[bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014

Tue Sep 2 09:13:14 EDT 2014

Jeremy, you are a treasure.  Thank you for clarifying matters.
_____________________________________
Kevin S. Bankston
Policy Director, Open Technology Institute
New America Foundation
1899 L Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
bankston at opentechinstitute.org
Phone: 202-596-3415
Fax: 202-986-3696
@kevinbankston

On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> On Sep 2, 2014, at 2:01 PM, joy <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
> 
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
> 
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
> 