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

[genekimmelman at gmail.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 <gurstein at gmail.com> 
Date:  
To: 'Gene Kimmelman' <genekimmelman at gmail.com>,'parminder' <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 
 
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:



<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 | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130512/d0179bc7/attachment.htm>