[bestbits] Civil society statement to the ITU Sec-Gen ahead of WTPF 2013 - PLEASE ENDORSE AND SHARE

Sun May 12 12:22:59 EDT 2013

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
<http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/in-defense-of-multistakeholder-pro
cesses/>  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
<https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/multistakeholderism-vs-democracy-
my-adventures-in-stakeholderland/>  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
<http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/open-data-empowering-the-empowered
-or-effective-data-use-for-everyone/>  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
<https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/making-happytalk-in-paris-disneyl
and-and-the-wsis-10-review/> , "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:

<snip>

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
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/>  |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't print
this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130512/cca50b21/attachment.htm>