of Multistakeholder Processes " where I attempted to identifying some of the principles that I think need to be incorporated in the MS that we want (do a cut and paste from that blogpost this is what I came up with as a (very) preliminary set of definitions/norms. (Perhaps these could be the basis for a discussion out of which a CS definition of MS could emerge?). 1, decisions should be made as close to those impacted as possible 2, those impacted by decisions should be involved in those decisions. 3, provide a means for the otherwise voiceless to have a voice in broader policy and programme decisions. 4. have clear and transparent processes of internal operation and inclusion 5. representative and broadly based 6. decisions made are responsive to local concerns and to the broadest range of those who must bear the consequences 7. make democratic processes more flexible and responsive, able to adjust to changing contexts circumstances, technologies, impacted populations 8. incorporate enhanced communications, enhanced interactivity and accelerated change as a support to democratic decision making through MS processes 9. operate within all of the requirements for effective democracy 10. are representative and inclusive, transparent and accountable The MS that we don't want: 1, transfer additional power to self-appointed elites or insiders. 2. processes of decision making which are done without transparency, accountability, explicit procedures, or even-handedness in governance. 3. transfer of democratic processes of decision making to multistakeholder processes because it seems easier to talk with a small group than with a larger one, to deal with one’s friends rather than with outsiders, to make decisions among those with explicit private interests rather than basing decisions on due and inclusive considerations that recognize and incorporate the public interest and the general good. To conclude MS processes should enhance democracy by increasing opportunities for effective participation by those most directly impacted by decisions and particularly those at the grassroots who so often are voiceless in these processes. Mike From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of genekimmelman at gmail.com Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 12:21 PM To: gurstein at gmail.com; parminder at itforchange.net Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] Civil society statement to the ITU Sec-Gen ahead of WTPF 2013 - PLEASE ENDORSE AND SHARE Michael, this all makes sense to me. Can you suggest some process for making progress or resolving definitions? Then more far reaching issues? I'd love to see broader consensus by IGF in Bali. Or should the goal be to prepare for a full debate there? My sense so far is that people are signing on to statements that are more about what NOT to accept as good process and policy. So there's plenty of room to to develop the more positive agenda. -------- Original message -------- From: michael gurstein Date: To: 'Gene Kimmelman' ,'parminder' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] Civil society statement to the ITU Sec-Gen ahead of WTPF 2013 - PLEASE ENDORSE AND SHARE Hi Gene, A few additional comments… I have increasing concerns about the emerging movement (and related CS/BB? endorsement) of Multistakeholderism as the dominant modality for Internet Governance broadly understood… I've outlined my concerns in a couple of blogposts which some of you would have already seen, so I won't go into those arguments further except to say that the specific nature and definition of MSism is not clear to me and thus the endorsement of this as in the statement is in some sense to give a blank cheque to those currently promoting MSism for whatever purpose, as well as to those who are most enabled by current MS processes. I think, as a matter of urgency CS/BB needs to clarify precisely what is meant by MS/MSism in the CS/BB context and indicate that this is what is being endorsed rather than some other -- dare I say -- "status quo" definition. I've indicated in one of my aforementioned blogposts what I think should be our definition for Multistakeholder processes but I'm sure that this would/could/should be further refined by discussion within CS/BB. Further, as I outlined in another blogpost the matter of how stakeholders are defined/self-defined, the barriers/rules for participation/inclusion and so on remain extremely murky and subject I believe to considerable abuse particularly when seen as being such a fundamental element in highly significant decision making processes. Again until this is clarified and some structures of formalization, accountability and transparency are put into place I would strongly urge CS/BB to reserve its endorsement. While I fully agree with the concerns/initiatives with respect to "opening" up ITU processes particularly for CS, I have some concerns when this seems to be the dominant priority by those initiating the statement. As I`ve argued in other contexts discussions around "opening", while on the surface appearing from a CS perspective to be self-evidently aligned with traditional CS norms of democratic practice and social justice; in fact, unless they are accompanied by equal calls for a broad base of inclusion including significant measures to support such inclusion result in a process of further empowering the already empowered (those who are in a position to use such openness in their own interests because of the availability of the human and financial resources to support the use of/derive benefits from such an "opening") . With respect to a "development agenda" I see the need for this as part of the larger process of re-engaging with the overall WSIS/"Information Society" (IS) agenda coming out of the WSIS summits and going into WSIS +10. If anything our efforts would be most usefully focused in that direction as I believe, based on my experience at the WSIS + 10 forum in Paris in February that there is a very strong move afoot in certain quarters to ensure that the broader IS issues including a review/assessment of what has been accomplished in the WSIS agenda to date, what has not been accomplished, and what new elements should be added to that agenda for the next period, are sidelined in favour of what I called in my commentary on that event , "happy talk" about the benefits that have been achieved and the associated benefits yet to be realized. Mike From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Gene Kimmelman Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:53 AM To: parminder Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Civil society statement to the ITU Sec-Gen ahead of WTPF 2013 - PLEASE ENDORSE AND SHARE Having been involved in a number of the discussions about what the language in a short letter (that everyone seemed rushed to put together), I feel quite confident saying that the ENTIRE conversation and focus was about the WTPF, and NOT at all about the ultimate powers or actions of the ITU in the long run (others, please correct me if I'm wrong on that point!). So I believe Parminder is correct to read this as a limited set of demands from CSOs entirely related to the issues raised in the Secretary General's report and Opinions submitted to the WTPF. I take comfort in the reference to the November Best Bits statement and human rights language to preserve other fights for the future. On the question of "development agenda," I also believe we need more of a coordinated civil society push very soon; maybe we should have considered something stronger in this letter, but at this late date I don't think it would be practical to open that up. But I, for one, would certainly commit to pushing deeper development issues/engagement going forward On May 12, 2013, at 9:45 AM, parminder wrote: On Friday 10 May 2013 02:56 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 10/05/13 17:21, parminder wrote: Why should civil society recommend that ITU takes up issues like Internet Exchanges and IPv6 adoption (subject matter of the 'opinions') and not for instance net neutrality, which is not among the subjects covered in the opinions. Why this artificial line about what Internet issues ITU may work on? There is a rationale for this but I'll let one of the others speak to it. There is no response of this. I would think any clarification sought on a public statement deserve to be responded to .... In any case, if what is meant by the statement "Rather than seeking to address additional issues, we urge the Secretary-General to move forward in engaging all stakeholders to implement these opinions." is that WTPF rather than address other issues.....move forward..... to implement these opinions...... I am willing to sign. Can someone please clarify whether the limitation is placed on WTPF and on ITU for all times to come.... Thanks. parminder PS: I do completely agree with Michael though that we should have put real development issues in. This would also be in keeping with the mandate bestbits gave itself going forward - to get substantive and develop a positive agenda, rather than reacting.... -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Thu May 16 15:18:06 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 12:18:06 -0700 Subject: (Corrected) RE: [bestbits] Civil society statement to the ITU Sec-Gen ahead of WTPF 2013 - PLEASE ENDORSE AND SHARE Message-ID: <097101ce526a$214e8c90$63eba5b0$@gmail.com> (apologies a number of typo-gremlins crept in to the original text… Gene and all, I've been thinking a lot about the important challenge that you posed below. I'm afraid that I don't have any easy answers as I think that defining "multistakeholder processes" or "multistakeholderism" is more than a semantic or simple linguistic activity but rather will involve identifying the "multistakeholderism that we want" in parallel to defining the "web that we want". In that context I can only refer back to my blogpost "In Defense of Multistakeholder Processes " where I attempted to identify some of the principles that I think need to be incorporated in the MS that we want (I did a cut and paste from that blogpost and this is what I came up with as a (very) preliminary set of definitions/norms. (Perhaps these could be the basis for a discussion out of which a CS definition of MS could emerge?). 1, decisions should be made as close to those impacted as possible 2, those impacted by decisions should be involved in those decisions. 3, provide a means for the otherwise voiceless to have a voice in broader policy and programme decisions. 4. have clear and transparent processes of internal operation and inclusion 5. representative and broadly based 6. decisions made are responsive to local concerns and to the broadest range of those who must bear the consequences 7. make democratic processes more flexible and responsive, able to adjust to changing contexts circumstances, technologies, impacted populations 8. incorporate enhanced communications, enhanced interactivity and accelerated change as a support to democratic decision making through MS processes 9. operate within all of the requirements for effective democracy 10. are representative and inclusive, transparent and accountable The MS that we don't want: 1, transfer additional power to self-appointed elites or insiders. 2. processes of decision making which are done without transparency, accountability, explicit procedures, or even-handedness in governance. 3. transfer of democratic processes of decision making to multistakeholder processes because it seems easier to talk with a small group than with a larger one, to deal with one’s friends rather than with outsiders, to make decisions among those with explicit private interests rather than basing decisions on due and inclusive considerations that recognize and incorporate the public interest and the general good. To conclude MS processes should enhance democracy by increasing opportunities for effective participation by those most directly impacted by decisions and particularly those at the grassroots who so often are voiceless in these processes. Mike From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of genekimmelman at gmail.com Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 12:21 PM To: gurstein at gmail.com; parminder at itforchange.net Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] Civil society statement to the ITU Sec-Gen ahead of WTPF 2013 - PLEASE ENDORSE AND SHARE Michael, this all makes sense to me. Can you suggest some process for making progress or resolving definitions? Then more far reaching issues? I'd love to see broader consensus by IGF in Bali. Or should the goal be to prepare for a full debate there? My sense so far is that people are signing on to statements that are more about what NOT to accept as good process and policy. So there's plenty of room to to develop the more positive agenda. -------- Original message -------- From: michael gurstein Date: To: 'Gene Kimmelman' ,'parminder' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] Civil society statement to the ITU Sec-Gen ahead of WTPF 2013 - PLEASE ENDORSE AND SHARE Hi Gene, A few additional comments… I have increasing concerns about the emerging movement (and related CS/BB? endorsement) of Multistakeholderism as the dominant modality for Internet Governance broadly understood… I've outlined my concerns in a couple of blogposts which some of you would have already seen, so I won't go into those arguments further except to say that the specific nature and definition of MSism is not clear to me and thus the endorsement of this as in the statement is in some sense to give a blank cheque to those currently promoting MSism for whatever purpose, as well as to those who are most enabled by current MS processes. I think, as a matter of urgency CS/BB needs to clarify precisely what is meant by MS/MSism in the CS/BB context and indicate that this is what is being endorsed rather than some other -- dare I say -- "status quo" definition. I've indicated in one of my aforementioned blogposts what I think should be our definition for Multistakeholder processes but I'm sure that this would/could/should be further refined by discussion within CS/BB. Further, as I outlined in another blogpost the matter of how stakeholders are defined/self-defined, the barriers/rules for participation/inclusion and so on remain extremely murky and subject I believe to considerable abuse particularly when seen as being such a fundamental element in highly significant decision making processes. Again until this is clarified and some structures of formalization, accountability and transparency are put into place I would strongly urge CS/BB to reserve its endorsement. While I fully agree with the concerns/initiatives with respect to "opening" up ITU processes particularly for CS, I have some concerns when this seems to be the dominant priority by those initiating the statement. As I`ve argued in other contexts discussions around "opening", while on the surface appearing from a CS perspective to be self-evidently aligned with traditional CS norms of democratic practice and social justice; in fact, unless they are accompanied by equal calls for a broad base of inclusion including significant measures to support such inclusion result in a process of further empowering the already empowered (those who are in a position to use such openness in their own interests because of the availability of the human and financial resources to support the use of/derive benefits from such an "opening") . With respect to a "development agenda" I see the need for this as part of the larger process of re-engaging with the overall WSIS/"Information Society" (IS) agenda coming out of the WSIS summits and going into WSIS +10. If anything our efforts would be most usefully focused in that direction as I believe, based on my experience at the WSIS + 10 forum in Paris in February that there is a very strong move afoot in certain quarters to ensure that the broader IS issues including a review/assessment of what has been accomplished in the WSIS agenda to date, what has not been accomplished, and what new elements should be added to that agenda for the next period, are sidelined in favour of what I called in my commentary on that event , "happy talk" about the benefits that have been achieved and the associated benefits yet to be realized. Mike From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Gene Kimmelman Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:53 AM To: parminder Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Civil society statement to the ITU Sec-Gen ahead of WTPF 2013 - PLEASE ENDORSE AND SHARE Having been involved in a number of the discussions about what the language in a short letter (that everyone seemed rushed to put together), I feel quite confident saying that the ENTIRE conversation and focus was about the WTPF, and NOT at all about the ultimate powers or actions of the ITU in the long run (others, please correct me if I'm wrong on that point!). So I believe Parminder is correct to read this as a limited set of demands from CSOs entirely related to the issues raised in the Secretary General's report and Opinions submitted to the WTPF. I take comfort in the reference to the November Best Bits statement and human rights language to preserve other fights for the future. On the question of "development agenda," I also believe we need more of a coordinated civil society push very soon; maybe we should have considered something stronger in this letter, but at this late date I don't think it would be practical to open that up. But I, for one, would certainly commit to pushing deeper development issues/engagement going forward On May 12, 2013, at 9:45 AM, parminder wrote: On Friday 10 May 2013 02:56 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 10/05/13 17:21, parminder wrote: Why should civil society recommend that ITU takes up issues like Internet Exchanges and IPv6 adoption (subject matter of the 'opinions') and not for instance net neutrality, which is not among the subjects covered in the opinions. Why this artificial line about what Internet issues ITU may work on? There is a rationale for this but I'll let one of the others speak to it. There is no response of this. I would think any clarification sought on a public statement deserve to be responded to .... In any case, if what is meant by the statement "Rather than seeking to address additional issues, we urge the Secretary-General to move forward in engaging all stakeholders to implement these opinions." is that WTPF rather than address other issues.....move forward..... to implement these opinions...... I am willing to sign. Can someone please clarify whether the limitation is placed on WTPF and on ITU for all times to come.... Thanks. parminder PS: I do completely agree with Michael though that we should have put real development issues in. This would also be in keeping with the mandate bestbits gave itself going forward - to get substantive and develop a positive agenda, rather than reacting.... -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri May 17 04:41:59 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 10:41:59 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards enhanced cooperation post-WTPF Message-ID: <2B475679-B68B-4674-A06A-506F30AFA806@ciroap.org> As you know, yesterday the WTPF concluded without a resolution on this proposal by Brazil titled "Operationalizing the role of Government in the multi-stakeholder framework for Internet Governance": http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0005/en https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gTewmlgXNTRYuPvIWylV2K39owgXH8st642I7IaXjh0/edit Two of the options for what could happen to it instead were either that it could go to the ITU's CWG Internet which is a government-only group that meets in a closed format with open consultations, or that it could go to the IGF. The objection raised to the latter option was that the IGF does not produce outputs. I think that it might be useful for us to quickly produce a note for next week's IGF to propose a method for discussing the resolution in a more output-oriented way, that could be an alternative to its discussion at the CWG Internet (but would explicitly not prevent it from also being discussed at the CSTD WG EC, given that it is also relatively multi-stakeholder). This would not require the wholesale reform of the IGF, but would be more of a trial run, to demonstrate what is possible - and in an instance where there is a tangible need to do so. I'm floating my intention to produce a first draft of this, which would then be open for comments and amendments. In our usual fashion, anyone could endorse it if they agreed. If one of us will be in Geneva for the MAG meeting and is willing to do so, they could introduce it there. (I'm starting this on the Best Bits list rather than the IGC list because the latter is a bit dysfunctional at the moment, but once a draft is ready we'll post it there too.) What do you think? -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at global-partners.co.uk Fri May 10 01:03:19 2013 From: Andrew at global-partners.co.uk (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 06:03:19 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Soft launch of new Best Bits website! In-Reply-To: <518C64FE.9090500@ciroap.org> References: <518C64FE.9090500@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <17F4DC10-55E3-4062-BE77-D60729112A6D@global-partners.co.uk> Jeremy Thanks for the all the work you've put into this Sent from my iPhone On 10 May 2013, at 04:10, "Jeremy Malcolm" > wrote: Today we are soft-launching the new Best Bits website at http://bestbits.net. Big thanks to Deborah from Access, Lea from Global Partners and others who have been working on this with me! Here are some of the major new features (so far): * An event calendar at http://bestbits.net/events/. New events can be added directly to this calendar, but we also subscribe to (currently six) calendars from other groups like Access, Fight for the Future and the Internet Governance Project. Events automatically imported from those calendars can be revealed by selecting "Events from other calendars" from the "Categories" drop-down menu. * A fully-functional events calendar can also be embedded in other websites, in a number of different formats. You can also choose to embed or subscribe to just certain categories of events - for example, just IGF and ICANN events. Let me know if you want more information about this great feature! * We are officially abolishing the hierarchy between "Lead organisers" and "Other supporting organisations" that used to be shown on the website. Any civil society organisation that has participated in the Best Bits network can now have their logo displayed as an organiser/supporter. So please email me your logo, or a link to it, if you would like yours added. * Whereas previously the website was designed to highlight a single event, there are now multiple event pages available from a drop-down menu on the right of every page. Having said that, there are still some changes to be made (such as removal of the countdown ticker from the top right corner). * We now have a Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus account! The Twitter account is _BestBits (with a leading underscore). The Facebook page is https://www.facebook.com/bestbits.net (events from the calendar can be published to Facebook automatically, though we haven't done that yet). The Google Plus community is at https://plus.google.com/communities/104087848331196964155. There are still some features to be added (many of these are due to constructive comments received): * It will be possible to RSVP for events, so that you can see who else is planning to cover an event, such as the WTPF, for example. Funding options will also be shown.* * Events in the calendar will soon be able to be linked to dedicated pages elsewhere on the site (eg. with a statement, full agenda, etc).* * It will be possible to upload briefing documents for any event, and reports following from any event, and for these to be listed alongside the event and on the front page.* * We will be adding some background information pages for each institution (eg. ITU, ICANN, IGF) and for each issue area (eg. human rights, standards). * We want a brighter, friendlier looking background for the page, and to redo the theme for the calendar page, with a clearer division between months. * There are some other bugs with the calendar; mainly, you can't set your timezone when viewing or adding events, which may mean times are represented wrongly. * We need to find some 400x400 icons for events that fall into the categories of "non-institutional forums" and "events from other calendars". * For now, you can just add comments on the event to approximate for this functionality. Any volunteers who would like to help us work on the site are more than welcome, no matter whether or not you are technically skilled or have an eye for design - we can easily find something for you to do, such as helping add details to events. We are soon going to be establishing a loose, geographically-inclusive steering committee for Best Bits, and part of its work will be to establish a roster for such ongoing work. I hope you like the new website and look forward to receiving your comments! -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Fri May 17 04:53:11 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 10:53:11 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards enhanced cooperation post-WTPF In-Reply-To: <2B475679-B68B-4674-A06A-506F30AFA806@ciroap.org> References: <2B475679-B68B-4674-A06A-506F30AFA806@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20130517105311.050c5618@quill.bollow.ch> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I think that it might be useful for us to quickly produce a note for > next week's IGF to propose a method for discussing the resolution in > a more output-oriented way I like this idea, and hereby support it. I'd appreciate if the invitation to join the drafting group is also posted on the IGC mailing list. Greetings, Norbert From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri May 17 06:29:03 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 06:29:03 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards enhanced cooperation post-WTPF In-Reply-To: <20130517105311.050c5618@quill.bollow.ch> References: <2B475679-B68B-4674-A06A-506F30AFA806@ciroap.org> <20130517105311.050c5618@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <613BFC28-EDDF-4BB1-A6C6-683D6DDAD8B9@gmail.com> You can count on me for that too. Sent from my iPhone On May 17, 2013, at 4:53 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> I think that it might be useful for us to quickly produce a note for >> next week's IGF to propose a method for discussing the resolution in >> a more output-oriented way > > I like this idea, and hereby support it. > > I'd appreciate if the invitation to join the drafting group is also > posted on the IGC mailing list. > > Greetings, > Norbert From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Fri May 17 06:31:46 2013 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 10:31:46 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards enhanced cooperation post-WTPF In-Reply-To: <613BFC28-EDDF-4BB1-A6C6-683D6DDAD8B9@gmail.com> References: <2B475679-B68B-4674-A06A-506F30AFA806@ciroap.org> <20130517105311.050c5618@quill.bollow.ch> <613BFC28-EDDF-4BB1-A6C6-683D6DDAD8B9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FA82EEE@DBXPRD0410MB394.