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

[parminder]

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:
>>
>>
>>> <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 
>>> <http://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/20130512/7ae5754b/attachment.htm>