[bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014
Pranesh Prakash
pranesh at cis-india.org
Thu Sep 4 13:31:03 EDT 2014
Dear Jeanette and all,
Do we know of anyone who is opposed to:
* Renewal of the IGF's mandate for another 5/10 years? or
* Having an open-ended mandate for the IGF?
It would be useful to know who exactly are opposed to these and why.
Stephanie, you mentioned that I was "voicing concerns that we have heard
from both govt and business". Could you please specify which government
delegations and which businesses / business associations you have heard
this from? Thanks!
Regards,
Pranesh
Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> [2014-09-002 23:45:35 +0200
]:
>
>
> Stephanie did circulate our second version today. You should have got it.
>
> Meanwhile, there is a chance that some governments will also endorse it.
> We are working on this right now.
>
> The statement, sort of born at the BB meeting, could become an informal
> or formal outcome of the IGF.
>
> jeanette
>
> Am 02.09.14 16:55, schrieb Andrew Puddephatt:
>> can both statements - short and long be posted for approval?
>>
>>> *Andrew Puddephatt*
>>> Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)7713399597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
>>> gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org/>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2 September 2014 13:35, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org
>> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 2, 2014, at 2:01 PM, joy <joy at apc.org <mailto:joy at apc.org>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Dear all - just following up on the agreement at the Best Bits
>> meeting
>> > earlier this week for a statement on the IGF.
>> > Many thanks to those who made comments on the draft statement
>> which is
>> > in the meeting document https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y
>> > The draft statement has been tidied and now has a clean version
>> starting
>> > at line 325.
>> > Please do try to review by the end of Wednesday so that any edits
>> can be
>> > made and sent in time for a deadline of agreement of end of
>> Thursday
>> > Turkey time for presentation at the IGF on Friday.
>>
>> So to clarify, there are now *three* overlapping statements:
>>
>> 1. One from Jeanette, Stephanie and others at
>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K which is proposed to be a
>> *multi-stakeholder* statement on extension of the IGF.[0]
>>
>> 2. One at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y from line 325
>> which is a draft opt-in Best Bits sign-on statement on IGF extension
>> and other issues.[1]
>>
>> 3. A subset of 2, being simply the paragraph "We call for the
>> establishment of the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum
>> within the framework of the UN, that should be reformed and
>> strengthened," which has the distinction of being a *consensus*
>> outcome of our Best BIts meeting.
>>
>> MY QUESTION:
>>
>> It is clear what happens to 2 - we add it to Best Bits website for
>> individual endorsement as per our usual practice. But what happens
>> with 1 and 3? I suggest recording 3 on the "Outputs" tab of our
>> meeting page at http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2014. But what
>> would be an appropriate way for Best Bits network members to show
>> support for 1 (I don't suppose we can assume it inherits the
>> consensus that we reached on 3)?
>>
>>
>> [0] Current full text below:
>>
>> In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General in the
>> Tunis Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for
>> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance
>> Forum (IGF). (Footnote: paragraph 72, Tunis Agenda)
>>
>> The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues
>> relating to key elements of Internet governance, such as those
>> enumerated in the Tunis Agenda, in order to foster the
>> sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of
>> the Internet in developed and developing countries. The Forum was
>> not to replace existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or
>> organizations. It was intended to constitute a neutral,
>> non-duplicative and non-binding process, and have no involvement in
>> day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet.
>>
>> The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to examine the
>> desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal
>> consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its
>> creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this
>> regard. At its sixty-fifth session, the General Assembly decided to
>> extend the mandate of the IGF, underlining the need to improve the
>> IGF “with a view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global
>> Internet governance”.
>>
>> In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum,
>> the UN Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was unique and
>> valuable. It is a place where Governments, civil society, the
>> private sector and international organizations discuss important
>> questions of economic and social development. They share their
>> insights and achievements and build a common understanding of the
>> Internet’s great potential.
>>
>> The Secretary-General recommended that
>> (a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended
>> for a further five years;
>> (b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again by
>> Member
>> States within the context of a 10-year review of implementation of
>> the outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015;
>>
>> Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of the
>> preliminary list*, Information and communications technologies for
>> development, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of
>> 2010 New York, 28 June-23 July 2010, Agenda item 13 (b)**)
>>
>> The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, stated
>> in the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April 24th, 2014,
>> that there is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum
>> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end had already been made
>> by the UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. The NetMundial
>> Statement also stated that “a strengthened IGF could better serve as
>> a platform for discussing both long standing and emerging issues
>> with a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways
>> to address them.”
>>
>> In 2016 it will have been ten years since the establishment of
>> IGF. We , the undersigned multistakeholders, believe it has proven
>> its worth. (content here on why) We think it is time to build on
>> the success and to strengthen the forum that the UN initiated with
>> the Tunis Agenda, and to give it a solid mandate and reliable
>> financial support. These two goals are interrelated. To address the
>> need for sustainable funding, the Internet Governance Forum Support
>> Association (http://www.igfsa.org/) was formed at IGF 2014. The
>> goal of this non-profit is to support and promote sustainable
>> funding for the IGF. This funding effort as well a other existing
>> funding mechanisms, together with long range planning for the IGF
>> are essential in creating the strengthened IGF the Internet
>> community needs in order to continues its work for the global
>> Internet development goals.
>>
>> Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for the
>> continuing development of Internet governance and based on success
>> of the two 5 year periods of IGF operation, we request the UN
>> Secretary General to establish the IGF as an ongoing (permanent)
>> forum. We believe that the IGF should move beyond its initiation
>> phase where repeated renewal by the UN General assembly is required
>> and that it be allowed to do long range planning for its continuing
>> and evolving work. We also request that the UN Secretary General
>> work with the IGF and its stakeholders to strengthen its structure
>> and processes in the spirit of its open and multistakeholder
>> foundation.
>>
>>
>> [1] Current full text below:
>>
>> We, the undersigned below and all members of the Best Bits Network,
>> re-emphasise that human rights and development are underlying
>> concerns for all internet governance processes and mechanisms. At
>> this 2014 IGF in Istanbul we wish to in particular call for: (and
>> then the specific demands below)
>>
>> 1. We express serious concern about the shrinking space for freedom
>> of expression and access to information in Turkey, especially in
>> relation to internet filtering and blocking of content. Therefore
>> Best Bits welcomes the initiative of the Internet Ungovernance Forum
>> and Turkish civil society organizations to address this threat to
>> human rights.
>>
>> 2. We call for the establishment of the IGF as a permanent
>> multistakeholder forum within the framework of the UN, that should
>> be reformed and strengthened.
>>
>> 3. We call for a more thorough and timely review of the IGF
>> post-Istanbul (rather than waiting until early 2015) in order to
>> look at potential changes that could lead to its further
>> strengthening.
>>
>> 4 . We support NetMundial and its recommendations for the IGF, but
>> express concerns about the number of new processes which civil
>> society is being asked to be involved outside of the IGF and call
>> for it to continue as the key forum for internet governance issues.
>>
>> 5. We commend the IGF for responding to the NETmundial roadmap by,
>> for example, focusing on Net neutrality and ask the MAG and UNDESA
>> and Brazil who is the host of the 2015 IGF to build on this, and to
>> use regional and national IGFs as part of this process.
>>
>> 6. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review modalities to
>> ensure that stakeholders interests and views are heard and taken
>> into account.
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161>
>>
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
--
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/6384c959/attachment.sig>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list