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Hi All +1 from me and also if the IRP Coalition list could be folded into this call. MF -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Sent: 17 May 2013 11:29 To: Norbert Bollow Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; Subject: Re: [bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards enhanced cooperation post-WTPF You can count on me for that too. Sent from my iPhone On May 17, 2013, at 4:53 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> I think that it might be useful for us to quickly produce a note for >> next week's IGF to propose a method for discussing the resolution in >> a more output-oriented way > > I like this idea, and hereby support it. > > I'd appreciate if the invitation to join the drafting group is also > posted on the IGC mailing list. > > Greetings, > Norbert From Andrew at global-partners.co.uk Fri May 17 06:33:40 2013 From: Andrew at global-partners.co.uk (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 11:33:40 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards enhanced cooperation post-WTPF In-Reply-To: <613BFC28-EDDF-4BB1-A6C6-683D6DDAD8B9@gmail.com> References: <2B475679-B68B-4674-A06A-506F30AFA806@ciroap.org> <20130517105311.050c5618@quill.bollow.ch> <613BFC28-EDDF-4BB1-A6C6-683D6DDAD8B9@gmail.com> Message-ID: Great idea Jeremy Andrew Puddephatt, Director       Global Partners & Associates Direct: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 Office: +44 (0)20 7549 0350 Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 Email: andrew at global-partners.co.uk Address: Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, London EC2A 4LT, UK www.global-partners.co.uk -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Sent: 17 May 2013 11:29 To: Norbert Bollow Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; Subject: Re: [bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards enhanced cooperation post-WTPF You can count on me for that too. Sent from my iPhone On May 17, 2013, at 4:53 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> I think that it might be useful for us to quickly produce a note for >> next week's IGF to propose a method for discussing the resolution in >> a more output-oriented way > > I like this idea, and hereby support it. > > I'd appreciate if the invitation to join the drafting group is also > posted on the IGC mailing list. > > Greetings, > Norbert From nnenna75 at gmail.com Fri May 17 06:55:10 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 10:55:10 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards enhanced cooperation post-WTPF In-Reply-To: References: <2B475679-B68B-4674-A06A-506F30AFA806@ciroap.org> <20130517105311.050c5618@quill.bollow.ch> <613BFC28-EDDF-4BB1-A6C6-683D6DDAD8B9@gmail.com> Message-ID: +1. Yeah, send the invite early and make it clear that it is a DRAFTING committee, and if someoen needs to oppose a text, they have to suggest a language or a replacement text.. Add me. N On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Andrew Puddephatt < Andrew at global-partners.co.uk> wrote: > Great idea Jeremy > > Andrew Puddephatt, Director > Global Partners & Associates > > Direct: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 > Office: +44 (0)20 7549 0350 > Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 > Email: andrew at global-partners.co.uk > Address: Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, London EC2A 4LT, UK > > www.global-partners.co.uk > > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina > Sent: 17 May 2013 11:29 > To: Norbert Bollow > Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards > enhanced cooperation post-WTPF > > You can count on me for that too. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 17, 2013, at 4:53 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > >> I think that it might be useful for us to quickly produce a note for > >> next week's IGF to propose a method for discussing the resolution in > >> a more output-oriented way > > > > I like this idea, and hereby support it. > > > > I'd appreciate if the invitation to join the drafting group is also > > posted on the IGC mailing list. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Fri May 17 07:13:46 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varonferraz) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 13:13:46 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards enhanced cooperation post-WTPF In-Reply-To: <2B475679-B68B-4674-A06A-506F30AFA806@ciroap.org> References: <2B475679-B68B-4674-A06A-506F30AFA806@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Excellent, Jeremy! I'm in. Next week many of us, myself including, will be in Stockholm, while others will be in Geneva. For the ones in Stockholm: it would be great if we get together to make the edits, so the interactions with the group in Geneva and elsewhere could be easier. Regarding the possibility of the debate go to CWG Internet. To play safe, isn't it also the case to request from the ITU SG that he fulfills the promise of making the request for opening it for multistakeholder participation? One last issue: as we dont want heart fillings or anything similar in best bits list. Isn't it good to think about a minimal process/modus operandi for proposing, drafting, commenting, signing statements in both situations: during events or preparing for them? All the best Joana --- ~ --- ~ --- ~ Joana Varon Ferraz Researcher Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV) On 17/05/2013, at 10:41, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > As you know, yesterday the WTPF concluded without a resolution on this proposal by Brazil titled "Operationalizing the role of Government in the multi-stakeholder framework for Internet Governance": > > http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0005/en > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gTewmlgXNTRYuPvIWylV2K39owgXH8st642I7IaXjh0/edit > > Two of the options for what could happen to it instead were either that it could go to the ITU's CWG Internet which is a government-only group that meets in a closed format with open consultations, or that it could go to the IGF. The objection raised to the latter option was that the IGF does not produce outputs. > > I think that it might be useful for us to quickly produce a note for next week's IGF to propose a method for discussing the resolution in a more output-oriented way, that could be an alternative to its discussion at the CWG Internet (but would explicitly not prevent it from also being discussed at the CSTD WG EC, given that it is also relatively multi-stakeholder). This would not require the wholesale reform of the IGF, but would be more of a trial run, to demonstrate what is possible - and in an instance where there is a tangible need to do so. > > I'm floating my intention to produce a first draft of this, which would then be open for comments and amendments. In our usual fashion, anyone could endorse it if they agreed. If one of us will be in Geneva for the MAG meeting and is willing to do so, they could introduce it there. (I'm starting this on the Best Bits list rather than the IGC list because the latter is a bit dysfunctional at the moment, but once a draft is ready we'll post it there too.) > > What do you think? > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthias.kettemann at gmail.com Fri May 17 07:25:01 2013 From: matthias.kettemann at gmail.com (Matthias C. Kettemann) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 13:25:01 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards enhanced cooperation post-WTPF In-Reply-To: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FA82EEE@DBXPRD0410MB394.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> References: <2B475679-B68B-4674-A06A-506F30AFA806@ciroap.org> <20130517105311.050c5618@quill.bollow.ch> <613BFC28-EDDF-4BB1-A6C6-683D6DDAD8B9@gmail.com> <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FA82EEE@DBXPRD0410MB394.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <-4196628210711057520@unknownmsgid> Same here! Am 17.05.2013 um 12:31 schrieb Marianne Franklin : > Hi All > > +1 from me and also if the IRP Coalition list could be folded into this call. > > MF > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina > Sent: 17 May 2013 11:29 > To: Norbert Bollow > Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards enhanced cooperation post-WTPF > > You can count on me for that too. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 17, 2013, at 4:53 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> I think that it might be useful for us to quickly produce a note for >>> next week's IGF to propose a method for discussing the resolution in >>> a more output-oriented way >> >> I like this idea, and hereby support it. >> >> I'd appreciate if the invitation to join the drafting group is also >> posted on the IGC mailing list. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert > > From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri May 17 07:34:23 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 07:34:23 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards enhanced cooperation post-WTPF In-Reply-To: References: <2B475679-B68B-4674-A06A-506F30AFA806@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Great idea Joana! Sent from my iPhone On May 17, 2013, at 7:13 AM, Joana Varonferraz wrote: > Excellent, Jeremy! > I'm in. > > Next week many of us, myself including, will be in Stockholm, while others will be in Geneva. For the ones in Stockholm: it would be great if we get together to make the edits, so the interactions with the group in Geneva and elsewhere could be easier. > > Regarding the possibility of the debate go to CWG Internet. To play safe, isn't it also the case to request from the ITU SG that he fulfills the promise of making the request for opening it for multistakeholder participation? > > One last issue: as we dont want heart fillings or anything similar in best bits list. Isn't it good to think about a minimal process/modus operandi for proposing, drafting, commenting, signing statements in both situations: during events or preparing for them? > > All the best > > Joana > > --- ~ --- ~ --- ~ > Joana Varon Ferraz > Researcher > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV) > > > > On 17/05/2013, at 10:41, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> As you know, yesterday the WTPF concluded without a resolution on this proposal by Brazil titled "Operationalizing the role of Government in the multi-stakeholder framework for Internet Governance": >> >> http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0005/en >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gTewmlgXNTRYuPvIWylV2K39owgXH8st642I7IaXjh0/edit >> >> Two of the options for what could happen to it instead were either that it could go to the ITU's CWG Internet which is a government-only group that meets in a closed format with open consultations, or that it could go to the IGF. The objection raised to the latter option was that the IGF does not produce outputs. >> >> I think that it might be useful for us to quickly produce a note for next week's IGF to propose a method for discussing the resolution in a more output-oriented way, that could be an alternative to its discussion at the CWG Internet (but would explicitly not prevent it from also being discussed at the CSTD WG EC, given that it is also relatively multi-stakeholder). This would not require the wholesale reform of the IGF, but would be more of a trial run, to demonstrate what is possible - and in an instance where there is a tangible need to do so. >> >> I'm floating my intention to produce a first draft of this, which would then be open for comments and amendments. In our usual fashion, anyone could endorse it if they agreed. If one of us will be in Geneva for the MAG meeting and is willing to do so, they could introduce it there. (I'm starting this on the Best Bits list rather than the IGC list because the latter is a bit dysfunctional at the moment, but once a draft is ready we'll post it there too.) >> >> What do you think? >> >> -- >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Fri May 17 07:42:35 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 11:42:35 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards enhanced cooperation post-WTPF In-Reply-To: References: <2B475679-B68B-4674-A06A-506F30AFA806@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Color me "Stockholm".. but I am so oo booked!! N On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Carolina wrote: > Great idea Joana! > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 17, 2013, at 7:13 AM, Joana Varonferraz > wrote: > > Excellent, Jeremy! > I'm in. > > Next week many of us, myself including, will be in Stockholm, while others > will be in Geneva. For the ones in Stockholm: it would be great if we get > together to make the edits, so the interactions with the group in Geneva > and elsewhere could be easier. > > Regarding the possibility of the debate go to CWG Internet. To play safe, > isn't it also the case to request from the ITU SG that he fulfills the > promise of making the request for opening it for multistakeholder > participation? > > One last issue: as we dont want heart fillings or anything similar in best > bits list. Isn't it good to think about a minimal process/modus operandi > for proposing, drafting, commenting, signing statements in both situations: > during events or preparing for them? > > All the best > > Joana > > --- ~ --- ~ --- ~ > Joana Varon Ferraz > Researcher > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV) > > > > On 17/05/2013, at 10:41, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > As you know, yesterday the WTPF concluded without a resolution on this > proposal by Brazil titled "Operationalizing the role of Government in the > multi-stakeholder framework for Internet Governance": > > http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0005/en > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gTewmlgXNTRYuPvIWylV2K39owgXH8st642I7IaXjh0/edit > > Two of the options for what could happen to it instead were either that it > could go to the ITU's CWG Internet which is a government-only group that > meets in a closed format with open consultations, or that it could go to > the IGF. The objection raised to the latter option was that the IGF does > not produce outputs. > > I think that it might be useful for us to quickly produce a note for next > week's IGF to propose a method for discussing the resolution in a more > output-oriented way, that could be an alternative to its discussion at the > CWG Internet (but would explicitly not prevent it from also being discussed > at the CSTD WG EC, given that it is also relatively multi-stakeholder). > This would not require the wholesale reform of the IGF, but would be more > of a trial run, to demonstrate what is possible - and in an instance where > there is a tangible need to do so. > > I'm floating my intention to produce a first draft of this, which would > then be open for comments and amendments. In our usual fashion, anyone > could endorse it if they agreed. If one of us will be in Geneva for the > MAG meeting and is willing to do so, they could introduce it there. (I'm > starting this on the Best Bits list rather than the IGC list because the > latter is a bit dysfunctional at the moment, but once a draft is ready > we'll post it there too.) > > What do you think? > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri May 17 09:10:18 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 13:10:18 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards enhanced cooperation post-WTPF In-Reply-To: <2B475679-B68B-4674-A06A-506F30AFA806@ciroap.org> References: <2B475679-B68B-4674-A06A-506F30AFA806@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B219FD5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Go for it, perfect wedge issue/opportunity. Lee ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:41 AM To: Subject: [bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards enhanced cooperation post-WTPF As you know, yesterday the WTPF concluded without a resolution on this proposal by Brazil titled "Operationalizing the role of Government in the multi-stakeholder framework for Internet Governance": http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0005/en https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gTewmlgXNTRYuPvIWylV2K39owgXH8st642I7IaXjh0/edit Two of the options for what could happen to it instead were either that it could go to the ITU's CWG Internet which is a government-only group that meets in a closed format with open consultations, or that it could go to the IGF. The objection raised to the latter option was that the IGF does not produce outputs. I think that it might be useful for us to quickly produce a note for next week's IGF to propose a method for discussing the resolution in a more output-oriented way, that could be an alternative to its discussion at the CWG Internet (but would explicitly not prevent it from also being discussed at the CSTD WG EC, given that it is also relatively multi-stakeholder). This would not require the wholesale reform of the IGF, but would be more of a trial run, to demonstrate what is possible - and in an instance where there is a tangible need to do so. I'm floating my intention to produce a first draft of this, which would then be open for comments and amendments. In our usual fashion, anyone could endorse it if they agreed. If one of us will be in Geneva for the MAG meeting and is willing to do so, they could introduce it there. (I'm starting this on the Best Bits list rather than the IGC list because the latter is a bit dysfunctional at the moment, but once a draft is ready we'll post it there too.) What do you think? -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Fri May 10 01:06:17 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varonferraz) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 02:06:17 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Soft launch of new Best Bits website! In-Reply-To: <17F4DC10-55E3-4062-BE77-D60729112A6D@global-partners.co.uk> References: <518C64FE.9090500@ciroap.org> <17F4DC10-55E3-4062-BE77-D60729112A6D@global-partners.co.uk> Message-ID: <9163B07D-E210-4588-8D1A-E27269D1A170@varonferraz.com> Congrats, team! This will seed many fruits! --- ~ --- ~ --- ~ Joana Varon Ferraz Researcher Instituto de Tecnologia e Sociedade @joana_varon On 10/05/2013, at 02:03, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > Jeremy > Thanks for the all the work you've put into this > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 10 May 2013, at 04:10, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > >> Today we are soft-launching the new Best Bits website at http://bestbits.net. Big thanks to Deborah from Access, Lea from Global Partners and others who have been working on this with me! >> >> Here are some of the major new features (so far): >> An event calendar at http://bestbits.net/events/. New events can be added directly to this calendar, but we also subscribe to (currently six) calendars from other groups like Access, Fight for the Future and the Internet Governance Project. Events automatically imported from those calendars can be revealed by selecting "Events from other calendars" from the "Categories" drop-down menu. >> A fully-functional events calendar can also be embedded in other websites, in a number of different formats. You can also choose to embed or subscribe to just certain categories of events - for example, just IGF and ICANN events. Let me know if you want more information about this great feature! >> We are officially abolishing the hierarchy between "Lead organisers" and "Other supporting organisations" that used to be shown on the website. Any civil society organisation that has participated in the Best Bits network can now have their logo displayed as an organiser/supporter. So please email me your logo, or a link to it, if you would like yours added. >> Whereas previously the website was designed to highlight a single event, there are now multiple event pages available from a drop-down menu on the right of every page. Having said that, there are still some changes to be made (such as removal of the countdown ticker from the top right corner). >> We now have a Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus account! The Twitter account is _BestBits (with a leading underscore). The Facebook page is https://www.facebook.com/bestbits.net (events from the calendar can be published to Facebook automatically, though we haven't done that yet). The Google Plus community is at https://plus.google.com/communities/104087848331196964155. >> There are still some features to be added (many of these are due to constructive comments received): >> It will be possible to RSVP for events, so that you can see who else is planning to cover an event, such as the WTPF, for example. Funding options will also be shown.* >> Events in the calendar will soon be able to be linked to dedicated pages elsewhere on the site (eg. with a statement, full agenda, etc).* >> It will be possible to upload briefing documents for any event, and reports following from any event, and for these to be listed alongside the event and on the front page.