[bestbits] RES: IGF and the Brazilian proposal to WPF on Operationalising the Role of Governments in Internet Governance Processes

Tue May 28 04:27:09 EDT 2013

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 <mshears at cdt.org> 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 <nnenna75 at gmail.com>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 <william.drake at uzh.ch>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 <jeremy at ciroap.org> 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 <jeremy at ciroap.org>
>>>  *Cc: *Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>, Divisão da Sociedade da
>>> Informação - Itamaraty <di at itamaraty.gov.br>, 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<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
>>> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130528/19566512/attachment.htm>