[bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014
Jeanette Hofmann
jeanette at wzb.eu
Thu Sep 4 17:12:26 EDT 2014
Hi Pranesh,
it is not that there would be open opposition to an extention of the
IGF's mandate but suddenly there are lots of concerns with the term
"open ended". We, Stephanie and me, have been told that the statement
would get much broader support if we replaced the term "open ended" with
something softer such as "longer term". After some hesitation we decided
for various reasons against changing the language. Right now, we cannot
say how much support the current wording of the statement will get.
While you seem to imply that we are asking for something that is more or
less accepted anyway, others reminded us today that we had the same
battle over language in the negotiations of the NetMundial statement.
The drafters of the NetMundial statement started with making the IGF's
mandate "permanent", just like us, and ended with extending it "beyond
five years". These matters seem trivial but actually they aren't.
Jeanette
Am 04.09.14 19:31, schrieb Pranesh Prakash:
> 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
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list