* >> We will be adding some background information pages for each institution (eg. ITU, ICANN, IGF) and for each issue area (eg. human rights, standards). >> We want a brighter, friendlier looking background for the page, and to redo the theme for the calendar page, with a clearer division between months. >> There are some other bugs with the calendar; mainly, you can't set your timezone when viewing or adding events, which may mean times are represented wrongly. >> We need to find some 400x400 icons for events that fall into the categories of "non-institutional forums" and "events from other calendars". >> * For now, you can just add comments on the event to approximate for this functionality. >> Any volunteers who would like to help us work on the site are more than welcome, no matter whether or not you are technically skilled or have an eye for design - we can easily find something for you to do, such as helping add details to events. We are soon going to be establishing a loose, geographically-inclusive steering committee for Best Bits, and part of its work will be to establish a roster for such ongoing work. >> I hope you like the new website and look forward to receiving your comments! >> -- >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From valeriab at apc.org Fri May 17 14:43:11 2013 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 13:43:11 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards enhanced cooperation post-WTPF In-Reply-To: References: <2B475679-B68B-4674-A06A-506F30AFA806@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Great idea, Jeremy. Anriette and I will be in Geneva next week for the IGF OC and could introduce the note here. I agree with Joana that agreeing a procedure to develop statements would be very useful. It would not only ensure the legitimacy of the positions we develop and adopt but would be useful to share the work collaboratively. Valeria 2013/5/17 Joana Varonferraz > Excellent, Jeremy! > I'm in. > > Next week many of us, myself including, will be in Stockholm, while others > will be in Geneva. For the ones in Stockholm: it would be great if we get > together to make the edits, so the interactions with the group in Geneva > and elsewhere could be easier. > > Regarding the possibility of the debate go to CWG Internet. To play safe, > isn't it also the case to request from the ITU SG that he fulfills the > promise of making the request for opening it for multistakeholder > participation? > > One last issue: as we dont want heart fillings or anything similar in best > bits list. Isn't it good to think about a minimal process/modus operandi > for proposing, drafting, commenting, signing statements in both situations: > during events or preparing for them? > > All the best > > Joana > > --- ~ --- ~ --- ~ > Joana Varon Ferraz > Researcher > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV) > > > > On 17/05/2013, at 10:41, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > As you know, yesterday the WTPF concluded without a resolution on this > proposal by Brazil titled "Operationalizing the role of Government in the > multi-stakeholder framework for Internet Governance": > > http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0005/en > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gTewmlgXNTRYuPvIWylV2K39owgXH8st642I7IaXjh0/edit > > Two of the options for what could happen to it instead were either that it > could go to the ITU's CWG Internet which is a government-only group that > meets in a closed format with open consultations, or that it could go to > the IGF. The objection raised to the latter option was that the IGF does > not produce outputs. > > I think that it might be useful for us to quickly produce a note for next > week's IGF to propose a method for discussing the resolution in a more > output-oriented way, that could be an alternative to its discussion at the > CWG Internet (but would explicitly not prevent it from also being discussed > at the CSTD WG EC, given that it is also relatively multi-stakeholder). > This would not require the wholesale reform of the IGF, but would be more > of a trial run, to demonstrate what is possible - and in an instance where > there is a tangible need to do so. > > I'm floating my intention to produce a first draft of this, which would > then be open for comments and amendments. In our usual fashion, anyone > could endorse it if they agreed. If one of us will be in Geneva for the > MAG meeting and is willing to do so, they could introduce it there. (I'm > starting this on the Best Bits list rather than the IGC list because the > latter is a bit dysfunctional at the moment, but once a draft is ready > we'll post it there too.) > > What do you think? > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Fri May 17 20:06:07 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 20:06:07 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards enhanced cooperation post-WTPF In-Reply-To: References: <2B475679-B68B-4674-A06A-506F30AFA806@ciroap.org> Message-ID: +1 on the idea of a drafting a document and to Joana and Valeria's proposal to develop procedures. It wouldn't need to be anything overly formal, but just something to guide us around the recent challenges. I'm happy to contribute to both efforts. Cheers, Deborah On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > Great idea, Jeremy. > > Anriette and I will be in Geneva next week for the IGF OC and could > introduce the note here. > > I agree with Joana that agreeing a procedure to develop statements would > be very useful. It would not only ensure the legitimacy of the positions we > develop and adopt but would be useful to share the work collaboratively. > > Valeria > > > > 2013/5/17 Joana Varonferraz > >> Excellent, Jeremy! >> I'm in. >> >> Next week many of us, myself including, will be in Stockholm, while >> others will be in Geneva. For the ones in Stockholm: it would be great if >> we get together to make the edits, so the interactions with the group in >> Geneva and elsewhere could be easier. >> >> Regarding the possibility of the debate go to CWG Internet. To play >> safe, isn't it also the case to request from the ITU SG that he fulfills >> the promise of making the request for opening it for multistakeholder >> participation? >> >> One last issue: as we dont want heart fillings or anything similar in >> best bits list. Isn't it good to think about a minimal process/modus >> operandi for proposing, drafting, commenting, signing statements in both >> situations: during events or preparing for them? >> >> All the best >> >> Joana >> >> --- ~ --- ~ --- ~ >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> Researcher >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV) >> >> >> >> On 17/05/2013, at 10:41, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> As you know, yesterday the WTPF concluded without a resolution on this >> proposal by Brazil titled "Operationalizing the role of Government in the >> multi-stakeholder framework for Internet Governance": >> >> http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0005/en >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gTewmlgXNTRYuPvIWylV2K39owgXH8st642I7IaXjh0/edit >> >> Two of the options for what could happen to it instead were either that >> it could go to the ITU's CWG Internet which is a government-only group that >> meets in a closed format with open consultations, or that it could go to >> the IGF. The objection raised to the latter option was that the IGF does >> not produce outputs. >> >> I think that it might be useful for us to quickly produce a note for next >> week's IGF to propose a method for discussing the resolution in a more >> output-oriented way, that could be an alternative to its discussion at the >> CWG Internet (but would explicitly not prevent it from also being discussed >> at the CSTD WG EC, given that it is also relatively multi-stakeholder). >> This would not require the wholesale reform of the IGF, but would be more >> of a trial run, to demonstrate what is possible - and in an instance where >> there is a tangible need to do so. >> >> I'm floating my intention to produce a first draft of this, which would >> then be open for comments and amendments. In our usual fashion, anyone >> could endorse it if they agreed. If one of us will be in Geneva for the >> MAG meeting and is willing to do so, they could introduce it there. (I'm >> starting this on the Best Bits list rather than the IGC list because the >> latter is a bit dysfunctional at the moment, but once a draft is ready >> we'll post it there too.) >> >> What do you think? >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> > > > -- > Valeria Betancourt > Directora / Manager > Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and > Information > Policy Programme > Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for > Progressive Communications, APC > http://www.apc.org > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat May 18 09:44:34 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 15:44:34 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards enhanced cooperation post-WTPF In-Reply-To: <2B475679-B68B-4674-A06A-506F30AFA806@ciroap.org> References: <2B475679-B68B-4674-A06A-506F30AFA806@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <2BA598A7-E520-4499-BF42-6A90E4BCD318@ciroap.org> OK, here is the draft text in an etherpad: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/igf-opinions A proposed schedule: Comments and edits close at 09:00 GMT on 20 May 2012, final text to be moved to the Best Bits website. Please discuss in this thread if your comments are too long to be made directly in the pad. Endorsements collected from 10:00 GMT on 20 May 2012 via the Best Bits website similar to the WTPF statement. Proposal delivered at IGF open consultation meeting on 21 May 2012 with endorsements as existing at that time. Please have at it! On 17/05/2013, at 10:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > As you know, yesterday the WTPF concluded without a resolution on this proposal by Brazil titled "Operationalizing the role of Government in the multi-stakeholder framework for Internet Governance": > > http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0005/en > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gTewmlgXNTRYuPvIWylV2K39owgXH8st642I7IaXjh0/edit > > Two of the options for what could happen to it instead were either that it could go to the ITU's CWG Internet which is a government-only group that meets in a closed format with open consultations, or that it could go to the IGF. The objection raised to the latter option was that the IGF does not produce outputs. > > I think that it might be useful for us to quickly produce a note for next week's IGF to propose a method for discussing the resolution in a more output-oriented way, that could be an alternative to its discussion at the CWG Internet (but would explicitly not prevent it from also being discussed at the CSTD WG EC, given that it is also relatively multi-stakeholder). This would not require the wholesale reform of the IGF, but would be more of a trial run, to demonstrate what is possible - and in an instance where there is a tangible need to do so. > > I'm floating my intention to produce a first draft of this, which would then be open for comments and amendments. In our usual fashion, anyone could endorse it if they agreed. If one of us will be in Geneva for the MAG meeting and is willing to do so, they could introduce it there. (I'm starting this on the Best Bits list rather than the IGC list because the latter is a bit dysfunctional at the moment, but once a draft is ready we'll post it there too.) > > What do you think? > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Sat May 18 15:11:05 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 21:11:05 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards enhanced cooperation post-WTPF In-Reply-To: References: <2B475679-B68B-4674-A06A-506F30AFA806@ciroap.org> Message-ID: You can count me in for the drafting also, Jeremy. As for the proposal to draft rules for procedures, I think it's a great idea for statements that we want to call Best Bits statements. I think we have to be realistic, however, that not all statements that will be shared with this list will necessarily reach that stage. In the case of the statements some of us made collectively at the WTPF, for example, we were drafting as we were running, and I think if we would have needed to follow a formal set of rules that would ensure all on the list would be fully consulted, we might never have been able to come up with a statement at all. I think it's important to keep that flexibility open, even if I think it's a good idea for all of us to always share our statements with each other, whether we can take more input into account or not. Best, Anja (from Frankfurt airport) On May 18, 2013 2:06 AM, "Deborah Brown" wrote: > +1 on the idea of a drafting a document and to Joana and Valeria's > proposal to develop procedures. It wouldn't need to be anything overly > formal, but just something to guide us around the recent challenges. I'm > happy to contribute to both efforts. > Cheers, > Deborah > > > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > >> Great idea, Jeremy. >> >> Anriette and I will be in Geneva next week for the IGF OC and could >> introduce the note here. >> >> I agree with Joana that agreeing a procedure to develop statements would >> be very useful. It would not only ensure the legitimacy of the positions we >> develop and adopt but would be useful to share the work collaboratively. >> >> Valeria >> >> >> >> 2013/5/17 Joana Varonferraz >> >>> Excellent, Jeremy! >>> I'm in. >>> >>> Next week many of us, myself including, will be in Stockholm, while >>> others will be in Geneva. For the ones in Stockholm: it would be great if >>> we get together to make the edits, so the interactions with the group in >>> Geneva and elsewhere could be easier. >>> >>> Regarding the possibility of the debate go to CWG Internet. To play >>> safe, isn't it also the case to request from the ITU SG that he fulfills >>> the promise of making the request for opening it for multistakeholder >>> participation? >>> >>> One last issue: as we dont want heart fillings or anything similar in >>> best bits list. Isn't it good to think about a minimal process/modus >>> operandi for proposing, drafting, commenting, signing statements in both >>> situations: during events or preparing for them? >>> >>> All the best >>> >>> Joana >>> >>> --- ~ --- ~ --- ~ >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> Researcher >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV) >>> >>> >>> >>> On 17/05/2013, at 10:41, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>> As you know, yesterday the WTPF concluded without a resolution on this >>> proposal by Brazil titled "Operationalizing the role of Government in the >>> multi-stakeholder framework for Internet Governance": >>> >>> http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0005/en >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gTewmlgXNTRYuPvIWylV2K39owgXH8st642I7IaXjh0/edit >>> >>> Two of the options for what could happen to it instead were either that >>> it could go to the ITU's CWG Internet which is a government-only group that >>> meets in a closed format with open consultations, or that it could go to >>> the IGF. The objection raised to the latter option was that the IGF does >>> not produce outputs. >>> >>> I think that it might be useful for us to quickly produce a note for >>> next week's IGF to propose a method for discussing the resolution in a more >>> output-oriented way, that could be an alternative to its discussion at the >>> CWG Internet (but would explicitly not prevent it from also being discussed >>> at the CSTD WG EC, given that it is also relatively multi-stakeholder). >>> This would not require the wholesale reform of the IGF, but would be more >>> of a trial run, to demonstrate what is possible - and in an instance where >>> there is a tangible need to do so. >>> >>> I'm floating my intention to produce a first draft of this, which would >>> then be open for comments and amendments. In our usual fashion, anyone >>> could endorse it if they agreed. If one of us will be in Geneva for the >>> MAG meeting and is willing to do so, they could introduce it there. (I'm >>> starting this on the Best Bits list rather than the IGC list because the >>> latter is a bit dysfunctional at the moment, but once a draft is ready >>> we'll post it there too.) >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>> Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Valeria Betancourt >> Directora / Manager >> Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and >> Information >> Policy Programme >> Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for >> Progressive Communications, APC >> http://www.apc.org >> > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy at apc.org Sat May 18 23:38:21 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 15:38:21 +1200 Subject: [bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards enhanced cooperation post-WTPF In-Reply-To: <2BA598A7-E520-4499-BF42-6A90E4BCD318@ciroap.org> References: <2B475679-B68B-4674-A06A-506F30AFA806@ciroap.org> <2BA598A7-E520-4499-BF42-6A90E4BCD318@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5198492D.1000906@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 hi Jeremy - thanks for the work in developing this and thinking innovatively about how to take this opportunity further. In general, I like the idea of taking this specific proposal to the IGF for multi-stakeholder opinions as ways to shape internet related policy. But I caution against proposing this as a broad based solution to all of the matters outlined in the preface to the proposal as drafted. I think it better to specifically link the idea to just this Brazil proposal - that will allow the idea and process to be tested and to evolve. Perhaps I am mis-reading it, but I interpreted the framing of the proposed process "a mechanism for beginning to implement the CSTD Working Group's recommendation" for the IGF to "develop more tangible outputs" as applicable to any proposal that might emerge ... I think that wide framing will inevitably lead to concerns about the issues it might not be suitable for and distract from the basic good idea for this initiaitve now. Also, I am not sure that going to the specifics of workshops, flipcharts etc is a good idea either - I can see governments balking at that and getting bogged down in detail, rather than responding to the basic good idea of developing multi-stakeholder opinions together. I suggest keep it more general and then open discussion on what the methods should be, knowing that BB has a more detailed set of proposals ready to table. Another thought is that it would be good to float this with the Brazil government - I recall that they brought the IBSA proposal to the IGF in 2011 and it did cause significant distraction - for many reasons - but they may say they have tried this.... Sorry to comment and run - i am between flights on my way to the Stockholm Forum - but think really it needs to be tightened. Cheers Joy On 19/05/2013 1:44 a.m., Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > OK, here is the draft text in an etherpad: > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/igf-opinions > > A proposed schedule: > > * Comments and edits close at 09:00 GMT on 20 May 2012, final text to be moved to the Best Bits website. Please discuss in this thread if your comments are too long to be made directly in the pad. > * Endorsements collected from 10:00 GMT on 20 May 2012 via the Best Bits website similar to the WTPF statement. > * Proposal delivered at IGF open consultation meeting on 21 May 2012 with endorsements as existing at that time. > > > Please have at it! > > On 17/05/2013, at 10:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > >> As you know, yesterday the WTPF concluded without a resolution on this proposal by Brazil titled "Operationalizing the role of Government in the multi-stakeholder framework for Internet Governance": >> >> http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0005/en >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gTewmlgXNTRYuPvIWylV2K39owgXH8st642I7IaXjh0/edit >> >> Two of the options for what could happen to it instead were either that it could go to the ITU's CWG Internet which is a government-only group that meets in a closed format with open consultations, or that it could go to the IGF. The objection raised to the latter option was that the IGF does not produce outputs. >> >> I think that it might be useful for us to quickly produce a note for next week's IGF to propose a method for discussing the resolution in a more output-oriented way, that could be an alternative to its discussion at the CWG Internet (but would explicitly not prevent it from also being discussed at the CSTD WG EC, given that it is also relatively multi-stakeholder). This would not require the wholesale reform of the IGF, but would be more of a trial run, to demonstrate what is possible - and in an instance where there is a tangible need to do so. >> >> I'm floating my intention to produce a first draft of this, which would then be open for comments and amendments. In our usual fashion, anyone could endorse it if they agreed. If one of us will be in Geneva for the MAG meeting and is willing to do so, they could introduce it there. (I'm starting this on the Best Bits list rather than the IGC list because the latter is a bit dysfunctional at the moment, but once a draft is ready we'll post it there too.) >> >> What do you think? >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRmEktAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqvkcH/j2xyGqGo+JgFnn4fjmx8ly8 n7TULFrIJbp416R890k3wX+yewlyTxvwqs+EQEozvLocGYdCBdReDrEPfIVc2Tf9 EuG+8Uf3ad7BYvUMmTwkry/FJtHxa8Vw0BFiADDmRbNzx+PDcvvbI2TVO6MrCqGe lsL4JKtzQu9XP4147b3ECvGD16UXbgbv0z/x2hm1wMaYOWduFrOVny6vpX4lHH/3 67JzRpmdZJrYBfVdK/jbR6G7P75uHHd4aTDON7oa5lmPgLuYIB7SFST9s4C7SFaX dmbvCaCw4+PKZeWXIcs3iodfpX2OPiFg3pCHenEdbEaSjBZA8jifm5t6+W3K32Q= =DOwu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Sun May 19 02:26:45 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 08:26:45 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards enhanced cooperation post-WTPF Message-ID: Count me in too. Anriette Sent from Samsung MobileAnja Kovacs wrote:You can count me in for the drafting also, Jeremy. As for the proposal to draft rules for procedures, I think it's a great idea for statements that we want to call Best Bits statements. I think we have to be realistic, however, that not all statements that will be shared with this list will necessarily reach that stage. In the case of the statements some of us made collectively at the WTPF, for example, we were drafting as we were running, and I think if we would have needed to follow a formal set of rules that would ensure all on the list would be fully consulted, we might never have been able to come up with a statement at all. I think it's important to keep that flexibility open, even if I think it's a good idea for all of us to always share our statements with each other, whether we can take more input into account or not. Best, Anja (from Frankfurt airport) On May 18, 2013 2:06 AM, "Deborah Brown" wrote: +1 on the idea of a drafting a document and to Joana and Valeria's proposal to develop procedures. It wouldn't need to be anything overly formal, but just something to guide us around the recent challenges. I'm happy to contribute to both efforts.  Cheers,  Deborah  On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: Great idea, Jeremy. Anriette and I will be in Geneva next week for the IGF OC and could introduce the note here. I agree with Joana that agreeing a procedure to develop statements would be very useful. It would not only ensure the legitimacy of the positions we develop and adopt but would be useful to share the work collaboratively. Valeria 2013/5/17 Joana Varonferraz Excellent, Jeremy! I'm in.  Next week many of us, myself including, will be in Stockholm, while others will be in Geneva. For the ones in Stockholm:  it would be great if we get together to make the edits, so the interactions with the group in Geneva and elsewhere could be easier.  Regarding the possibility of the debate go to CWG Internet. To play safe, isn't it also the case to request from the ITU SG that he fulfills the promise of making the request for opening it for multistakeholder participation? One last issue: as we dont want heart fillings or anything similar in best bits list. Isn't it good to think about a minimal process/modus operandi for proposing, drafting, commenting, signing statements in both situations: during events or preparing for them? All the best Joana --- ~ --- ~ --- ~  Joana Varon Ferraz Researcher Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV) On 17/05/2013, at 10:41, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: As you know, yesterday the WTPF concluded without a resolution on this proposal by Brazil titled "Operationalizing the role of Government in the multi-stakeholder framework for Internet Governance": http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0005/en https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gTewmlgXNTRYuPvIWylV2K39owgXH8st642I7IaXjh0/edit Two of the options for what could happen to it instead were either that it could go to the ITU's CWG Internet which is a government-only group that meets in a closed format with open consultations, or that it could go to the IGF.  The objection raised to the latter option was that the IGF does not produce outputs. I think that it might be useful for us to quickly produce a note for next week's IGF to propose a method for discussing the resolution in a more output-oriented way, that could be an alternative to its discussion at the CWG Internet (but would explicitly not prevent it from also being discussed at the CSTD WG EC, given that it is also relatively multi-stakeholder).  This would not require the wholesale reform of the IGF, but would be more of a trial run, to demonstrate what is possible - and in an instance where there is a tangible need to do so. I'm floating my intention to produce a first draft of this, which would then be open for comments and amendments.  In our usual fashion, anyone could endorse it if they agreed.  If one of us will be in Geneva for the MAG meeting and is willing to do so, they could introduce it there.  (I'm starting this on the Best Bits list rather than the IGC list because the latter is a bit dysfunctional at the moment, but once a draft is ready we'll post it there too.) What do you think? --  Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun May 19 03:43:44 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 15:43:44 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards enhanced cooperation post-WTPF In-Reply-To: <5198492D.1000906@apc.org> References: <2B475679-B68B-4674-A06A-506F30AFA806@ciroap.org> <2BA598A7-E520-4499-BF42-6A90E4BCD318@ciroap.org> <5198492D.1000906@apc.org> Message-ID: <8092AFC3-A5F3-4358-8AA9-FEF9FEEFED7E@ciroap.org> On 19/05/2013, at 11:38 AM, joy wrote: > hi Jeremy - thanks for the work in developing this and thinking innovatively about how to take this opportunity further. > In general, I like the idea of taking this specific proposal to the IGF for multi-stakeholder opinions as ways to shape internet related policy. But I caution against proposing this as a broad based solution to all of the matters outlined in the preface to the proposal as drafted. > I think it better to specifically link the idea to just this Brazil proposal - that will allow the idea and process to be tested and to evolve. Perhaps I am mis-reading it, but I interpreted the framing of the proposed process "a mechanism for beginning to implement the CSTD Working Group's recommendation" for the IGF to "develop more tangible outputs" as applicable to any proposal that might emerge ... > I think that wide framing will inevitably lead to concerns about the issues it might not be suitable for and distract from the basic good idea for this initiaitve now. > Also, I am not sure that going to the specifics of workshops, flipcharts etc is a good idea either - I can see governments balking at that and getting bogged down in detail, rather than responding to the basic good idea of developing multi-stakeholder opinions together. > I suggest keep it more general and then open discussion on what the methods should be, knowing that BB has a more detailed set of proposals ready to table. > Another thought is that it would be good to float this with the Brazil government - I recall that they brought the IBSA proposal to the IGF in 2011 and it did cause significant distraction - for many reasons - but they may say they have tried this.... > Sorry to comment and run - i am between flights on my way to the Stockholm Forum - but think really it needs to be tightened. Can you work on changes to the text to tighten it up? If not I will be able to have a go tomorrow, though I have a deadline for a proposal that is also tomorrow so some assistance would be helpful. Thanks. