[bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014

Tue Sep 2 09:37:09 EDT 2014

and regarding Jeremy's question:

my suggestion

(a) regarding statement (1) - let organizations decide by themselves. I do
not think we have time for consensus and I agree it is getting tricky,
since dealing with other issues beyond the clear BB consensus.  But
Jeannete is still looking for suggestions in developing it.

(b) regarding statement (2)  - it still needs work. And yes, I agree it
should be in the BB for members to sign it. And definitely Burcu could
refer to it.

(c) regarding statement 3 - it is an interesting idea to "recording 3 on
the "Outputs" tab of our meeting page at
http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2014 " BUT we also have the meeting
report to look for inputs for it. The report has been consolidated and
already shared with the steering committee. I am waiting for the SC to
comment (deadline today), so we can re-consolidate and send to all at BB.
So we may want to wait to put anything up for a while and also give more
time for folks to add and review it without rush.

Cheers,

C

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com
> wrote:

> and BB's text as of now with comments:
>
> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y
>
> -- sign-on statement (these can also be notes for Burcu's closing
> address?)
>
> 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.
>
> (Brett: I fully support the statement but think that the reference to the
> Turkish environment above should come as the final stand alone point after
> the 5 substantive points below)
>
> 2. We call for the establishment of the IGF as a permanent
>  multistakeholder forum within the framework of the United Nations, 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 the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of the
> Internet  - known as the 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 (Carol's comment: this part
> locks weird.."express concerns to be invited"??!!! many times CS complains
> it was not invited and now it is comparing it is being invited?! ah!. Ok,
> we need to rephrase this concern. It is more about "distractions that do
> not add value..." than about "being invited" . So I suggest: "but express
> concerns about the number of parallel initiatives that might distract
> stakeholders from process where the added value is clear") .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 set in its
> outcome document by, for example, focusing on net neutrality and ask the
> MAG, UNDESA and Brazil - the host of the 2015 IGF - to build on this
> roadmap, and to build upon the regional and national IGFs as core
> opportunities that feed into this process.
>
> 6. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review modalities (Carol's
> comment: suggest listing them) to ensure that stakeholders interests and
> views are heard and taken into account.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Kevin Bankston <
> bankston at opentechinstitute.org> wrote:
>
>> 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 ::
>> >
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> *Carolina Rossini *
> *Vice President, International Policy*
> *Public Knowledge*
> *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>

-- 
-- 
*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140902/eb69884c/attachment.htm>