[bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014
Jeanette Hofmann
jeanette at wzb.eu
Wed Sep 3 02:34:13 EDT 2014
Hi Carolina, hi all,
we see positive responses for the statement # 1 from various
organizations including governments. There are chances that, more or
less by accident, we produce an outcome at this year's IGF that has been
co-authored by two civil society individuals. There has been very little
feedback from civil society so far.
It would be good if the groups in favor of making the IGF more outcome
orientied would have a look at the statement and let us know by tomorrow
if they are able to endorse it or not.
As I said yesterday, we will do minor changes later today but the basic
content is stable by now.
I hope I don't sound too pushy but of course our minds are all busy with
the workshops and other sessions we are involved in this week. So I am
merely trying to get attention and compete with all your other tasks
throughout the IGF.
jeanette
Am 02.09.14 15:37, schrieb Carolina Rossini:
> 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 <mailto: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
> BestBits 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 netneutrality
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:bankston at opentechinstitute.org>
> Phone: 202-596-3415 <tel:202-596-3415>
> Fax: 202-986-3696 <tel:202-986-3696>
> @kevinbankston
>
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:35 PM, 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> /Carolina Rossini /
> /Vice President, International Policy/
> *Public Knowledge*
> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> /Carolina Rossini /
> /Vice President, International Policy/
> *Public Knowledge*
> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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