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun May 19 03:49:04 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 15:49:04 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Proposed constructive contribution towards enhanced cooperation post-WTPF In-Reply-To: <5198492D.1000906@apc.org> References: <2B475679-B68B-4674-A06A-506F30AFA806@ciroap.org> <2BA598A7-E520-4499-BF42-6A90E4BCD318@ciroap.org> <5198492D.1000906@apc.org> Message-ID: On 19/05/2013, at 11:38 AM, joy wrote: > hi Jeremy - thanks for the work in developing this and thinking innovatively about how to take this opportunity further. > In general, I like the idea of taking this specific proposal to the IGF for multi-stakeholder opinions as ways to shape internet related policy. But I caution against proposing this as a broad based solution to all of the matters outlined in the preface to the proposal as drafted. > I think it better to specifically link the idea to just this Brazil proposal - that will allow the idea and process to be tested and to evolve. Perhaps I am mis-reading it, but I interpreted the framing of the proposed process "a mechanism for beginning to implement the CSTD Working Group's recommendation" for the IGF to "develop more tangible outputs" as applicable to any proposal that might emerge ... > I think that wide framing will inevitably lead to concerns about the issues it might not be suitable for and distract from the basic good idea for this initiaitve now. > Also, I am not sure that going to the specifics of workshops, flipcharts etc is a good idea either - I can see governments balking at that and getting bogged down in detail, rather than responding to the basic good idea of developing multi-stakeholder opinions together. > I suggest keep it more general and then open discussion on what the methods should be, knowing that BB has a more detailed set of proposals ready to table. > Another thought is that it would be good to float this with the Brazil government - I recall that they brought the IBSA proposal to the IGF in 2011 and it did cause significant distraction - for many reasons - but they may say they have tried this.... > Sorry to comment and run - i am between flights on my way to the Stockholm Forum - but think really it needs to be tightened. Can you work on changes to the text to tighten it up? If not I will be able to have a go tomorrow, though I have a deadline for a proposal that is also tomorrow so some assistance would be helpful. Thanks. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sun May 19 03:47:53 2013 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 15:47:53 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions In-Reply-To: <5197B3D4.3030209@itforchange.net> References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <5197B3D4.3030209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 19/05/2013, at 1:01 AM, parminder wrote: > If it is about the Brazilian proposal, would you explain why do you find this particular issue is of such an outstanding significance over so many others.... I for one could never clearly understand the intent and significance of the Brazilian proposal, and I think different players are making different things of it. I dont see it as very significant thing and I am happy to let it die or disappear, I prefer to discuss issues which have some clarity about them. Brazilian proposal, and its intent, and different people's take on it, simply do not make clear sense to me. Taking such a rather unclear issue to the IGF as the first test of IGF's recommendation making capacity to me doesnt sound as an exciting idea. A good issue to test IGF's recommendation capacity will be such a one which everyone understands in the same way but people still have different views about it. And something which is really important. And Brazilian proposal seems to be as one of the worst candidates. However, I am happy to be explained the meaning and significance of the Brazilian proposal. I think it is one of the best candidates precisely because it is relatively uncontentious, yet there is a strong momentum to continue to work on it and the IGF would be boosted by hosting that work. Even ISOC and the United States indicated that they would probably support it although they would be proposing line-by-line amendments. We got quite close to agreement on it at the WTPF, that it is a safe bet that all stakeholders can reach agreement on it, which could open the door to the IGF working on more contentious sets of principles in the future (though this first proposal is just couched as a one-off experiment). Also I can't agree that it's unimportant; the principle of finding constructive ways to integrate governmental participation into a range of multi-stakeholder Internet governance processes is a worthy one. Perhaps the wording can be further improved, though and this would be provide an opportunity to do that. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate and geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 19 04:16:51 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 13:46:51 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions In-Reply-To: References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <5197B3D4.3030209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51988A73.2090209@itforchange.net> On Sunday 19 May 2013 01:17 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 19/05/2013, at 1:01 AM, parminder wrote: > >> If it is about the Brazilian proposal, would you explain why do you find this particular issue is of such an outstanding significance over so many others.... I for one could never clearly understand the intent and significance of the Brazilian proposal, and I think different players are making different things of it. I dont see it as very significant thing and I am happy to let it die or disappear, I prefer to discuss issues which have some clarity about them. Brazilian proposal, and its intent, and different people's take on it, simply do not make clear sense to me. Taking such a rather unclear issue to the IGF as the first test of IGF's recommendation making capacity to me doesnt sound as an exciting idea. A good issue to test IGF's recommendation capacity will be such a one which everyone understands in the same way but people still have different views about it. And something which is really important. And Brazilian proposal seems to be as one of the worst candidates. However, I am happy to be explained the meaning and significance of the Brazilian proposal. > > I think it is one of the best candidates precisely because it is relatively uncontentious, yet there is a strong momentum to continue to work on it and the IGF would be boosted by hosting that work. Even ISOC and the United States indicated that they would probably support it although they would be proposing line-by-line amendments. We got quite close to agreement on it at the WTPF, that it is a safe bet that all stakeholders can reach agreement on it, which could open the door to the IGF working on more contentious sets of principles in the future (though this first proposal is just couched as a one-off experiment). Also I can't agree that it's unimportant; the principle of finding constructive ways to integrate governmental participation into a range of multi-stakeholder Internet governance processes is a worthy one. To clarify, it this about gov participation in ICANN and other such technical management/ governance systems? That it appears was the original intention of the Brazilian proposal, along with proposing that somehow ITU takes a central role in enabling perhaps even fronting such participation.... Is this the main thrust here? If not what is this all about? What exactly is meant by 'range of multistakeholder Internet governance processes' in which governmental participation is to be integrated... Which processes are meant here. I have a feeling that at this moment different people are trying to place different burdens on this above statement.. You are saying it is relatively uncontentious... while I am, first of all, not able to understand what is it about ... I cant say it is important or not without being clear what it is about.... I just felt it is unimportant becuase I cannot really get what is it really saying. So, if you can clarify that would greatly help. parminder > Perhaps the wording can be further improved, though and this would be provide an opportunity to do that. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate and geek > host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > > > From parminder at itforchange.net Fri May 10 05:21:20 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 14:51:20 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society statement to the ITU Sec-Gen ahead of WTPF 2013 - PLEASE ENDORSE AND SHARE In-Reply-To: <518C5CFE.8010801@ciroap.org> References: <518C5CFE.8010801@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <518CBC10.1000108@itforchange.net> It is unfortunate that an attempt was not made to share a pre-final statement with the group. I tend to disagree, on principle, with adopting 'take it or leave it' approaches to development of statements. This was not a controversial area, and we could have tried drafting a common statement... Anyway, a few comments One, can you pl provide the link to the quoted November statement - which statement and whose statement is this ... Secondly, I could not understand the reason and implications of the following sentence "Rather than seeking to address additional issues, we urge the Secretary-General to move forward in engaging all stakeholders to implement these opinions." Why should civil society recommend that ITU takes up issues like Internet Exchanges and IPv6 adoption (subject matter of the 'opinions') and not for instance net neutrality, which is not among the subjects covered in the opinions. Why this artificial line about what Internet issues ITU may work on? Thanks parminder On Friday 10 May 2013 08:05 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > With the ITU's World Telecommunication and ICT Policy Forum (WTPF) > coming up next week, I would like to encourage everyone to read and - > if they agree with it - to endorse this statement, which a group of us > who will be participating at WTPF have drafted collaboratively: > > http://bestbits.net/wtpf-2013 > > Please forgive us for not having a broader drafting process this time, > but it was mainly due to shortness of time. In any case, the text has > been drafted consistently with the previous Best Bits statement to the > ITU. > > Please feel free to reach out into other networks for endorsements, > too. There are buttons on the page that will enable you to share > automatically with Twitter and Facebook. > > I am currently working to overcome a technical limitation which means > that individuals' names must be listed where an organisation has > endorsed. I plan to keep working on this today, but didn't want to > hold up distribution of the statement any longer. > > Thanks to Deborah, Joana and everyone else who helped to put this > together so quickly. The full text is shown below: > > We reaffirm the goals and principles of the statement submitted to the > ITU Secretariat in November 2012 in which we urged member states to > implement inclusive and transparent ITU processes and uphold and > protect the public interest and fundamental human rights. > > These fundamental human rights must be at the forefront of internet > governance and ITU convenings, including the WTPF. Internet policy > topics, including but not limited to affordable access, development, > openness and access to knowledge, net neutrality, privacy, and > security must be considered through the framework of human rights, in > particular freedom of expression. > > We welcome progress made by the Secretary-General and the Informal > Experts Group in achieving consensus on the six draft opinions. These > begin to address important goals, including the expansion of key > internet infrastructure in order to reduce costs for those in need; > the reaffirmation of multistakeholder processes; and the promotion of > transparent and inclusive enhanced cooperation. Rather than seeking to > address additional issues, we urge the Secretary-General to move > forward in engaging all stakeholders to implement these opinions. > > Unfortunately, we must object to the Secretary-General's report's > framing of the debate on multistakeholderism. The WTPF has not yet > achieved open and participatory internet policy making. In endeavoring > to foster multistakeholder consensus, it is critical that the WTPF > facilitate civil society's participation as an independent and > authoritative voice. The ITU should, for this and future fora, bring > all stakeholders together to work on implementing WTPF opinions at the > national, regional, and global levels. This means creating spaces for > civil society to express their views, for example through an online > platform for comment that is part of the official WTPF record, through > speaking rights as was done during the WSIS process, as well as > providing for both remote participation and live webcasting of the > WTPF meeting. Video, audio, and text transcripts will further enables > participation by all, including persons with disabilities. > > Open and transparent participation will augment the critical efforts > toward broadband connectivity, IXP promotion, enhanced cooperation, > and IPv6 deployment that the WTPF is undertaking with these opinions. > We look forward to working together with the ITU as it pursues these > policies and institutes a multistakeholder structure that can achieve > the goals articulated herein in a manner consistent with the public > interest and fundamental human rights. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at uzh.ch Sun May 19 05:32:01 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 11:32:01 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions In-Reply-To: References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <5197B3D4.3030209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <11DFF51C-49FA-47A3-A0B0-D7ABA992462E@uzh.ch> Hi Jeremy On May 19, 2013, at 9:47 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I think it is one of the best candidates precisely because it is relatively uncontentious, yet there is a strong momentum to continue to work on it and the IGF would be boosted by hosting that work. Even ISOC and the United States indicated that they would probably support it although they would be proposing line-by-line amendments. We got quite close to agreement on it at the WTPF, that it is a safe bet that all stakeholders can reach agreement on it, which could open the door to the IGF working on more contentious sets of principles in the future (though this first proposal is just couched as a one-off experiment). Also I can't agree that it's unimportant; the principle of finding constructive ways to integrate governmental participation into a range of multi-stakeholder Internet governance processes is a worthy one. Perhaps the wording can be further improved, though and this would be provide an opportunity to do that. > I have a different understanding of what we saw go down at WTPF. I don't think we got close to agreement on it at all, and that the actors mentioned said they'd want line by line amendments not in order to continue discussion of this particular text, but rather to avoid it. Moreover, while I understand your institutional and substantive interests in pushing this, there may be some constraints that merit consideration. For example, First, the WTPF was convened pursuant to a Plenipotentiary decision and may be discussed at the 11-21 June Council meeting. The WTPF Chairman's Report includes the Brazil-based discussion as agreed and notes twice the recommendation of WG 3's chair that the discussion be taken up in the CWG on Internet Policy. In his closing statement, Toure called for the CWG to be "opened up" on the same basis as the WTPF as Sweden proposed last year so the issues could be discussed in a manner ITU calls multistakeholder. Meanwhile, as was noted in the meeting, there are no mechanisms for the ITU to formally forward to another entity a (failed) proposal of one of its bodies for consideration. So while governments who wanted to set aside the proposal suggested we should all "talk about the issues" at IGF, the ITU probably will still go forward with its own process in some manner. In which context, many countries (and not necessarily just developing countries) might object to the idea of the IGF somehow formally taking up an internal ITU text, especially one still under discussion. Bottom line, I can see some governments saying sure let's chit chat about the broad topic at an IGF main session, but do you really think they'd agree to a formal debate and adoption process regarding an ITU-originated document? Second, the original Brazilian proposal was pretty incendiary because it came from Anatel, which has a stake in promoting the ITU's role in Internet and everything else. Other parts of the Brazilian government we deal with in IGF, ICANN etc. have somewhat different orientations, and it seemed in Geneva that this was a slightly awkward matter. I spoke with the delegation Wednesday evening about cutting out the non-starter stuff, acknowledging the role of other bodies like the RIRs in facilitating participation, and just saying ITU should play its role alongside others, and it was clear they and they wanted a way out and were open to such an approach. I believe they had pretty much the same conversation with many others. Next morning they came back with a text that says, well, ITU should play a role alongside others, and even this couldn't go forward. So while Brazil undoubtedly remains keenly interested in the broad topic being discussed further in multiple settings, are we sure it'd consider this particular late night text to be the vehicle it wants to carry the load? They and other like minded governments might like to recalibrate and work out a formulation in consultation with other partners. Brazil's been one of CS' best partners and supporters, so at a minimum I'd first seek dialogue with them to see what they're thinking could be the way forward, rather than presume to just unilaterally propose an IGF process about their failed Opinion. Third, I don't see how the MAG could possibly agree by COB Thursday to restructure the IGF process so as to enable the process you seek. We already have identified candidate main session topics at the February meeting in Paris; the new one you're suggesting would involve substantial restructuring of the IGF's agenda and modalities that no governments or other actors have discussed internally, much less taken a position on; the MAG was just renewed and has to reboot with new members; and probably a majority of MAG members are spending today trying to burn through and grade 419 pages of workshop proposals by tomorrow so we can decide on them Wednesday-Thursday. The MAG will be rather preoccupied, to put it mildly. Again, I understand your interest in seeing the IGF reformed to do this sort of thing, and in the broad topic addressed by the Brazilian proposal, but all in all it's not clear trying to make this happen is going to be a good use of peoples' time. Restructuring the IGF and enhancing the role of ITU and governments in IG are both big topics that would probably require longer processes of consideration and development than is possible for the Bali program. Best Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Sun May 19 05:58:39 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 09:58:39 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions In-Reply-To: <11DFF51C-49FA-47A3-A0B0-D7ABA992462E@uzh.ch> References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <5197B3D4.3030209@itforchange.net> <11DFF51C-49FA-47A3-A0B0-D7ABA992462E@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Hi people, The opinion from Brazil is on "Operationalizing the role of Government in the multi-stakeholder framework for Internet Governance", which is not the same as "Role of Government in Internet Governance" Depending on where you are engaging from, and at what levels one engages, opinions can differ. Because I am engaged at National, Sub-regional, regional and global Internet Governance process, I am inclined toward thinking that the Br opinion is worth more discussions and even adoption. Between Thursday and Friday, I had a lot of side consultations with many who were physically at WTPF. The key issue may not be "Time to discuss" the Etherpad draft put it initially on http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/igf-opinions, so I have added some tiny edits. The issue is the same: with WCIT, WTPF and possible other Fora. That of government engaging constructively, with recognition of other stakeholders and their place as equals within the MS process of IG. There countries where governments DO NOT engage at all. There are others where government is ALL. I believe that the Br opinion is one that gives the basis for something better On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 9:32 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Jeremy > > On May 19, 2013, at 9:47 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I think it is one of the best candidates precisely because it is > relatively uncontentious, yet there is a strong momentum to continue to > work on it and the IGF would be boosted by hosting that work. Even ISOC > and the United States indicated that they would probably support it > although they would be proposing line-by-line amendments. We got quite > close to agreement on it at the WTPF, that it is a safe bet that all > stakeholders can reach agreement on it, which could open the door to the > IGF working on more contentious sets of principles in the future (though > this first proposal is just couched as a one-off experiment). Also I can't > agree that it's unimportant; the principle of finding constructive ways to > integrate governmental participation into a range of multi-stakeholder > Internet governance processes is a worthy one. Perhaps the wording can be > further improved, though and this would be provide an opportunity to do > that. > > > I have a different understanding of what we saw go down at WTPF. I don't > think we got close to agreement on it at all, and that the actors mentioned > said they'd want line by line amendments not in order to continue > discussion of this particular text, but rather to avoid it. Moreover, > while I understand your institutional and substantive interests in pushing > this, there may be some constraints that merit consideration. For example, > > First, the WTPF was convened pursuant to a Plenipotentiary decision and > may be discussed at the 11-21 June Council meeting. The WTPF Chairman's > Report includes the Brazil-based discussion as agreed and notes twice the > recommendation of WG 3's chair that the discussion be taken up in the CWG > on Internet Policy. In his closing statement, Toure called for the CWG to > be "opened up" on the same basis as the WTPF as Sweden proposed last year > so the issues could be discussed in a manner ITU calls multistakeholder. > Meanwhile, as was noted in the meeting, there are no mechanisms for the > ITU to formally forward to another entity a (failed) proposal of one of its > bodies for consideration. So while governments who wanted to set aside the > proposal suggested we should all "talk about the issues" at IGF, the ITU > probably will still go forward with its own process in some manner. In > which context, many countries (and not necessarily just developing > countries) might object to the idea of the IGF somehow formally taking up > an internal ITU text, especially one still under discussion. Bottom line, > I can see some governments saying sure let's chit chat about the broad > topic at an IGF main session, but do you really think they'd agree to a > formal debate and adoption process regarding an ITU-originated document? > > Second, the original Brazilian proposal was pretty incendiary because it > came from Anatel, which has a stake in promoting the ITU's role in Internet > and everything else. Other parts of the Brazilian government we deal with > in IGF, ICANN etc. have somewhat different orientations, and it seemed in > Geneva that this was a slightly awkward matter. I spoke with the > delegation Wednesday evening about cutting out the non-starter stuff, > acknowledging the role of other bodies like the RIRs in facilitating > participation, and just saying ITU should play its role alongside others, > and it was clear they and they wanted a way out and were open to such an > approach. I believe they had pretty much the same conversation with many > others. Next morning they came back with a text that says, well, ITU > should play a role alongside others, and even this couldn't go forward. So > while Brazil undoubtedly remains keenly interested in the broad topic being > discussed further in multiple settings, are we sure it'd consider this > particular late night text to be the vehicle it wants to carry the load? > They and other like minded governments might like to recalibrate and work > out a formulation in consultation with other partners. Brazil's been one > of CS' best partners and supporters, so at a minimum I'd first seek > dialogue with them to see what they're thinking could be the way forward, > rather than presume to just unilaterally propose an IGF process about their > failed Opinion. > > Third, I don't see how the MAG could possibly agree by COB Thursday to > restructure the IGF process so as to enable the process you seek. We > already have identified candidate main session topics at the February > meeting in Paris; the new one you're suggesting would involve substantial > restructuring of the IGF's agenda and modalities that no governments or > other actors have discussed internally, much less taken a position on; the > MAG was just renewed and has to reboot with new members; and probably a > majority of MAG members are spending today trying to burn through and grade > 419 pages of workshop proposals by tomorrow so we can decide on them > Wednesday-Thursday. The MAG will be rather preoccupied, to put it mildly. > > Again, I understand your interest in seeing the IGF reformed to do this > sort of thing, and in the broad topic addressed by the Brazilian proposal, > but all in all it's not clear trying to make this happen is going to be a > good use of peoples' time. Restructuring the IGF and enhancing the role of > ITU and governments in IG are both big topics that would probably require > longer processes of consideration and development than is possible for the > Bali program. > > Best > > Bill > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun May 19 06:15:51 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 12:15:51 +0200 Subject: AW: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <5197B3D4.3030209@itforchange.net> <51988A73.2090209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013319F9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi everybody, here is another perspective: The problem for some governments is that they want to have "one single place/space" where they can discuss and decide (with other governments) upon Internet Governance issues. There are a lot of governments which do not like neither the GAC (where they have only ad advisory capacity) nor the IGF (where they are one stakeholder among others without any decision making capacity). They mistrust the other I*organisdations as IETF, IAB, IEEE. W3C, RIRS because as governments they have only little to contribute. For them the only remaining option is the UN General Assembly (via the UNCSTD) and the ITU (via the CWG). The Russian delegate made this rather clear in the final WTPF Plenary when he called for "one single body" be pointing to the ITU Council WG on Inernet related Public Policy Issues. This will not work. It is simply impossible to "centralize" all public policy related Internet issues in one body. Different bodies will take partial elements into their agendas but they are dependent of (and have to collaborate with) other governmental and intergovernmental bodies (which leads to enhanced cooperation in a process of "enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration/EC³). You need two for a tango and a lot of governments do not want to discuss IG related issues within the ITU context. And as a number of governments has said during the WTPF they they can not make decisions within the ITU without consulting at home private sector and civil society. This does not mean that the ITU has no role top play anymore but a subatnatial number of governments would support ITU more if it would - within its limited mandate - broaden its engagement in building infrastructure enabling more access or/and become more engaged in capacity building via training and education both of governmental experts and the broader public to enable more qualified participation (in particular from developing coubntries) in Internet PDPs. In my eyes the WTPF made rather clear that the ITU has only little to do (and to say) if it comes to Internet POLICY development. It remains to be seen what the ITU Council in June 2013 will decide, what the ITU will do with the WSIS 10+ process and how they move towards Busan 2014. Will they continue and expand 101, 102 and 133 or will they moving forward by identifying what their (reduced but workable) core Internet policy business will be between 2014 and 2018? What is needed is another more general discussion to clarifiy who should do what in the IG ecosystem and how the various governmental- and non-governmental actors work together and share duties and responsibilties. Next to the IGF, the UNCSTD WGEC could become such a space where more clarification can be achieved. One of the first task the WGEC should carry out is a "Mapping of the Internet Governance Eco-System". Together with the "Compendium on Internet Governance Principles", which is now under discussion in the MAG WG IGP, both documents could help to move the whole discussion forward and to identify gaps and "to do lists". wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: So 19.05.2013 10:16 An: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org Betreff: Re: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions On Sunday 19 May 2013 01:17 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 19/05/2013, at 1:01 AM, parminder wrote: > >> If it is about the Brazilian proposal, would you explain why do you find this particular issue is of such an outstanding significance over so many others.... I for one could never clearly understand the intent and significance of the Brazilian proposal, and I think different players are making different things of it. I dont see it as very significant thing and I am happy to let it die or disappear, I prefer to discuss issues which have some clarity about them. Brazilian proposal, and its intent, and different people's take on it, simply do not make clear sense to me. Taking such a rather unclear issue to the IGF as the first test of IGF's recommendation making capacity to me doesnt sound as an exciting idea. A good issue to test IGF's recommendation capacity will be such a one which everyone understands in the same way but people still have different views about it. And something which is really important. And Brazilian proposal seems to be as one of the worst candidates. However, I am happy to be explained the meaning and significance of the Brazilian proposal. > > I think it is one of the best candidates precisely because it is relatively uncontentious, yet there is a strong momentum to continue to work on it and the IGF would be boosted by hosting that work. Even ISOC and the United States indicated that they would probably support it although they would be proposing line-by-line amendments. We got quite close to agreement on it at the WTPF, that it is a safe bet that all stakeholders can reach agreement on it, which could open the door to the IGF working on more contentious sets of principles in the future (though this first proposal is just couched as a one-off experiment). Also I can't agree that it's unimportant; the principle of finding constructive ways to integrate governmental participation into a range of multi-stakeholder Internet governance processes is a worthy one. To clarify, it this about gov participation in ICANN and other such technical management/ governance systems? That it appears was the original intention of the Brazilian proposal, along with proposing that somehow ITU takes a central role in enabling perhaps even fronting such participation.... Is this the main thrust here? If not what is this all about? What exactly is meant by 'range of multistakeholder Internet governance processes' in which governmental participation is to be integrated... Which processes are meant here. I have a feeling that at this moment different people are trying to place different burdens on this above statement.. You are saying it is relatively uncontentious... while I am, first of all, not able to understand what is it about ... I cant say it is important or not without being clear what it is about.... I just felt it is unimportant becuase I cannot really get what is it really saying. So, if you can clarify that would greatly help. parminder > Perhaps the wording can be further improved, though and this would be provide an opportunity to do that. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate and geek > host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > > > From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun May 19 06:53:26 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 18:53:26 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions In-Reply-To: <51988A73.2090209@itforchange.net> References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <5197B3D4.3030209@itforchange.net> <51988A73.2090209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <66C14E8B-6489-40E9-81BC-FAB4D6E57E73@ciroap.org> On 19/05/2013, at 4:16 PM, parminder wrote: > To clarify, it this about gov participation in ICANN and other such technical management/ governance systems? That it appears was the original intention of the Brazilian proposal, along with proposing that somehow ITU takes a central role in enabling perhaps even fronting such participation.... Is this the main thrust here? If not what is this all about? What exactly is meant by 'range of multistakeholder Internet governance processes' in which governmental participation is to be integrated... Which processes are meant here. If we get the transcript then it will be easier to take the intention straight from the horse's mouth, but I would summarise the first part, which is the most operational part, as calling on the ITU to provide capacity building for developing country governments to more effectively participate in multistakeholder Internet governance institutions including IGF, ICANN, IETF, W3C, etc, in their own right (ie. not fronted by the ITU; I don't think there's any suggestion of that). The second part is not really operational, but is an expression of support for the fact that Internet governance takes place in a networked manner across a number of multistakeholder institutions, and that states are encouraged to participate in those, in addition to their discussion of relevant issues at the ITU and in the WSIS+10 process. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 19 09:17:17 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 18:47:17 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] WGEC Message-ID: <5198D0DD.6080901@itforchange.net> The first meeting of WG on enhanced cooperation will be held on on 30th and 31st May. The task identified for this first meeting is to " carefully determine the relevant topics on Enhanced Cooperation with the view to create a questionnaire to be sent out to all Member States and all other stakeholder". While no formal inputs for this 'task' are being invited at this stage, if the IGC or other other CS groups, come up with any formulations, these can be communicated by CS members of the WG on EC to the meeting.... parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 19 09:27:30 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 18:57:30 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions In-Reply-To: <66C14E8B-6489-40E9-81BC-FAB4D6E57E73@ciroap.org> References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <5197B3D4.3030209@itforchange.net> <51988A73.2090209@itforchange.net> <66C14E8B-6489-40E9-81BC-FAB4D6E57E73@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5198D342.9000409@itforchange.net> On Sunday 19 May 2013 04:23 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 19/05/2013, at 4:16 PM, parminder > wrote: > >> To clarify, it this about gov participation in ICANN and other such >> technical management/ governance systems? That it appears was the >> original intention of the Brazilian proposal, along with proposing >> that somehow ITU takes a central role in enabling perhaps even >> fronting such participation.... Is this the main thrust here? If not >> what is this all about? What exactly is meant by 'range of >> multistakeholder Internet governance processes' in which governmental >> participation is to be integrated... Which processes are meant here. > > If we get the transcript then it will be easier to take the intention > straight from the horse's mouth, but I would summarise the first part, > which is the most operational part, as calling on the ITU to provide > capacity building for developing country governments to more > effectively participate in multistakeholder Internet governance > institutions including IGF, ICANN, IETF, W3C, etc, If this indeed is the operational part of the statement, what is there to get so excited about it. What is of special significance here, I still fail to understand. On the other hand, I still think the Brazilian statement was confusing and unclear in its intent from the start, and has become even more confusing in being edited down in an effort to negotiate its passage through WTPF... > in their own right (ie. not fronted by the ITU; I don't think there's > any suggestion of that). The second part is not really operational, > but is an expression of support for the fact that Internet governance > takes place in a networked manner across a number of multistakeholder > institutions, and that states are encouraged to participate in those, > in addition to their discussion of relevant issues at the ITU and in > the WSIS+10 process. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon May 20 06:29:54 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 18:29:54 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Revised proposal on IGF "multi-stakeholder opinion" based on Brazilian proposal open for endorsement Message-ID: <5199FB22.50002@ciroap.org> Thanks to those who offered amendments to the draft proposal for the IGF to develop a multi-stakeholder opinion based on the Brazilian proposal. The marked-up text with the amendments is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/igf-opinions The same text in clean form is now open for endorsements here (half an hour later than promised, sorry): http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/ I didn't make any further adjustments to the amendments that others proposed, except for the following: * Typographical amendments/corrections. * Since "recommendations" is a touchy word, I changed language that someone had added on "recommendations" to read "opinions". * Although she didn't propose text, Joy made some substantive comments that I had to try to reflect as best I could, without clashing too much with amendments that others had made. So I: o Removed some of the detail about the process ("Groups would be equipped with writing materials, copies of the background paper, a flip chart, and a neutral facilitator"). o Changed the title from "Multistakeholder opinions: an experiment for the IGF" to "Proposal for a multistakeholder opinion on operationalizing the role of Government in the multi-stakeholder framework for Internet Governance". o Added a new sentence "It is not proposed as a broad-based solution to address a range of policy issues, but as a response to this particular call for the Brazilian opinion to be discussed various other fora". Anriette and Valeria had offered to deliver the text to the open consultation/MAG - I guess this is on the assumption that they are still satisfied with it. I'll also ask one of the technical community members if they are willing to speak up in favour of it, to show a measure of multi-stakeholder support. We are still waiting to hear from Brazil. I realise that the text as it now stands will not satisfy everyone, and if you are one of those then of course, please don't feel pressured to endorse it. We are not putting this forward as a statement of civil society or the Best Bits group at large, but only those who choose to support it. I'm not sure exactly when there will be an opportunity to put this forward at the open consultation/MAG meeting, because that depends on how the meeting goes, but the text will be open for endorsement until that time. Thanks everyone! -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From nb at bollow.ch Mon May 20 11:22:33 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 17:22:33 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Revised proposal on IGF "multi-stakeholder opinion" based on Brazilian proposal open for endorsement In-Reply-To: <5199FB22.50002@ciroap.org> References: <5199FB22.50002@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20130520172233.2e9d6241@quill.bollow.ch> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > The same text in clean form is now open for endorsements here: > > http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/ Thanks again, Jeremy, for this good initiative. Hoping that this will result in some positive momentum... Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept From katitza at eff.org Mon May 20 19:02:07 2013 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 18:02:07 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] EFF dispatch from the pro-user picket line outside the closed-door #TPP negotiations in Lima In-Reply-To: <081324E6-E499-4C06-89E1-BE89967BF849@hserus.net> References: <58610E49-3D37-4A7D-8F08-1B311CB8300C@ciroap.org> <5197B3D4.3030209@itforchange.net> <51988A73.2090209@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013319F9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <081324E6-E499-4C06-89E1-BE89967BF849@hserus.net> Message-ID: <519AAB6F.1040007@eff.org> perhaps of interest of another forum dealing with internet rights in a closed door negotiations. See video! An EFF dispatch from the pro-user picket line outside the closed-door #TPP negotiations in Lima: https://eff.org/r.b9RR #yaratpp https://twitter.com/EFF/status/336608898574319617 From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon May 20 12:14:15 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 18:14:15 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] AW: [governance] Revised proposal on IGF "multi-stakeholder opinion" based on Brazilian proposal open for endorsement References: <5199FB22.50002@ciroap.org> <20130520172233.2e9d6241@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331A19@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thx Jeremy, I fully support your basic approach. One argument, which will be used by the ITU (and some of its member states) is that the WTPF (or the UNGIS controlled WSIS Forum) is better than the IGF, is that this (UN led) platforms produce concrete output in form of agreed "Opinions" or "Joint Statements". This argument will come back in the UNGA 2014 when the mandate of the IGF - which ends in 2015 - has to be renewed. To counterbalance this argument the MAG has to take the IGF Improvement WG recommendation seriously to produce concrete output, as you have said correctly. The IGF mandate from the TA allows recommendation, as appropriate, on emerging issues. Today you can nearly all new Internet related questions define as "emerging issues". So - as you have pointed out - there is no need to change the mandate. It is up to the MAG to take the next steps and to introduce some procedures and mechanisms which would allow to produce concrete output. I have argued already since the MAG meeting in 2007 (before Rio de Janeiro) to introduce a new category in form of "messages". "IGF Messages" would not have the political burden of a "recommendation" (which is pre-defined in a UN context) and would also not duplicate ITU´s "opinions". BTW, a growing number of regional and national IGFs are now producing "Messages". EURODIG, the European IGF had "Messages from Madrid" (2010), "Messeges from Belgrade" (2011) and "Messages from Stockholm" (2012). The German IGF did send "Messages from Berlin" to the IGFs in Vilnjus, Nairobi and Baku, So it would be part of an organic process if the IGF moves towards the production of IGF messages. Here is my proposal I renewed in the UNCSTD IGF Improvement WG in 2011 when I was its member. http://www.unctad.info/upload/CSTD-IGF/Contributions/M1/Wolfgang_Kleinwachter.pdf With other words I would not propose that the IGF would start to produce "opinions" to duplicate the WTPF. However I fully support that the substance of the rejected WPTF Opinion 7 should be discussed in the IGF context. Another effort in this direction is underway in the MAG Working Group on Internet Governance Principles which was established by the MAG meeting in Paris in February 2013 with a mandate to prepare the relevant Bali Plenary. Such a MAG led working group (or working groups), chaired by a MAG member and with a very limited mandate, could become a mechanism which can develop procedures how to produce output in a multistakeholder environment. This is a complicated innovation for policy making among governmental and non-govenrmental stakeholders, but it is worth to start it and test it out. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow Gesendet: Mo 20.05.2013 17:22 An: Jeremy Malcolm Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Revised proposal on IGF "multi-stakeholder opinion" based on Brazilian proposal open for endorsement Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > The same text in clean form is now open for endorsements here: > > http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/ Thanks again, Jeremy, for this good initiative. Hoping that this will result in some positive momentum... Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri May 10 05:26:07 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 17:26:07 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society statement to the ITU Sec-Gen ahead of WTPF 2013 - PLEASE ENDORSE AND SHARE In-Reply-To: <518CBC10.1000108@itforchange.net> References: <518C5CFE.8010801@ciroap.org> <518CBC10.1000108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <518CBD2F.4060700@ciroap.org> On 10/05/13 17:21, parminder wrote: > It is unfortunate that an attempt was not made to share a pre-final > statement with the group. I tend to disagree, on principle, with > adopting 'take it or leave it' approaches to development of > statements. This was not a controversial area, and we could have tried > drafting a common statement... That's a fair cop. We'll do better next time. > Anyway, a few comments > > One, can you pl provide the link to the quoted November statement - > which statement and whose statement is this ... The word "statement" is a hyperlink to the WCIT statement that we agreed in November, now at http://bestbits.net/statement (and the previous URL redirects there too). > Secondly, I could not understand the reason and implications of the > following sentence > > "Rather than seeking to address additional issues, we urge the > Secretary-General to move forward in engaging all stakeholders to > implement these opinions." > > Why should civil society recommend that ITU takes up issues like > Internet Exchanges and IPv6 adoption (subject matter of the > 'opinions') and not for instance net neutrality, which is not among > the subjects covered in the opinions. Why this artificial line about > what Internet issues ITU may work on? There is a rationale for this but I'll let one of the others speak to it. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue May 21 03:16:41 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 15:16:41 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Reminder: please endorse IGF proposal today if you agree Message-ID: <519B1F59.3040302@ciroap.org> The IGF open consultation is starting soon and we only have four endorsements so far. So please add yours if you agree. http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/ Thanks. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Tue May 21 04:18:23 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varonferraz) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 10:18:23 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Reminder: please endorse IGF proposal today if you agree In-Reply-To: <519B1F59.3040302@ciroap.org> References: <519B1F59.3040302@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Done. Dear Jeremy, how much time do we have to collect more signatures before submitting it? Best Joana --- ~ --- ~ --- ~ Joana Varon Ferraz Researcher Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV) www.freenetfilm.org On 21/05/2013, at 09:16, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > The IGF open consultation is starting soon and we only have four endorsements so far. So please add yours if you agree. > > http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/ > > Thanks. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dbu at donnybu.com Tue May 21 04:20:33 2013 From: dbu at donnybu.com (Donny B.U.) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 15:20:33 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Reminder: please endorse IGF proposal today if you agree In-Reply-To: <519B1F59.3040302@ciroap.org> References: <519B1F59.3040302@ciroap.org> Message-ID: done. also shared to local CSOs (network) in indonesia. regards, -dbu- On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > The IGF open consultation is starting soon and we only have four > endorsements so far. So please add yours if you agree. > > http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/ > > Thanks. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > -- e: dbu at donnybu.com | t: @donnybu | f: donnybu | w: donnybu.com | p: +62818930932 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue May 21 04:21:16 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 16:21:16 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Reminder: please endorse IGF proposal today if you agree In-Reply-To: References: <519B1F59.3040302@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <519B2E7C.9030009@ciroap.org> On 21/05/13 16:18, Joana Varonferraz wrote: > Done. > Dear Jeremy, how much time do we have to collect more signatures > before submitting it? I expect Anriette to talk about it at the open consultation within the next 15 minutes... but more signatures can come later. We are up to 7 suddenly, which is starting to look better. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Tue May 21 04:41:29 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varonferraz) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 10:41:29 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Reminder: please endorse IGF proposal today if you agree In-Reply-To: <519B2E7C.9030009@ciroap.org> References: <519B1F59.3040302@ciroap.org> <519B2E7C.9030009@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Ok. Sharing over here too --- ~ --- ~ --- ~ Joana Varon Ferraz Researcher Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV) www.freenetfilm.org On 21/05/2013, at 10:21, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 21/05/13 16:18, Joana Varonferraz wrote: >> Done. >> Dear Jeremy, how much time do we have to collect more signatures before submitting it? > > I expect Anriette to talk about it at the open consultation within the next 15 minutes... but more signatures can come later. We are up to 7 suddenly, which is starting to look better. