[bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

[michael gurstein]

Can we take it then that those who have signed on to this statement or who have elsewhere indicated a full and unquestioning support for MSism in Internet Governance (including of course countries such as the USA who are actively promoting MSism in all venues) are in agreement with Milton’s definition of Multistakeholderism as governance by “private sector-based MS institutions”?  And further that these proponents of MSism have renounced a belief in democracy (as in rule by and for the people) as the foundation of governance in the Internet (and presumably other) governance spaces?

 

It would be good to know the position of various groupings on this central question of values so that for example, appropriate alliances etc. could be established in full understanding of organizational and individual commitments.

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anne Jellema
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 10:51 PM
To: Norbert Bollow
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; JNC Forum
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

 

Hi Norbert

 

The pre-IGF BB meeting in Istanbul (report on the BB website) agreed on the creation of three fluid working groups. Carolina's note on the outcomes of this meeting, sent to the Best Bits list on 9 September, outlined these groups and who to contact if you wanted to join. Snippet below:

 

·         ITU working group: A group of volunteers (see the list in the BB report) has been formed. If you'd like to join, please contact Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> and myself. 

 

 About 30 people requested to join the ITU working group, were duly added and introduced themselves to the group; no one who asked was turned down.

 

The group decided not to open its email list archive. Many of the group members are participating in government delegations, which is a valuable source of information and intelligence that CS needs for effective advocacy (especially in the ITU context where access to documents is highly restricted), but requires that you accept a duty to treat that information with great care. Those on delegations felt that there was some of this information that they could responsibly share with a group of 30 people whose identities, affiliations and reasons for participating in the group they knew, but not with an open mailing list of 370 people. 

 

Second, as mentioned above and also stressed in my note to the list the other day, this was a group of volunteers who prepared a statement and opened it to the wider BB list for endorsement (or not). The statement has not been issued in the name of "civil society" or "Best Bits" but only in the name of the organisations who chose to sign it. 

 

I hope that answers your questions but feel free to follow up.

 

Best,

Anne

 

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 22:38:08 +0200
Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote on the BestBits list:

> As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to try to
> come up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot.

May I ask some questions about this?:

Was this an open process which any interested civil society person would
have been accepted to join upon request?

Are there publicly accessible mailing list archives somewhere?

Greetings,
Norbert





 

-- 

Anne Jellema 

CEO  

+27 061 36 9352 (ZA) 

+1 202 684 6885 (US)

@afjellema 

 

World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC, 20005, USA |  <http://www.webfoundation.org/> www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141023/155041dd/attachment.htm>