[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