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed May 22 00:11:25 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 09:41:25 +0530 Subject: Fwd: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Reminder: please endorse IGF proposal today if you agree In-Reply-To: <519C4538.2080806@itforchange.net> References: <519C4538.2080806@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <519C456D.3020907@itforchange.net> Dear All As discussed elsewhere, I continue to be unclear whether this is a proposal for urgent and high priority discussion of a particular subject - gov role in global IG, or a proposal for testing a process for the IGF to produce more concrete outcomes.... The response to my queries on this count has not at all been clear. I am independently very interested both in, (1) Exploring the role of all stakeholders, including governments, in global IG. However in the context of the recent statment by some civil society organisations at the end of WTPF, I had asked for clarification on what exactly is meant by equal role/ participation of all stakeholders. I got no response. While i fully accept the legitimacy of some civil society organisations getting together and issuing statements that they agree on, due to time related exigencies or otherwise, even when they are aprt of wider networks, what I do not find legitimate is not even providing clarifications about text of the statement post facto to members of those networks. and (2) exploring how IGF can be more effective, and produce more concrete outcomes (we, as in my organisation, did a lot in this regard at the WG on IGF improvements against a lot of resistance - active or passive - from some other civil society participants, which I am still to fully understand). However this is a larger - much larger - subject - which should be deliberated in CS lists and a considered specific proposal should be made. Such a proposal cannot be pushed through a back-door of what looks like a completely different proposal about taking up a particular subject for discussion at the IGF. For these reasons, we cant sign it, and propose that BestBits and IRP coalition do not sign it either.. parminder On Tuesday 21 May 2013 10:58 PM, Grace Mutung'u (Bomu) wrote: > i agree! > > 2013/5/21, Brown, Abbe: >> I think yes >> >> Abbe >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of >> Marianne Franklin >> Sent: 21 May 2013 10:29 >> To: Jeremy Malcolm;irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Reminder: please endorse IGF proposal >> today if you agree >> >> Thanks very much Jeremy >> >> Dear IRP'ers. Please access the link and let us know if the IRP Coalition >> should sign up to this. There has been some intense and thorough discussion >> on the Best Bits list about wording and the drafting process itself: >> discussions which this list are accustomed to. >> >> http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/ >> >> Please let us know asap I.e. today! >> >> Cheers >> MF >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Sent: 21 May 2013 10:21 >> To:irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Reminder: please endorse IGF proposal >> today if you agree >> >> On 21/05/13 16:59, Marianne Franklin wrote: >>> Dear Jeremy >>> >>> >>> >>> Could you resend the link/document please and through to the IRP list >>> as I see that time is short. For some reason I can't access the >>> statement to forward or read. >> http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >> Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek host -t NAPTR >> 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> >> The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No >> SC013683. >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed May 22 22:00:53 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 10:00:53 +0800 Subject: Fwd: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Reminder: please endorse IGF proposal today if you agree References: <519CEF53.4010104@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <50F8B7F5-37B4-45FD-A28D-33B8E9C0284E@ciroap.org> This thread was sent to the old list address. Forwarding it to the new one. Begin forwarded message: > From: "Carlos A. Afonso" > Date: 23 May, 2013 12:16:19 AM GMT+08:00 > To: Marianne Franklin > Cc: parminder , "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" , "bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org" > Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Reminder: please endorse IGF proposal today if you agree > > Marianne, Nupef has decided to sign with a view quite similar to yours. > > If we expect to build a consensus treatise, this will never happen. It is a process, and we see this statement as part of a process that will certainly improve/change/refine it. > > Ritght now, we feel it is politically important to sign it. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 05/22/2013 06:22 AM, Marianne Franklin wrote: >> Dear Parminder >> >> Thank you for this invaluable other point of view. I think the points >> below need some discussion on this list as the discussion on the Best >> Bits list was curtailed due to time pressures. The question before us is >> whether enough people feel this statement warrants our support in >> principle, and whether the current wording and framing of the statement >> is good enough to sign up to. >> >> As this coalition does more than sign up to petitions and statements >> alone it is perhaps a good moment to consider whether this one is ‘ fit >> for purpose’. I lend my support to it because it is good enough for now. >> Not good enough in the long term but for now. This of course is a very >> pragmatic point of view so I for one am interested in hearing more about >> whether the IRP Coalition should not sign. >> >> The current Best Bits statement is now in the public domain so we can >> sign up or not. That said, whatever we decide right now, it might be >> productive for us to think about alternative wordings and phrasing that >> can respond to the objections in 1) and 2) below for the longer term. >> >> At this stage too it occurred to me that as a coalition we might want to >> consider what constitutes a quorum for any consensual decision-making. >> Numbers are not enough alone but establishing a threshold is an element >> in these processes; e.g. 10% responses would be at present 31 members >> and so on. >> >> Looking forward to hearing more voices. >> >> Best >> >> MF >> >> *From:*irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] *On Behalf Of >> *parminder >> *Sent:* 22 May 2013 05:11 >> *To:* irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Reminder: please endorse IGF >> proposal today if you agree >> >> >> Dear All >> >> As discussed elsewhere, I continue to be unclear whether this is a >> proposal for urgent and high priority discussion of a particular subject >> - gov role in global IG, or a proposal for testing a process for the IGF >> to produce more concrete outcomes.... The response to my queries on this >> count has not at all been clear. >> >> I am independently very interested both in, >> >> (1) Exploring the role of all stakeholders, including governments, in >> global IG. However in the context of the recent statment by some civil >> society organisations at the end of WTPF, I had asked for clarification >> on what exactly is meant by equal role/ participation of all >> stakeholders. I got no response. While i fully accept the legitimacy of >> some civil society organisations getting together and issuing >> statements that they agree on, due to time related exigencies or >> otherwise, even when they are aprt of wider networks, what I do not find >> legitimate is not even providing clarifications about text of the >> statement post facto to members of those networks. >> >> and >> >> (2) exploring how IGF can be more effective, and produce more concrete >> outcomes (we, as in my organisation, did a lot in this regard at the WG >> on IGF improvements against a lot of resistance - active or passive - >> from some other civil society participants, which I am still to fully >> understand). However this is a larger - much larger - subject - which >> should be deliberated in CS lists and a considered specific proposal >> should be made. Such a proposal cannot be pushed through a back-door of >> what looks like a completely different proposal about taking up a >> particular subject for discussion at the IGF. >> >> For these reasons, we cant sign it, and propose that BestBits and IRP >> coalition do not sign it either.. >> >> parminder >> >> On Tuesday 21 May 2013 10:58 PM, Grace Mutung'u (Bomu) wrote: >> >> i agree! >> >> >> >> 2013/5/21, Brown, Abbe : >> >> I think yes >> >> >> >> Abbe >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> >> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of >> >> Marianne Franklin >> >> Sent: 21 May 2013 10:29 >> >> To: Jeremy Malcolm;irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> >> Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Reminder: please endorse IGF proposal >> >> today if you agree >> >> >> >> Thanks very much Jeremy >> >> >> >> Dear IRP'ers. Please access the link and let us know if the IRP Coalition >> >> should sign up to this. There has been some intense and thorough discussion >> >> on the Best Bits list about wording and the drafting process itself: >> >> discussions which this list are accustomed to. >> >> >> >> http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/ >> >> >> >> Please let us know asap I.e. today! >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> MF >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> >> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of >> >> Jeremy Malcolm >> >> Sent: 21 May 2013 10:21 >> >> To:irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> >> Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Reminder: please endorse IGF proposal >> >> today if you agree >> >> >> >> On 21/05/13 16:59, Marianne Franklin wrote: >> >> Dear Jeremy >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Could you resend the link/document please and through to the IRP list >> >> as I see that time is short. For some reason I can't access the >> >> statement to forward or read. >> >> >> >> http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >> >> Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek host -t NAPTR >> >> 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> IRP mailing list >> >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> >> >> >> >> The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No >> >> SC013683. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> IRP mailing list >> >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat May 25 10:59:11 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 22:59:11 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes References: <55931ABFF303184782F4A3E4DAC30C8001A4F971@URANO02.itamaraty.local> Message-ID: <12402326-A2AE-4706-8F0C-DB601F35B1F4@ciroap.org> Forwarding with permission, in relation to the discussion of Brazil's proposal at the IGF. Those who are on the MAG could circulate this on the MAG list too, if that would be helpful. Begin forwarded message: > From: Alexandre Scudiere Fontenelle > Subject: RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes > Date: 24 May 2013 1:27:43 AM GMT+08:00 > To: Jeremy Malcolm > Cc: Joana Varon , Divisão da Sociedade da Informação - Itamaraty , Benedicto Fonseca Filho > > Dear Jeremy, > > Thank you for your e-mail. > Regarding the proposal to discuss in the IGF 2013 the opinion Brazil presented in the last WTPF meeting, we would like to make some considerations: > > The opinion presented by Brazil contains two key ideas, namely: (a) recognition of the need to operationalize the role of governments in the multistakeholder model, and (b) the possibility that ITU could contribute to this through training and capacity building, within its competence. > > We recognize and support the legitimacy and usefulness in discussing point (a) in the IGF. We believe, moreover, that this discussion should take place not only in the IGF, but in all fora and institutions related to Internet governance, and it should not be limited to operationalizing the role of governments, but should include disussions on how to strengthen the participation of the other stakeholders as well, in order to improve the operation of the system as a whole. > > With regard to point (b), although it may also be discussed in the IGF, it does not seem right to shift the discussion there, since any decision about ITU involvement in capacity building and training initiatives, in areas of its competence, could only be taken by ITU itself and is subject to the approval of its members. Nevertheless, we agree that while discussing point (a), we could mention the opinion proposed by Brazil as an example of initiatives aimed at finding solutions to ensure that all stakeholders are appropriately participating in the Internet Governance model. > > Brazil will continue to work with other countries and with all concerned stakeholders in order to enhance the proposal which would eventually be forwarded again to ITU, possibly in the CWG-Internet. In this regard, we would like to highlight that Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré affirmed he would propose that further discussions on the subject, within the CWG-Internet, should take place with participation of all stakeholders, in a format similar to that used in the Informal Expert Group (IEG) meeting that prepared the opinions examined by WTPF. > > Best regards, > > Alexandre Scudiere Fontenelle > Subchefe da Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) > Ministério das Relações Exteriores (MRE) > Tel: (61) 2030-6609 - FAX: (61) 2030-6613 > > Deputy Head of the Division for the Information Society (DI) > Ministry of External Relations - Brazil > -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Sun May 26 02:12:25 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varonferraz) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 08:12:25 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes In-Reply-To: <12402326-A2AE-4706-8F0C-DB601F35B1F4@ciroap.org> References: <55931ABFF303184782F4A3E4DAC30C8001A4F971@URANO02.itamaraty.local> <12402326-A2AE-4706-8F0C-DB601F35B1F4@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <16266BD1-4385-47E2-8DAB-CA7F4508F39C@varonferraz.com> Thanks for sharing with the group, Jeremy. Dear all, Alexandre is the substitute of Franklin. And Benedito will be transfered as well. So Brazil will have new representatives from its MFA until the IGF. Jeremy and I have been exchanging emails with different representatives from the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the country's proposal on the role of governaments and the email below explain its position and perspectives for next steps. As it seams inevitable to discuss it further at ITU, its important that we have space (mainly/including institucionalized remote participation) at that CWG. Best Joana --- ~ --- ~ --- ~ Joana Varon Ferraz Researcher Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV) On 25/05/2013, at 16:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Forwarding with permission, in relation to the discussion of Brazil's proposal at the IGF. Those who are on the MAG could circulate this on the MAG list too, if that would be helpful. > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Alexandre Scudiere Fontenelle >> Subject: RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes >> Date: 24 May 2013 1:27:43 AM GMT+08:00 >> To: Jeremy Malcolm >> Cc: Joana Varon , Divisão da Sociedade da Informação - Itamaraty , Benedicto Fonseca Filho >> >> Dear Jeremy, >> >> Thank you for your e-mail. >> Regarding the proposal to discuss in the IGF 2013 the opinion Brazil presented in the last WTPF meeting, we would like to make some considerations: >> >> The opinion presented by Brazil contains two key ideas, namely: (a) recognition of the need to operationalize the role of governments in the multistakeholder model, and (b) the possibility that ITU could contribute to this through training and capacity building, within its competence. >> >> We recognize and support the legitimacy and usefulness in discussing point (a) in the IGF. We believe, moreover, that this discussion should take place not only in the IGF, but in all fora and institutions related to Internet governance, and it should not be limited to operationalizing the role of governments, but should include disussions on how to strengthen the participation of the other stakeholders as well, in order to improve the operation of the system as a whole. >> >> With regard to point (b), although it may also be discussed in the IGF, it does not seem right to shift the discussion there, since any decision about ITU involvement in capacity building and training initiatives, in areas of its competence, could only be taken by ITU itself and is subject to the approval of its members. Nevertheless, we agree that while discussing point (a), we could mention the opinion proposed by Brazil as an example of initiatives aimed at finding solutions to ensure that all stakeholders are appropriately participating in the Internet Governance model. >> >> Brazil will continue to work with other countries and with all concerned stakeholders in order to enhance the proposal which would eventually be forwarded again to ITU, possibly in the CWG-Internet. In this regard, we would like to highlight that Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré affirmed he would propose that further discussions on the subject, within the CWG-Internet, should take place with participation of all stakeholders, in a format similar to that used in the Informal Expert Group (IEG) meeting that prepared the opinions examined by WTPF. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Alexandre Scudiere Fontenelle >> Subchefe da Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) >> Ministério das Relações Exteriores (MRE) >> Tel: (61) 2030-6609 - FAX: (61) 2030-6613 >> >> Deputy Head of the Division for the Information Society (DI) >> Ministry of External Relations - Brazil > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at uzh.ch Sun May 26 05:16:14 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 11:16:14 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes In-Reply-To: <12402326-A2AE-4706-8F0C-DB601F35B1F4@ciroap.org> References: <55931ABFF303184782F4A3E4DAC30C8001A4F971@URANO02.itamaraty.local> <12402326-A2AE-4706-8F0C-DB601F35B1F4@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <72961511-EA34-4FF5-AB73-B6FB46B51D3D@uzh.ch> Hi This was part of why I was reluctant about the sign on proposal to hitch the idea of IGF debating opinions to the vehicle of the failed Brazilian WTPF text. They don't want it, nor to move the action-oriented discussion of the ITU's role to IGF. But Markus wants to invite Brazil to generate a new input doc that could serve as the basis for the session on role of governments in multistakeholderism. That'd be useful, especially if some other developing country governments could be brought on board. Meanwhile USG is submitting to ITU Council a doc building on last year's proposal from Sweden to open the ITU CWG-Internet to observers. Presumably we might like something more than the restrictive "open participation" afforded at WTPF, so maybe a sign on about that would be useful…? Council meets 11-21 June. Cheers Bill On May 25, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Forwarding with permission, in relation to the discussion of Brazil's proposal at the IGF. Those who are on the MAG could circulate this on the MAG list too, if that would be helpful. > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Alexandre Scudiere Fontenelle >> Subject: RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes >> Date: 24 May 2013 1:27:43 AM GMT+08:00 >> To: Jeremy Malcolm >> Cc: Joana Varon , Divisão da Sociedade da Informação - Itamaraty , Benedicto Fonseca Filho >> >> Dear Jeremy, >> >> Thank you for your e-mail. >> Regarding the proposal to discuss in the IGF 2013 the opinion Brazil presented in the last WTPF meeting, we would like to make some considerations: >> >> The opinion presented by Brazil contains two key ideas, namely: (a) recognition of the need to operationalize the role of governments in the multistakeholder model, and (b) the possibility that ITU could contribute to this through training and capacity building, within its competence. >> >> We recognize and support the legitimacy and usefulness in discussing point (a) in the IGF. We believe, moreover, that this discussion should take place not only in the IGF, but in all fora and institutions related to Internet governance, and it should not be limited to operationalizing the role of governments, but should include disussions on how to strengthen the participation of the other stakeholders as well, in order to improve the operation of the system as a whole. >> >> With regard to point (b), although it may also be discussed in the IGF, it does not seem right to shift the discussion there, since any decision about ITU involvement in capacity building and training initiatives, in areas of its competence, could only be taken by ITU itself and is subject to the approval of its members. Nevertheless, we agree that while discussing point (a), we could mention the opinion proposed by Brazil as an example of initiatives aimed at finding solutions to ensure that all stakeholders are appropriately participating in the Internet Governance model. >> >> Brazil will continue to work with other countries and with all concerned stakeholders in order to enhance the proposal which would eventually be forwarded again to ITU, possibly in the CWG-Internet. In this regard, we would like to highlight that Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré affirmed he would propose that further discussions on the subject, within the CWG-Internet, should take place with participation of all stakeholders, in a format similar to that used in the Informal Expert Group (IEG) meeting that prepared the opinions examined by WTPF. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Alexandre Scudiere Fontenelle >> Subchefe da Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) >> Ministério das Relações Exteriores (MRE) >> Tel: (61) 2030-6609 - FAX: (61) 2030-6613 >> >> Deputy Head of the Division for the Information Society (DI) >> Ministry of External Relations - Brazil >> > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Fri May 10 07:42:45 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 07:42:45 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [] ICANN Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT2) Questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <35D63C9D-42FD-450F-8935-E9F3A4FF5C8F@acm.org> FYI - the more answers, the better. Comment periods end 19 May. Pass it on. avri > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Avri Doria >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] ATRT2 Questonnaire >> Date: 9 May 2013 21:39:55 EDT >> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> Reply-To: Avri Doria >> >> Hi, >> >> The ICANN Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT2) Questionnaire - all million questions of it, is now online. >> >> Questionnaire online https://limesurvey.icann.org/index.php/survey/index/sid/377778/lang/en >> the pdf of all questions is: http://www.icann.org/about/aoc-review/atrt/community-questions-02apr13-en.pdf >> >> All questions are already default answered - "No answer", >> So nothing should block anyone from moving around the questionnaire and answering only those things you want to answer. >> >> The questionnaire will let you save and come back. >> But if you let it time out, unsaved answers will be lost. >> >> As you leave a page by pressing 'next', an index entry will be made that allows you to go back to that page directly. >> You will see those on the upper right of screen (I think - that is where they are on my screen)) >> >> Please - individuals, groups, caucuses, constituencies, stakeholder groups, the public - answer the questions. >> >> avri >> > From nnenna75 at gmail.com Sun May 26 10:35:18 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 14:35:18 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes In-Reply-To: <72961511-EA34-4FF5-AB73-B6FB46B51D3D@uzh.ch> References: <55931ABFF303184782F4A3E4DAC30C8001A4F971@URANO02.itamaraty.local> <12402326-A2AE-4706-8F0C-DB601F35B1F4@ciroap.org> <72961511-EA34-4FF5-AB73-B6FB46B51D3D@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Hi Bill, all I do believe that there is an "open" wind that may blow if we keep on calling for openness at these instances. +1 Nnenna On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:16 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > This was part of why I was reluctant about the sign on proposal to hitch > the idea of IGF debating opinions to the vehicle of the failed Brazilian > WTPF text. They don't want it, nor to move the > action-oriented discussion of the ITU's role to IGF. But Markus wants to > invite Brazil to generate a new input doc that could serve as the basis for > the session on role of governments in multistakeholderism. That'd be > useful, especially if some other developing country governments could be > brought on board. > > Meanwhile USG is submitting to ITU Council a doc building on last year's > proposal from Sweden to open the ITU CWG-Internet to observers. Presumably > we might like something more than the restrictive "open participation" > afforded at WTPF, so maybe a sign on about that would be useful…? Council > meets 11-21 June. > > Cheers > > Bill > > > > > > On May 25, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Forwarding with permission, in relation to the discussion of Brazil's > proposal at the IGF. Those who are on the MAG could circulate this on the > MAG list too, if that would be helpful. > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Alexandre Scudiere Fontenelle < > alexandre.fontenelle at itamaraty.gov.br> > *Subject: **RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on > Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes* > *Date: *24 May 2013 1:27:43 AM GMT+08:00 > *To: *Jeremy Malcolm > *Cc: *Joana Varon , Divisão da Sociedade da > Informação - Itamaraty , Benedicto Fonseca Filho < > benedicto.fonseca at itamaraty.gov.br> > > Dear Jeremy, > > Thank you for your e-mail. > Regarding the proposal to discuss in the IGF 2013 the opinion Brazil > presented in the last WTPF meeting, we would like to make some > considerations: > > The opinion presented by Brazil contains two key ideas, namely: (a) > recognition of the need to operationalize the role of governments in the > multistakeholder model, and (b) the possibility that ITU could contribute > to this through training and capacity building, within its competence. > > We recognize and support the legitimacy and usefulness in discussing point > (a) in the IGF. We believe, moreover, that this discussion should take > place not only in the IGF, but in all fora and institutions related to > Internet governance, and it should not be limited to operationalizing the > role of governments, but should include disussions on how to strengthen the > participation of the other stakeholders as well, in order to improve the > operation of the system as a whole. > > With regard to point (b), although it may also be discussed in the IGF, it > does not seem right to shift the discussion there, since any decision about > ITU involvement in capacity building and training initiatives, in areas > of its competence, could only be taken by ITU itself and is subject to the > approval of its members. Nevertheless, we agree that while discussing point > (a), we could mention the opinion proposed by Brazil as an example of > initiatives