No subject

provide in resolving some of the contentious issues before the WCIT is
wasted.

We have no doubt that the invitation to submit public comment was extended
in good faith, and believe that the lack of any mechanism for including
these comments in the deliberations of the WCIT is a result of this being
the first time the ITU has attempted this form of public engagement.

We ask that you work with us to find an effective manner to bring these
public comments into the deliberations while they remain relevant, for
example by including them as Information Documents (INF) in the document
management system.

*Lack of Transparency of the Working Groups.* We applaud the decision to
webcast Plenary deliberations and the deliberations of Committee 5.
Nevertheless, the decision not to webcast or allow independent civil
society access to the working groups, particularly the working groups of
Committee 5, undermines this move toward transparency and openness. The
decisions made by the WCIT will impact the global community. The global
community deserves, at a minimum, to see how these decisions are made. By
contrast, the failure to provide access to the working groups lends
legitimacy to the criticism that the WCIT makes vital decisions about the
future of the public Internet behind closed doors. While transparency
cannot substitute for substantive engagement, it is a valuable end in
itself that lends legitimacy to all public policy exercises.

We ask that you further enhance the transparency of the WCIT by allowing
access to and webcasting of  the Committee 5 working groups.

*Absence of independent civil society participation*. Finally, those of us
attending who are not associated with a member state or sector member
delegation are restricted in our ability to participate on behalf of civil
society. We recognize this is not a deliberate effort to exclude civil
society representatives, but a function of the ITU=92s structural rules.
Nevertheless, these restrictions hamper our ability to provide the WCIT
with the benefits of an independent civil society perspective, and report
back to the global community.

We are aware that several member state delegations have actively reached
out to their civil society communities and included representatives of
civil society in their member delegations. We commend the efforts made by
these governments and encourage other governments to take similar action.
Nevertheless, these civil society representatives are first and foremost
members of their delegations and have limited opportunities to express an
independent civil society view. While the participation of civil society
representatives benefits both the member delegations and the WCIT=92s
deliberations as a whole, it cannot substitute for engagement with
independent members of civil society.

We recognize that the current institutional structures do not facilitate
independent civil society participation in the work of the ITU. Given that
it is unlikely that institutional changes can be implemented during the
WCIT, we ask that the two above issues be addressed immediately and that
the ITU commit to reviewing and putting in place mechanisms that will
encourage greater participation by civil society.

We wish to acknowledge your efforts to reach out to civil society and
enhance openness and transparency at the WCIT.  We hope you will take our
concerns in equal good faith, and work with us to resolve these issues as
expeditiously as possible.

We look forward to further discussions and to building upon these first
steps of multi-stakeholder engagement.

Sincerely,



Access, International

African ICT Consumer Network (AICN), Regional

African Information and Communications Technology Alliance (AfICTA),
Regional

Article 19, International

Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC), Bangladesh

Center for Democracy and Technology, USA

Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), Japan

Center for Technology and Society/Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV),
Brazil

Complutense University of Madrid, Cyberlaw Clinic, Spain

Consumers International, International

Delhi Science Forum, India

FANTSUAM FOUNDATION, Nigeria

Free Software and Open Source Foundation for Africa (FOSSFA), Regional

Free Software Movement of India

The Gambia YMCA, Gambia

Global Partners and Associates, UK

Index on Censorship, UK

Information Technology Association of the Gambia (ITAG), Gambia

Internet Democracy Project, India

Internet Society Bulgaria

Internet Society Serbia, Belgrade

IT for Change, India

Karisma Foundation, Colombia

NNENNA.ORG, C=F4te d'Ivoire

Open Rights Group, UK

Open Source Foundation of Nigeria (OSFON), Nigeria

Public Knowledge, USA

Reporters Without Borders (RSF), International

Society for Knowledge Commons, India

Software Freedom Law Centre, India

Wolfgang Kleinwachter, University of Aarhus, Denmark

We encourage other civil society organizations and their members to endorse
this statement. Please email WCIT12civilsociety at gmail.com to add your
support.



--=20
Deborah Brown
Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. deborah at accessnow.org
S. deborah.l.brown
T. deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D

--047d7b6dc0bc4b4e4404d07b7fd8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Hi everyone,=A0<div><br></div><div>As you might know, civi=
l society representatives in Dubai for the WCIT have a meeting with ITU Sec=
retary General=A0Tour=E9 at 1500 local time/1100 UTC today, Monday, 10 Dece=
mber. In preparation for the meeting, civil society reps here have drafted =
an open letter (text below) to WCIT and are welcoming further sign on.=A0Th=
e letter is posted online at=A0<a href=3D"https://docs.google.com/document/=
pub?id=3D1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM" target=3D"_blank">ht=
tps://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=3D1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ=
93YTbqLSM</a>=A0</div>

<div><br></div><div>If your organization would like to sign on, please emai=
l=A0<a href=3D"mailto:WCIT12civilsociety at gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">WCIT1=
2civilsociety at gmail.com</a> and your signature will be added. The letter as=
 linked above will be updated as signatures are received. We encourage you =
to post the letter on your organization's website and include this link=
 with the most updated list of signatures.</div>

<div><br></div><div>Please feel free to circulate this to your networks. Ap=
ologies for cross posting and thanks to those who have already expressed th=
eir support.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,=A0<br>Deborah</div><div>

<br></div><div>







<p>9 December 2012</p>
<p>Open letter to the WCIT</p>
<p>Dear Secretary General Tour=E9 and WCIT-12 Chairman Al-Ghanim:</p>
<p>We, the undersigned members of civil society, are attending the ongoing =
World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12), both physic=
ally and remotely. We appreciate your efforts to engage with global civil s=
ociety and trust that you will take this letter in the same spirit of const=
ructive engagement.</p>


<p>We believe that openness and transparency should be the hallmark of any =
effort to formulate public policy. In the months approaching the conference=
, and in our experience at the WCIT so far, we have discovered that certain=
 institutional structures continue to hamper our ability to contribute to t=
he WCIT process in a meaningful and constructive manner.</p>


<p>Now that the conference is in session, we wish to call your attention to=
 three immediate and pressing matters: the lack of any official standing to=
 the public comments solicited prior to WCIT at the ITU=92s invitation; the=
 lack of access to and transparency of working groups, particularly the wor=
king groups of Committee 5; and the absence of mechanisms to encourage inde=
pendent civil society participation. We address these in detail below.</p>


<p><b><i>Public Comment Solicited By ITU Effectively Excluded.</i>=A0</b>Pr=
ior to the WCIT, the ITU assured civil society that it would provide an opp=
ortunity for meaningful input through public comment. As many organizations=
 explained at the time, the inability to see specific country proposals com=
promised the ability to offer a detailed response. Nevertheless, primarily =
based on documents leaked to the public, 22 organizations from four regions=
 expended considerable resources and effort to make the most of this single=
, albeit highly limited, opportunity to engage on the substance of the prop=
osals as they existed at that time.</p>


<p>Unfortunately, the ITU has provided no mechanism for inclusion of the pu=
blic comments in the WCIT working papers. They are not made accessible thro=
ugh the document management system (TIES) in the same manner as proposals s=
ubmitted by members, nor are any of the comments reflected in the numerous =
working drafts reviewed by WCIT delegates. As a consequence, delegates appe=
ar entirely unaware of these comments, and the diligent work of civil socie=
ty organizations that accepted the ITU=92s invitation to participate throug=
h the public comment process is in danger of being lost. From a practical s=
tandpoint, the possible help these public comments could provide in resolvi=
ng some of the contentious issues before the WCIT is wasted.</p>


<p>We have no doubt that the invitation to submit public comment was extend=
ed in good faith, and believe that the lack of any mechanism for including =
these comments in the deliberations of the WCIT is a result of this being t=
he first time the ITU has attempted this form of public engagement.</p>


<p><span>We ask that you work with us to find an effective manner to bring =
these public comments into the deliberations while they remain relevant, fo=
r example by including them as Information Documents (INF) in the document =
management system. =A0</span></p>


<p><b><i>Lack of Transparency of the Working Groups.</i></b>=A0We applaud t=
he decision to webcast Plenary deliberations and the deliberations of Commi=
ttee 5. Nevertheless, the decision not to webcast or allow independent civi=
l society access to the working groups, particularly the working groups of =
Committee 5, undermines this move toward transparency and openness. The dec=
isions made by the WCIT will impact the global community. The global commun=
ity deserves, at a minimum, to see how these decisions are made. By contras=
t, the failure to provide access to the working groups lends legitimacy to =
the criticism that the WCIT makes vital decisions about the future of the p=
ublic Internet behind closed doors. While transparency cannot substitute fo=
r substantive engagement, it is a valuable end in itself that lends legitim=
acy to all public policy exercises.</p>


<p><span>We ask that you further enhance the transparency of the WCIT by al=
lowing access to and webcasting of =A0the Committee 5 working groups.</span=
></p>
<p><b><i>Absence of independent civil society participation</i></b>. Finall=
y, those of us attending who are not associated with a member state or sect=
or member delegation are restricted in our ability to participate on behalf=
 of civil society. We recognize this is not a deliberate effort to exclude =
civil society representatives, but a function of the ITU=92s structural rul=
es. Nevertheless, these restrictions hamper our ability to provide the WCIT=
 with the benefits of an independent civil society perspective, and report =
back to the global community.</p>


<p>We are aware that several member state delegations have actively reached=
 out to their civil society communities and included representatives of civ=
il society in their member delegations. We commend the efforts made by thes=
e governments and encourage other governments to take similar action. Never=
theless, these civil society representatives are first and foremost members=
 of their delegations and have limited opportunities to express an independ=
ent civil society view. While the participation of civil society representa=
tives benefits both the member delegations and the WCIT=92s deliberations a=
s a whole, it cannot substitute for engagement with independent members of =
civil society.</p>


<p><span>We recognize that the current institutional structures do not faci=
litate independent civil society participation in the work of the ITU. Give=
n that it is unlikely that institutional changes can be implemented during =
the WCIT, we ask that the two above issues be addressed immediately and tha=
t the ITU commit to reviewing and putting in place mechanisms that will enc=
ourage greater participation by civil society.</span></p>


<p>We wish to acknowledge your efforts to reach out to civil society and en=
hance openness and transparency at the WCIT. =A0We hope you will take our c=
oncerns in equal good faith, and work with us to resolve these issues as ex=
peditiously as possible.</p>


<p>We look forward to further discussions and to building upon these first =
steps of multi-stakeholder engagement.</p>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p>Access, International</p>
<p>African ICT Consumer Network (AICN), Regional</p>
<p>African Information and Communications Technology Alliance (AfICTA), Reg=
ional</p>
<p>Article 19, International</p>
<p>Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC), Bangladesh<=
/p>
<p>Center for Democracy and Technology, USA</p>
<p>Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), Japan</p>
<p>Center for Technology and Society/Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), B=
razil</p>
<p>Complutense University of Madrid, Cyberlaw Clinic, Spain</p>
<p>Consumers International, International</p>
<p>Delhi Science Forum, India</p>
<p>FANTSUAM FOUNDATION, Nigeria</p>
<p>Free Software and Open Source Foundation for Africa (FOSSFA), Regional</=
p>
<p>Free Software Movement of India</p>
<p>The Gambia YMCA, Gambia</p>
<p>Global Partners and Associates, UK</p>
<p>Index on Censorship, UK</p>
<p>Information Technology Association of the Gambia (ITAG), Gambia</p>
<p>Internet Democracy Project, India</p>
<p>Internet Society Bulgaria</p>
<p>Internet Society Serbia, Belgrade</p>
<p>IT for Change, India</p>
<p>Karisma Foundation, Colombia</p>
<p><a href=3D"http://NNENNA.ORG" target=3D"_blank">NNENNA.ORG</a>, C=F4te d=
'Ivoire</p><p>







</p><p>Open Rights Group, UK</p><p></p>
<p>Open Source Foundation of Nigeria (OSFON), Nigeria</p>
<p>Public Knowledge, USA</p>
<p>Reporters Without Borders (RSF), International</p>
<p>Society for Knowledge Commons, India</p>
<p>Software Freedom Law Centre, India</p>
<p>Wolfgang Kleinwachter, University of Aarhus, Denmark</p>
<p>We encourage other civil society organizations and their members to endo=
rse this statement. Please email <span><a href=3D"mailto:WCIT12civilsociety=
@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">WCIT12civilsociety at gmail.com</a></span>=A0to =
add your support.</p>


<p><br></p><div><div><br></div>-- <br><div style=3D"color:rgb(136,136,136);=
font-size:13px"><font face=3D"garamond, serif">Deborah Brown</font></div><d=
iv style=3D"color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px">
<font face=3D"garamond, serif">Policy Analyst</font></div><div style=3D"col=
or:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px"><font face=3D"garamond, serif">Access |=
 AccessNow.org</font></div><div style=3D"color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:1=
3px">

<font face=3D"garamond, serif">E.=A0<a href=3D"mailto:deborah at accessnow.org=
" style=3D"color:rgb(17,85,204)" target=3D"_blank">deborah at accessnow.org</a=
></font></div><div style=3D"color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px">
<font face=3D"garamond, serif">S. deborah.l.brown</font></div><div style=3D=
"color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px"><font face=3D"garamond, serif">T. d=
eblebrown</font></div><div style=3D"color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px">
<font face=3D"garamond, serif">PGP 0x5EB4727D</font></div><br>
</div></div></div>

--047d7b6dc0bc4b4e4404d07b7fd8--