aimed at finding solutions to ensure that all stakeholders are > appropriately participating in the Internet Governance model. > > Brazil will continue to work with other countries and with all concerned > stakeholders in order to enhance the proposal which would eventually be > forwarded again to ITU, possibly in the CWG-Internet. In this regard, we > would like to highlight that Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré affirmed he > would propose that further discussions on the subject, within the > CWG-Internet, should take place with participation of all stakeholders, in > a format similar to that used in the Informal Expert Group (IEG) meeting > that prepared the opinions examined by WTPF. > > Best regards, > > Alexandre Scudiere Fontenelle > Subchefe da Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) > Ministério das Relações Exteriores (MRE) > Tel: (61) 2030-6609 - FAX: (61) 2030-6613 > > Deputy Head of the Division for the Information Society (DI) > Ministry of External Relations - Brazil > > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Sun May 26 12:39:33 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 12:39:33 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes In-Reply-To: References: <55931ABFF303184782F4A3E4DAC30C8001A4F971@URANO02.itamaraty.local> <12402326-A2AE-4706-8F0C-DB601F35B1F4@ciroap.org> <72961511-EA34-4FF5-AB73-B6FB46B51D3D@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Hi all, I agree. I think the US proposal to open CWG-Internet is meant to build on the "success of the Informal Experts Group and WTPF", which, as many have pointed out had shortcomings. We could use this as an opportunity to call for improving that model for further openness/inclusivity. Deborah On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > Hi Bill, all > > I do believe that there is an "open" wind that may blow if we keep on > calling for openness at these instances. > > +1 > > Nnenna > > > On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:16 AM, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi >> >> This was part of why I was reluctant about the sign on proposal to hitch >> the idea of IGF debating opinions to the vehicle of the failed Brazilian >> WTPF text. They don't want it, nor to move the >> action-oriented discussion of the ITU's role to IGF. But Markus wants to >> invite Brazil to generate a new input doc that could serve as the basis for >> the session on role of governments in multistakeholderism. That'd be >> useful, especially if some other developing country governments could be >> brought on board. >> >> Meanwhile USG is submitting to ITU Council a doc building on last year's >> proposal from Sweden to open the ITU CWG-Internet to observers. Presumably >> we might like something more than the restrictive "open participation" >> afforded at WTPF, so maybe a sign on about that would be useful…? Council >> meets 11-21 June. >> >> Cheers >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> >> On May 25, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> Forwarding with permission, in relation to the discussion of Brazil's >> proposal at the IGF. Those who are on the MAG could circulate this on the >> MAG list too, if that would be helpful. >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> *From: *Alexandre Scudiere Fontenelle < >> alexandre.fontenelle at itamaraty.gov.br> >> *Subject: **RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on >> Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes >> * >> *Date: *24 May 2013 1:27:43 AM GMT+08:00 >> *To: *Jeremy Malcolm >> *Cc: *Joana Varon , Divisão da Sociedade da >> Informação - Itamaraty , Benedicto Fonseca Filho < >> benedicto.fonseca at itamaraty.gov.br> >> >> Dear Jeremy, >> >> Thank you for your e-mail. >> Regarding the proposal to discuss in the IGF 2013 the opinion Brazil >> presented in the last WTPF meeting, we would like to make some >> considerations: >> >> The opinion presented by Brazil contains two key ideas, namely: (a) >> recognition of the need to operationalize the role of governments in the >> multistakeholder model, and (b) the possibility that ITU could contribute >> to this through training and capacity building, within its competence. >> >> We recognize and support the legitimacy and usefulness in discussing >> point (a) in the IGF. We believe, moreover, that this discussion should >> take place not only in the IGF, but in all fora and institutions related to >> Internet governance, and it should not be limited to operationalizing the >> role of governments, but should include disussions on how to strengthen the >> participation of the other stakeholders as well, in order to improve the >> operation of the system as a whole. >> >> With regard to point (b), although it may also be discussed in the IGF, >> it does not seem right to shift the discussion there, since any decision >> about ITU involvement in capacity building and training initiatives, in >> areas of its competence, could only be taken by ITU itself and is subject >> to the approval of its members. Nevertheless, we agree that while >> discussing point (a), we could mention the opinion proposed by Brazil as an >> example of initiatives aimed at finding solutions to ensure that all >> stakeholders are appropriately participating in the Internet Governance >> model. >> >> Brazil will continue to work with other countries and with all concerned >> stakeholders in order to enhance the proposal which would eventually be >> forwarded again to ITU, possibly in the CWG-Internet. In this regard, we >> would like to highlight that Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré affirmed he >> would propose that further discussions on the subject, within the >> CWG-Internet, should take place with participation of all stakeholders, in >> a format similar to that used in the Informal Expert Group (IEG) meeting >> that prepared the opinions examined by WTPF. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Alexandre Scudiere Fontenelle >> Subchefe da Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) >> Ministério das Relações Exteriores (MRE) >> Tel: (61) 2030-6609 - FAX: (61) 2030-6613 >> >> Deputy Head of the Division for the Information Society (DI) >> Ministry of External Relations - Brazil >> >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> >> ********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch >> www.williamdrake.org >> *********************************************************** >> >> > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun May 26 22:07:12 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 02:07:12 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes In-Reply-To: References: <55931ABFF303184782F4A3E4DAC30C8001A4F971@URANO02.itamaraty.local> <12402326-A2AE-4706-8F0C-DB601F35B1F4@ciroap.org> <72961511-EA34-4FF5-AB73-B6FB46B51D3D@uzh.ch> , Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B21D6EC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Re Bill's comment that neither Brazil nor ITU wish to discuss ITU openness or lack thereof @ IGF; and noting the clear direction forward Brazil is suggesting for ITU around capacity-building which would be within their traditional remit, now updated to reflect range of IG players and activities; as well as the further push for CWG-Internet to open further: I count this as a win for the IGF. Since the mere threat/thought of discussing something at IGF leading to recommendations - seems to be sufficient to spur movement forward in other venues. On some occasions. Lee ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Deborah Brown [deborah at accessnow.org] Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:39 PM To: Nnenna Nwakanma Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes Hi all, I agree. I think the US proposal to open CWG-Internet is meant to build on the "success of the Informal Experts Group and WTPF", which, as many have pointed out had shortcomings. We could use this as an opportunity to call for improving that model for further openness/inclusivity. Deborah On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma > wrote: Hi Bill, all I do believe that there is an "open" wind that may blow if we keep on calling for openness at these instances. +1 Nnenna On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:16 AM, William Drake > wrote: Hi This was part of why I was reluctant about the sign on proposal to hitch the idea of IGF debating opinions to the vehicle of the failed Brazilian WTPF text. They don't want it, nor to move the action-oriented discussion of the ITU's role to IGF. But Markus wants to invite Brazil to generate a new input doc that could serve as the basis for the session on role of governments in multistakeholderism. That'd be useful, especially if some other developing country governments could be brought on board. Meanwhile USG is submitting to ITU Council a doc building on last year's proposal from Sweden to open the ITU CWG-Internet to observers. Presumably we might like something more than the restrictive "open participation" afforded at WTPF, so maybe a sign on about that would be useful…? Council meets 11-21 June. Cheers Bill On May 25, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: Forwarding with permission, in relation to the discussion of Brazil's proposal at the IGF. Those who are on the MAG could circulate this on the MAG list too, if that would be helpful. Begin forwarded message: From: Alexandre Scudiere Fontenelle > Subject: RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes Date: 24 May 2013 1:27:43 AM GMT+08:00 To: Jeremy Malcolm > Cc: Joana Varon >, Divisão da Sociedade da Informação - Itamaraty >, Benedicto Fonseca Filho > Dear Jeremy, Thank you for your e-mail. Regarding the proposal to discuss in the IGF 2013 the opinion Brazil presented in the last WTPF meeting, we would like to make some considerations: The opinion presented by Brazil contains two key ideas, namely: (a) recognition of the need to operationalize the role of governments in the multistakeholder model, and (b) the possibility that ITU could contribute to this through training and capacity building, within its competence. We recognize and support the legitimacy and usefulness in discussing point (a) in the IGF. We believe, moreover, that this discussion should take place not only in the IGF, but in all fora and institutions related to Internet governance, and it should not be limited to operationalizing the role of governments, but should include disussions on how to strengthen the participation of the other stakeholders as well, in order to improve the operation of the system as a whole. With regard to point (b), although it may also be discussed in the IGF, it does not seem right to shift the discussion there, since any decision about ITU involvement in capacity building and training initiatives, in areas of its competence, could only be taken by ITU itself and is subject to the approval of its members. Nevertheless, we agree that while discussing point (a), we could mention the opinion proposed by Brazil as an example of initiatives aimed at finding solutions to ensure that all stakeholders are appropriately participating in the Internet Governance model. Brazil will continue to work with other countries and with all concerned stakeholders in order to enhance the proposal which would eventually be forwarded again to ITU, possibly in the CWG-Internet. In this regard, we would like to highlight that Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré affirmed he would propose that further discussions on the subject, within the CWG-Internet, should take place with participation of all stakeholders, in a format similar to that used in the Informal Expert Group (IEG) meeting that prepared the opinions examined by WTPF. Best regards, Alexandre Scudiere Fontenelle Subchefe da Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) Ministério das Relações Exteriores (MRE) Tel: (61) 2030-6609 - FAX: (61) 2030-6613 Deputy Head of the Division for the Information Society (DI) Ministry of External Relations - Brazil -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gpaque at gmail.com Mon May 27 07:31:53 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 06:31:53 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Jeremy on role of governments and the way this role is changing--Webinar tomorrow Message-ID: People in this list might be interested in Diplo's webinar tomorrow (Tuesday, 28 May). The role of governments in Internet governance is under wider scrutiny this month. Debates during the ITU's World Telecommunications Policy Forum (WTPF) in Geneva, legal developments from the US House of Representatives, and the tumultuous developments at ICANN and its Government Advisory Committee (GAC), have cast a spotlight on governments' role and the multistakeholder model. Our May webinar will focus on the role of governments and the way this role is changing. Our special host is well-known IG expert *Dr Jeremy Malcolm*, senior policy officer at Consumers International. He will discuss the following, and more: - What are the updates from Geneva, the US, and Beijing? - How do these developments affect the positioning of governments in the IG process? - What can we expect to see in the coming months? Join us next *Tuesday, 28th May, at 13:00 GMT*, for this interactive webinar. Participants will be able to ask topic-related questions during the webinar. Participation is free; registration is required. Please register at http://www.diplomacy.edu/registrations/webinar-role-governments-ig Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu DiploFoundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Tue May 28 04:12:17 2013 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 10:12:17 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes In-Reply-To: References: <55931ABFF303184782F4A3E4DAC30C8001A4F971@URANO02.itamaraty.local> <12402326-A2AE-4706-8F0C-DB601F35B1F4@ciroap.org> <72961511-EA34-4FF5-AB73-B6FB46B51D3D@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <51A466E1.20606@cdt.org> Agree - thanks Jeremy and Joana! We should write to the SG, commending him on the preparatory IEG process for the WTPF (but note the deficiencies of participation at the WTPF), recalling his "commitment" to raise opening up the CWG, noting the Swedish, US proposals, and Bestbits comments to date, building on this from Fontenelle (not sure if we can quote directly): /we would like to highlight that Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré affirmed he would propose that further discussions on the subject, within the CWG-Internet, should take place with participation of all stakeholders, in a format similar to that used in the Informal Expert Group (IEG) meeting that prepared the opinions examined by WTPF./ Matthew On 26/05/2013 18:39, Deborah Brown wrote: > Hi all, I agree. I think the US proposal to open CWG-Internet is meant > to build on the "success of the Informal Experts Group and WTPF", > which, as many have pointed out had shortcomings. We could use this as > an opportunity to call for improving that model for further > openness/inclusivity. > > Deborah > > > On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma > wrote: > > Hi Bill, all > > I do believe that there is an "open" wind that may blow if we keep > on calling for openness at these instances. > > +1 > > Nnenna > > > On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:16 AM, William Drake > > wrote: > > Hi > > This was part of why I was reluctant about the sign on > proposal to hitch the idea of IGF debating opinions to the > vehicle of the failed Brazilian WTPF text. They don't want > it, nor to move the action-oriented discussion of the ITU's > role to IGF. But Markus wants to invite Brazil to generate a > new input doc that could serve as the basis for the session on > role of governments in multistakeholderism. That'd be useful, > especially if some other developing country governments could > be brought on board. > > Meanwhile USG is submitting to ITU Council a doc building on > last year's proposal from Sweden to open the ITU CWG-Internet > to observers. Presumably we might like something more than > the restrictive "open participation" afforded at WTPF, so > maybe a sign on about that would be useful…? Council meets > 11-21 June. > > Cheers > > Bill > > > > > > On May 25, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > >> Forwarding with permission, in relation to the discussion of >> Brazil's proposal at the IGF. Those who are on the MAG could >> circulate this on the MAG list too, if that would be helpful. >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> *From: *Alexandre Scudiere Fontenelle >>> >> > >>> *Subject: **RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on >>> Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet >>> Governance Processes* >>> *Date: *24 May 2013 1:27:43 AM GMT+08:00 >>> *To: *Jeremy Malcolm >> > >>> *Cc: *Joana Varon >> >, Divisão da Sociedade da >>> Informação - Itamaraty >> >, Benedicto Fonseca Filho >>> >> > >>> >>> Dear Jeremy, >>> >>> Thank you for your e-mail. >>> Regarding the proposal to discuss in the IGF 2013 the >>> opinion Brazil presented in the last WTPF meeting, we would >>> like to make some considerations: >>> >>> The opinion presented by Brazil contains two key ideas, >>> namely: (a) recognition of the need to operationalize the >>> role of governments in the multistakeholder model, and (b) >>> the possibility that ITU could contribute to this through >>> training and capacity building, within its competence. >>> We recognize and support the legitimacy and usefulness in >>> discussing point (a) in the IGF. We believe, moreover, that >>> this discussion should take place not only in the IGF, but >>> in all fora and institutions related to Internet governance, >>> and it should not be limited to operationalizing the role of >>> governments, but should include disussions on how to >>> strengthen the participation of the other stakeholders as >>> well, in order to improve the operation of the system as a >>> whole. >>> With regard to point (b), although it may also be discussed >>> in the IGF, it does not seem right to shift the discussion >>> there, since any decision about ITU involvement in capacity >>> building and training initiatives, in areas of its >>> competence, could only be taken by ITU itself and is subject >>> to the approval of its members. Nevertheless, we agree that >>> while discussing point (a), we could mention the opinion >>> proposed by Brazil as an example of initiatives aimed at >>> finding solutions to ensure that all stakeholders are >>> appropriately participating in the Internet Governance model. >>> Brazil will continue to work with other countries and with >>> all concerned stakeholders in order to enhance the proposal >>> which would eventually be forwarded again to ITU, possibly >>> in the CWG-Internet. In this regard, we would like to >>> highlight that Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré affirmed he >>> would propose that further discussions on the subject, >>> within the CWG-Internet, should take place with >>> participation of all stakeholders, in a format similar to >>> that used in the Informal Expert Group (IEG) meeting that >>> prepared the opinions examined by WTPF. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Alexandre Scudiere Fontenelle >>> Subchefe da Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) >>> Ministério das Relações Exteriores (MRE) >>> Tel: (61) 2030-6609 - FAX: (61) 2030-6613 >>> >>> >>> Deputy Head of the Division for the Information Society (DI) >>> Ministry of External Relations - Brazil >>> >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for >> consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 >> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice >> . Don't >> print this email unless necessary. >> >> > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D -- Matthew Shears Director and Representative Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) +447712472987 mshears at cdt.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Tue May 28 04:27:09 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:27:09 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes In-Reply-To: <51A466E1.20606@cdt.org> References: <55931ABFF303184782F4A3E4DAC30C8001A4F971@URANO02.itamaraty.local> <12402326-A2AE-4706-8F0C-DB601F35B1F4@ciroap.org> <72961511-EA34-4FF5-AB73-B6FB46B51D3D@uzh.ch> <51A466E1.20606@cdt.org> Message-ID: So the draft: 1. Review the WTPF, accepting that the 6 opionions were adopted 2. Indicate that there were deficiencies in participation 3. Recall the Sweden, US proposals 4. Remind of promises made by Touré at WCIT and WTPF - he did say he will submit a proposal yes, I tweeted it. 5. Maybe a summary of how the IEG and the opening of the participation has done so far. 6. Make some recommendations Best N On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:12 AM, matthew shears wrote: > Agree - thanks Jeremy and Joana! > > We should write to the SG, commending him on the preparatory IEG process > for the WTPF (but note the deficiencies of participation at the WTPF), > recalling his "commitment" to raise opening up the CWG, noting the Swedish, > US proposals, and Bestbits comments to date, building on this from > Fontenelle (not sure if we can quote directly): *we would like to > highlight that Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré affirmed he would propose > that further discussions on the subject, within the CWG-Internet, should > take place with participation of all stakeholders, in a format similar to > that used in the Informal Expert Group (IEG) meeting that prepared the > opinions examined by WTPF.* > > Matthew > > > On 26/05/2013 18:39, Deborah Brown wrote: > > Hi all, I agree. I think the US proposal to open CWG-Internet is meant to > build on the "success of the Informal Experts Group and WTPF", which, as > many have pointed out had shortcomings. We could use this as an opportunity > to call for improving that model for further openness/inclusivity. > > Deborah > > > On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > >> Hi Bill, all >> >> I do believe that there is an "open" wind that may blow if we keep on >> calling for openness at these instances. >> >> +1 >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:16 AM, William Drake wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> This was part of why I was reluctant about the sign on proposal to >>> hitch the idea of IGF debating opinions to the vehicle of the failed >>> Brazilian WTPF text. They don't want it, nor to move the >>> action-oriented discussion of the ITU's role to IGF. But Markus wants to >>> invite Brazil to generate a new input doc that could serve as the basis for >>> the session on role of governments in multistakeholderism. That'd be >>> useful, especially if some other developing country governments could be >>> brought on board. >>> >>> Meanwhile USG is submitting to ITU Council a doc building on last >>> year's proposal from Sweden to open the ITU CWG-Internet to observers. >>> Presumably we might like something more than the restrictive "open >>> participation" afforded at WTPF, so maybe a sign on about that would be >>> useful…? Council meets 11-21 June. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On May 25, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>> Forwarding with permission, in relation to the discussion of Brazil's >>> proposal at the IGF. Those who are on the MAG could circulate this on the >>> MAG list too, if that would be helpful. >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> *From: *Alexandre Scudiere Fontenelle < >>> alexandre.fontenelle at itamaraty.gov.br> >>> *Subject: **RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on >>> Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes >>> * >>> *Date: *24 May 2013 1:27:43 AM GMT+08:00 >>> *To: *Jeremy Malcolm >>> *Cc: *Joana Varon , Divisão da Sociedade da >>> Informação - Itamaraty , Benedicto Fonseca Filho < >>> benedicto.fonseca at itamaraty.gov.br> >>> >>> Dear Jeremy, >>> >>> Thank you for your e-mail. >>> Regarding the proposal to discuss in the IGF 2013 the opinion Brazil >>> presented in the last WTPF meeting, we would like to make some >>> considerations: >>> >>> The opinion presented by Brazil contains two key ideas, namely: (a) >>> recognition of the need to operationalize the role of governments in the >>> multistakeholder model, and (b) the possibility that ITU could contribute >>> to this through training and capacity building, within its competence. >>> >>> We recognize and support the legitimacy and usefulness in discussing >>> point (a) in the IGF. We believe, moreover, that this discussion should >>> take place not only in the IGF, but in all fora and institutions related to >>> Internet governance, and it should not be limited to operationalizing the >>> role of governments, but should include disussions on how to strengthen the >>> participation of the other stakeholders as well, in order to improve the >>> operation of the system as a whole. >>> >>> With regard to point (b), although it may also be discussed in the IGF, >>> it does not seem right to shift the discussion there, since any decision >>> about ITU involvement in capacity building and training initiatives, in >>> areas of its competence, could only be taken by ITU itself and is subject >>> to the approval of its members. Nevertheless, we agree that while >>> discussing point (a), we could mention the opinion proposed by Brazil as an >>> example of initiatives aimed at finding solutions to ensure that all >>> stakeholders are appropriately participating in the Internet Governance >>> model. >>> >>> Brazil will continue to work with other countries and with all concerned >>> stakeholders in order to enhance the proposal which would eventually be >>> forwarded again to ITU, possibly in the CWG-Internet. In this regard, we >>> would like to highlight that Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré affirmed he >>> would propose that further discussions on the subject, within the >>> CWG-Internet, should take place with participation of all stakeholders, in >>> a format similar to that used in the Informal Expert Group (IEG) meeting >>> that prepared the opinions examined by WTPF. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Alexandre Scudiere Fontenelle >>> Subchefe da Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) >>> Ministério das Relações Exteriores (MRE) >>> Tel: (61) 2030-6609 - FAX: (61) 2030-6613 >>> >>> Deputy Head of the Division for the Information Society (DI) >>> Ministry of External Relations - Brazil >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>> Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 <%2B60%203%207726%201599> >>> >>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >>> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> >>> ********************************************************** >>> William J. Drake >>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >>> william.drake at uzh.ch >>> www.williamdrake.org >>> *********************************************************** >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > -- > > Matthew Shears > Director and Representative > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+447712472987mshears at cdt.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue May 28 07:19:29 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 19:19:29 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes In-Reply-To: References: <55931ABFF303184782F4A3E4DAC30C8001A4F971@URANO02.itamaraty.local> <12402326-A2AE-4706-8F0C-DB601F35B1F4@ciroap.org> <72961511-EA34-4FF5-AB73-B6FB46B51D3D@uzh.ch> <51A466E1.20606@cdt.org> Message-ID: <51A492C1.3040403@ciroap.org> On 28/05/13 16:27, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > So the draft: > > 1. Review the WTPF, accepting that the 6 opionions were adopted > 2. Indicate that there were deficiencies in participation > 3. Recall the Sweden, US proposals > 4. Remind of promises made by Touré at WCIT and WTPF - he did say he > will submit a proposal yes, I tweeted it. > 5. Maybe a summary of how the IEG and the opening of the > participation has done so far. > 6. Make some recommendations > Nnenna or Matthew, were you volunteering? :-) -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Tue May 28 07:28:39 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 11:28:39 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes In-Reply-To: <51A492C1.3040403@ciroap.org> References: <55931ABFF303184782F4A3E4DAC30C8001A4F971@URANO02.itamaraty.local> <12402326-A2AE-4706-8F0C-DB601F35B1F4@ciroap.org> <72961511-EA34-4FF5-AB73-B6FB46B51D3D@uzh.ch> <51A466E1.20606@cdt.org> <51A492C1.3040403@ciroap.org> Message-ID: No, I am yet to volunteer. I was brainstorming. I am not good at first-level drafting. I am better at second level. If someone can generate a first draft, I will be happy to contribute Best Nnenna On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 28/05/13 16:27, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > > So the draft: > > 1. Review the WTPF, accepting that the 6 opionions were adopted > 2. Indicate that there were deficiencies in participation > 3. Recall the Sweden, US proposals > 4. Remind of promises made by Touré at WCIT and WTPF - he did say he > will submit a proposal yes, I tweeted it. > 5. Maybe a summary of how the IEG and the opening of the participation > has done so far. > 6. Make some recommendations > > > Nnenna or Matthew, were you volunteering? :-) > > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Tue May 28 11:03:33 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 12:03:33 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes In-Reply-To: References: <55931ABFF303184782F4A3E4DAC30C8001A4F971@URANO02.itamaraty.local> <12402326-A2AE-4706-8F0C-DB601F35B1F4@ciroap.org> <72961511-EA34-4FF5-AB73-B6FB46B51D3D@uzh.ch> <51A466E1.20606@cdt.org> <51A492C1.3040403@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <57FE828A-DBA5-47A2-8707-060BB0DE598F@varonferraz.com> Agree and thanks Nnenna for the brainstorming on the structure of the document. I believe the recent discussion that we are having on the other thread about the refusal from ITU to upload IEG member statement as an information document shall be highlighted in the deficiencies session of our document, besides the other measures Anriette has suggested to address this problem. I have one practical concern (that by no means is questioning the need of such statement, but I believe is important to address): when is the next meeting of CWG-Internet? I'm afraid we ask for open participation there, but with so many meetings going on, we just wont be able to participate. And it could be weird to ask for openness and dont show up. Having said that. Maybe it is the case to ask for more creative mechanisms for remote participation in the recommendations (or , pushing for an ideal scenario, even ask for resources for civil society to attend? O.0 we will need more people to help us! :)) About volunteering, I'm caught on project reports, but can join the efforts by Friday. Best Joana On May 28, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > No, I am yet to volunteer. I was brainstorming. I am not good at first-level drafting. > I am better at second level. If someone can generate a first draft, I will be happy to contribute > > Best > > Nnenna > > > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 28/05/13 16:27, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> So the draft: >> Review the WTPF, accepting that the 6 opionions were adopted >> Indicate that there were deficiencies in participation >> Recall the Sweden, US proposals >> Remind of promises made by Touré at WCIT and WTPF - he did say he will submit a proposal yes, I tweeted it. >> Maybe a summary of how the IEG and the opening of the participation has done so far. >> Make some recommendations > > Nnenna or Matthew, were you volunteering? :-) > > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue May 28 11:58:19 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 23:58:19 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: RE: Best Bits statement to ITU Secretary General on WTPF - please forward References: Message-ID: <93E7072A-5A85-485F-840F-562949A81DDA@ciroap.org> I think it's my fault since I started off the thread, but messages have been going to the old mailing list address. Forwarding to the proper address now. Begin forwarded message: > From: Deborah Brown > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: RE: Best Bits statement to ITU Secretary General on WTPF - please forward > Date: 28 May 2013 11:54:22 PM GMT+08:00 > To: Andrew Puddephatt > Cc: "Gene Kimmleman (external)" , "anriette at apc.org" , "bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org" > > > Hi all, > > I agree that we should continue to push for getting the Best Bits statement included. Here are some points that might clarify the situation. As Matthew noted the statement Preetam is referencing is the one that some of the IEG members had drawn up for the opening plenary based on our submission (info doc 6). I have already submitted it to the ITU on behalf of Matthew, Nnenna, Avri, and myself, but it hasn't been posted yet. > > We can, as Anriette suggests, try to append the Best Bits statement to the opening statement. This seems to be a more straightforward task than editing the statement to include more content from the Best Bits statement, since it is already submitted. I'm open to both options, but we need to be realistic on what's possible in the timeframe. I haven't heard back from the various people I emailed it to, so I'm not sure of its current status. It might be too late, but it might not be. > > I think Preetam is trying to tell us that there is no way to upload info docs at this point because the WTPF is over, but we could remind him that some time in late December/early January all of the contributions from the open platform created for WCIT were submitted as info docs and were backdated to the last day of WCIT: http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-INF-0005!!MSW-E.pdf > > Looking forward to others thoughts on next steps. > > Best, > Deborah > > > > > > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > Both sound good to me as options > > > > Andrew Puddephatt, Director > > Global Partners & Associates > > > > Direct: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 > > Office: +44 (0)20 7549 0350 > > Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 > > Email: andrew at global-partners.co.uk > > Address: Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, London EC2A 4LT, UK > > > > www.global-partners.co.uk > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of genekimmelman at gmail.com > Sent: 28 May 2013 13:27 > To: anriette at apc.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org > > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: RE: Best Bits statement to ITU Secretary General on WTPF - please forward > > > > Worth pushing both avenues. Is ITU open for CS input or not? > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Anriette Esterhuysen > Date: > To: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: RE: Best Bits statement to ITU Secretary General on WTPF - please forward > > > Dear all > > As Matthew has been asked to submit a written statement 'based' on his > input, can we perhaps submit an updated version of your input that > includes more content from the Best Bits statement? Or is it too late? > > Another option.... > I know Preetam Maloor and he is an extremely nice person. We could ask > him to let us submit a new version of Matthew's input that has the 'best > bits' statement pasted after the verbal input as a reference doc? > > Anriette > > > On 28/05/2013 11:43, matthew shears wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > This is unfortunate (and something we should refer to in any > > communication re CWG - where we should encourage, at a minimum, an > > open contribution mechanism along the lines of the WCIT). > > > > The closing session civil society statement is up on the WTPF site > > (pdf and video). What the ITU person is referring to is the IEG > > member statement that was drawn from the contribution IEG members made > > to the WTPF. > > > > Matthew > > > > On 28/05/2013 11:32, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> The ITU refuses to upload our Best Bits statement as an information > >> document. > >> > >> -------- Original Message -------- > >> Subject: RE: Best Bits statement to ITU Secretary General on WTPF > >> - please forward > >> Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 09:19:59 +0000 > >> From: Maloor, Preetam > >> To: Sareidaki, Despoina , Jeremy > >> Malcolm > >> > >> > >> > >> Dear Malcolm, > >> > >> Thanks for your email. > >> > >> Matthew Shears (CDT) has been requested to provide a written > >> statement based on his intervention at the plenary. We are awaiting > >> his statement which will be uploaded on the WTPF website along with > >> other statements made during the plenary > >> (http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/speakers.aspx). > >> > >> I apologize that at this stage we do not have any provision for > >> uploading information documents. Thank you for your understanding in > >> this regard. > >> > >> With regards > >> > >> Preetam > >> > >> -- > >> > >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > >> Senior Policy Officer > >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala > >> Lumpur, Malaysia > >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > >> > >> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > >> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > >> > >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > >> | > >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > >> > >> > >> Read our email confidentiality notice > >> . Don't > >> print this email unless necessary. > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbankston at cdt.org Fri May 10 09:29:46 2013 From: kbankston at cdt.org (Kevin Bankston) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 09:29:46 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Soft launch of new Best Bits website! In-Reply-To: <518C64FE.9090500@ciroap.org> References: <518C64FE.9090500@ciroap.org> Message-ID: This looks fabulous, Jeremy. Thanks so much. ____________________________________ Kevin S. Bankston Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202.407.8834 direct 202.637.0968 fax kbankston at cdt.org Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech On May 9, 2013, at 11:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Today we are soft-launching the new Best Bits website at http://bestbits.net. Big thanks to Deborah from Access, Lea from Global Partners and others who have been working on this with me! > > Here are some of the major new features (so far): > An event calendar at http://bestbits.net/events/. New events can be added directly to this calendar, but we also subscribe to (currently six) calendars from other groups like Access, Fight for the Future and the Internet Governance Project. Events automatically imported from those calendars can be revealed by selecting "Events from other calendars" from the "Categories" drop-down menu. > A fully-functional events calendar can also be embedded in other websites, in a number of different formats. You can also choose to embed or subscribe to just certain categories of events - for example, just IGF and ICANN events. Let me know if you want more information about this great feature! > We are officially abolishing the hierarchy between "Lead organisers" and "Other supporting organisations" that used to be shown on the website. Any civil society organisation that has participated in the Best Bits network can now have their logo displayed as an organiser/supporter. So please email me your logo, or a link to it, if you would like yours added. > Whereas previously the website was designed to highlight a single event, there are now multiple event pages available from a drop-down menu on the right of every page. Having said that, there are still some changes to be made (such as removal of the countdown ticker from the top right corner). > We now have a Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus account! The Twitter account is _BestBits (with a leading underscore). The Facebook page is https://www.facebook.com/bestbits.net (events from the calendar can be published to Facebook automatically, though we haven't done that yet). The Google Plus community is at https://plus.google.com/communities/104087848331196964155. > There are still some features to be added (many of these are due to constructive comments received): > It will be possible to RSVP for events, so that you can see who else is planning to cover an event, such as the WTPF, for example. Funding options will also be shown.* > Events in the calendar will soon be able to be linked to dedicated pages elsewhere on the site (eg. with a statement, full agenda, etc).* > It will be possible to upload briefing documents for any event, and reports following from any event, and for these to be listed alongside the event and on the front page.* > We will be adding some background information pages for each institution (eg. ITU, ICANN, IGF) and for each issue area (eg. human rights, standards). > We want a brighter, friendlier looking background for the page, and to redo the theme for the calendar page, with a clearer division between months. > There are some other bugs with the calendar; mainly, you can't set your timezone when viewing or adding events, which may mean times are represented wrongly. > We need to find some 400x400 icons for events that fall into the categories of "non-institutional forums" and "events from other calendars". > * For now, you can just add comments on the event to approximate for this functionality. > Any volunteers who would like to help us work on the site are more than welcome, no matter whether or not you are technically skilled or have an eye for design - we can easily find something for you to do, such as helping add details to events. We are soon going to be establishing a loose, geographically-inclusive steering committee for Best Bits, and part of its work will be to establish a roster for such ongoing work. > I hope you like the new website and look forward to receiving your comments! > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Tue May 28 23:21:14 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 23:21:14 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes In-Reply-To: <57FE828A-DBA5-47A2-8707-060BB0DE598F@varonferraz.com> References: <55931ABFF303184782F4A3E4DAC30C8001A4F971@URANO02.itamaraty.local> <12402326-A2AE-4706-8F0C-DB601F35B1F4@ciroap.org> <72961511-EA34-4FF5-AB73-B6FB46B51D3D@uzh.ch> <51A466E1.20606@cdt.org> <51A492C1.3040403@ciroap.org> <57FE828A-DBA5-47A2-8707-060BB0DE598F@varonferraz.com> Message-ID: Thanks to all for the excellent brainstorming on content, structure, challenges, etc. Joana raises an important point regarding the feasibility of participation. I've asked around and was told that for the time being, the next CWG-Internet meeting is not scheduled yet, but that it probably will be set during the next Council meeting (11-21 June, according to Bill). Has anyone heard differently? I think it would be a good idea to explicitly ask for enough notice to be given for other stakeholders to arrange for participation, as well as guidelines for what we think would facilitate meaningful remote participation. Is it realistic to aim for rough consensus on how much notice is sufficient and modalities for remote participation? I've attached (with permission) the U.S. proposal regarding opening CWG-Internet that has been mentioned on this thread. If anyone knows of similar proposals from other govts it would be really helpful to share them here and compare. My sense is that the U.S. proposal is a start, but it still refers to participation with other stakeholders as "consultations". This may be a necessary structural challenge, but I don't think participation in the IEG was phrased this way. I'm really interested in hearing others' thoughts on this. I'm also happy to contribute to collaborative efforts, and attempt a first draft later in the week if that would be helpful. When would be the target date to release this? Ahead of the June Council session? Best, Deborah On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Joana wrote: > Agree and thanks Nnenna for the brainstorming on the structure of the > document. > > I believe the recent discussion that we are having on the other thread > about the refusal from ITU to upload IEG member statement as an information > document shall be highlighted in the deficiencies session of our document, > besides the other measures Anriette has suggested to address this problem. > > I have one practical concern (that by no means is questioning the need of > such statement, but I believe is important to address): when is the next > meeting of *CWG-Internet? I'm afraid we ask for open participation there, > but with so many meetings going on, we just wont be able to participate. > And it could be weird to ask for openness and dont show up. **Having said > that. Maybe it is the case to ask for more creative mechanisms for remote > participation in the recommendations (or , pushing for an ideal scenario, > even ask for resources for civil society to attend? O.0 we will need more > people to help us! :))* > > About volunteering, I'm caught on project reports, but can join the > efforts by Friday. > > Best > > Joana > > > On May 28, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > > No, I am yet to volunteer. I was brainstorming. I am not good at > first-level drafting. > I am better at second level. If someone can generate a first draft, I > will be happy to contribute > > Best > > Nnenna > > > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 28/05/13 16:27, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> >> So the draft: >> >> 1. Review the WTPF, accepting that the 6 opionions were adopted >> 2. Indicate that there were deficiencies in participation >> 3. Recall the Sweden, US proposals >> 4. Remind of promises made by Touré at WCIT and WTPF - he did say he >> will submit a proposal yes, I tweeted it. >> 5. Maybe a summary of how the IEG and the opening of the >> participation has done so far. >> 6. Make some recommendations >> >> >> Nnenna or Matthew, were you volunteering? :-) >> >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: >> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> > > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 069e_USA-Res1336-1344.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 69926 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue May 28 23:58:09 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 11:58:09 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes In-Reply-To: References: <55931ABFF303184782F4A3E4DAC30C8001A4F971@URANO02.itamaraty.local> <12402326-A2AE-4706-8F0C-DB601F35B1F4@ciroap.org> <72961511-EA34-4FF5-AB73-B6FB46B51D3D@uzh.ch> <51A466E1.20606@cdt.org> <51A492C1.3040403@ciroap.org> <57FE828A-DBA5-47A2-8707-060BB0DE598F@varonferraz.com> Message-ID: <51A57CD1.6020009@ciroap.org> On 29/05/13 11:21, Deborah Brown wrote: > I've attached (with permission) the U.S. proposal regarding opening > CWG-Internet that has been mentioned on this thread. If anyone knows > of similar proposals from other govts it would be really helpful to > share them here and compare. My sense is that the U.S. proposal is a > start, but it still refers to participation with other stakeholders as > "consultations". This may be a necessary structural challenge, but I > don't think participation in the IEG was phrased this way. I'm really > interested in hearing others' thoughts on this. Actually what they've done is quite clever, in that the CWG-Internet already has open consultations, but they are saying "well, another way to implement that would be to allow all stakeholders to participate in the actual meaning". It is basically twisting what "open consultations" means. So I think that we will get what we want out of this, even though it is phrased in an odd way. > I'm also happy to contribute to collaborative efforts, and attempt a > first draft later in the week if that would be helpful. When would be > the target date to release this? Ahead of the June Council session? I would like to pitch in but it will be towards the end because I have a report to a funder to finish, then two publications, then another webinar... :-( -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From avri at ella.com Wed May 29 02:06:28 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 08:06:28 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes In-Reply-To: References: <55931ABFF303184782F4A3E4DAC30C8001A4F971@URANO02.itamaraty.local> <12402326-A2AE-4706-8F0C-DB601F35B1F4@ciroap.org> <72961511-EA34-4FF5-AB73-B6FB46B51D3D@uzh.ch> <51A466E1.20606@cdt.org> <51A492C1.3040403@ciroap.org> <57FE828A-DBA5-47A2-8707-060BB0DE598F@varonferraz.com> Message-ID: <17CC1F64-73EC-4114-B71F-5F0471A74C5E@ella.com> On 29 May 2013, at 05:21, Deborah Brown wrote: > > I'm also happy to contribute to collaborative efforts, and attempt a first draft later in the week if that would be helpful. When would be the target date to release this? Ahead of the June Council session? > i'lll help. avri From mshears at cdt.org Wed May 29 04:33:20 2013 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 10:33:20 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes In-Reply-To: <17CC1F64-73EC-4114-B71F-5F0471A74C5E@ella.com> References: <55931ABFF303184782F4A3E4DAC30C8001A4F971@URANO02.itamaraty.local> <12402326-A2AE-4706-8F0C-DB601F35B1F4@ciroap.org> <72961511-EA34-4FF5-AB73-B6FB46B51D3D@uzh.ch> <51A466E1.20606@cdt.org> <51A492C1.3040403@ciroap.org> <57FE828A-DBA5-47A2-8707-060BB0DE598F@varonferraz.com> <17CC1F64-73EC-4114-B71F-5F0471A74C5E@ella.com> Message-ID: <51A5BD50.9080804@cdt.org> Likewise. Matthew On 29/05/2013 08:06, Avri Doria wrote: > On 29 May 2013, at 05:21, Deborah Brown wrote: > >> I'm also happy to contribute to collaborative efforts, and attempt a first draft later in the week if that would be helpful. When would be the target date to release this? Ahead of the June Council session? >> > > i'lll help. > > avri > -- Matthew Shears Director and Representative Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) +447712472987 mshears at cdt.org From deborah at accessnow.org Thu May 30 18:09:21 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 18:09:21 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes In-Reply-To: <51A5BD50.9080804@cdt.org> References: <55931ABFF303184782F4A3E4DAC30C8001A4F971@URANO02.itamaraty.local> <12402326-A2AE-4706-8F0C-DB601F35B1F4@ciroap.org> <72961511-EA34-4FF5-AB73-B6FB46B51D3D@uzh.ch> <51A466E1.20606@cdt.org> <51A492C1.3040403@ciroap.org> <57FE828A-DBA5-47A2-8707-060BB0DE598F@varonferraz.com> <17CC1F64-73EC-4114-B71F-5F0471A74C5E@ella.com> <51A5BD50.9080804@cdt.org> Message-ID: Hi all, Since we have a few volunteers to work on the text now and it's basically Friday, Joana and I have agreed to work on a very preliminary draft based on the outline Nnenna and others developed tomorrow over Skype at 18:00 UTC. Anyone who would like to join is more than welcome and can ping me at deborah.l.brown. Apologies that this is not a particularly convenient time for those on the other side of the Atlantic. We will then share this text on this list so that anyone who is interested in contributing edits may do so. In terms of a timeline, can I suggest the following: Preliminary draft text open for edits: 31 May- 6 June Finalize text for sign on: 7 June Send text to the SG/ITU and publish it: June 11 Does that sound right to everyone? In the meantime, suggestions for recommendations on how to maximize meaningful civil society participation, including remote participation, would be greatly appreciated. Best, Deborah On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:33 AM, matthew shears wrote: > Likewise. > > Matthew > > > On 29/05/2013 08:06, Avri Doria wrote: > >> On 29 May 2013, at 05:21, Deborah Brown wrote: >> >> I'm also happy to contribute to collaborative efforts, and attempt a >>> first draft later in the week if that would be helpful. When would be the >>> target date to release this? Ahead of the June Council session? >>> >>> >> i'lll help. >> >> avri >> >> > -- > > Matthew Shears > Director and Representative > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > +447712472987 > mshears at cdt.org > > > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: