[governance] Fwd: Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT

Fri Dec 21 08:02:21 EST 2012

Ronny,

Despite our name, we have almost exclusively focused on UN (WSIS and
IGF) processes in the 7 years I have been on this list.

The entire WSIS process was ITU driven, and the ITU seeks a greater
role for itself (or at least many member States do) in IG.

ITU already does reverse delegation of your national numbering plan
(ENUM), but I think most on this
list don't want an expanded role for the ITU in IG matters.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:43 AM, Koven Ronald <kovenronald at aol.com> wrote:
> Dear All --
>
> This statement strikes me as ambivalent to the point of internal
> contradiction over whether we want to be engaged with the ITU on Internet
> issues, If we think ITU does and/or should have a role in Internet
> governance, then it makes sense to demand better representation in its
> processes. If, however, we mean what we say when we say we regret adoption
> of a resolution in effect involving ITU with the Internet, then it hardly
> seems to make sense for the Internet Governance Caucus and its friends and
> allies to seek broader participation in ITU.
>
> The IGC is not about the ITU's historic mandates in traditional
> telecommunications or world radio spectrum allocation. If we want it to
> stick to its last and stay away from Internet regulation, then why would we
> want to become more involved with it ?
>
> Bests, Rony Koven
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
> To: governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Sent: Fri, Dec 21, 2012 4:05 am
> Subject: [governance] Fwd: Your sign on requested- Civil society statement
> post-WCIT
>
> Please find below a message fwded from another list.
>
> I think this is a useful statement for IGC to sign:
>
>
> -------------------------
>
> Dear all,
>
> As a follow up to the civil society letter to WCIT
> (https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM)
> that a number of organizations on this list have signed on to, civil
> society representatives in Dubai drafted a statement on the new ITRs
> and the future of multi-stakeholder engagement. The text of the
> statement is pasted below.
>
> This statement assesses the opportunities and challenges faced by
> civil society at WCIT and sets out shortcomings we would like to see
> addressed to achieve meaningful civil society participation at the ITU
> moving forward. It is meant to be complementary to other post-WCIT
> civil society statements that focus on the substance of the ITRs.
>
> We would very much like to secure sign on from your organization. We
> feel that there is a strategic importance of having this communication
> with the ITU Secretariat on record as we look to future
> conversations/events. Though the timing is not ideal, we plan to
> publish this statement with the list of signatories and send a copy to
> the ITU on Monday. Therefore, we request that you reply to this email
> by 0900 EST/1400 UTC on Monday, January 24 if you would like to sign
> on. Like with the earlier letter, we will leave the statement open for
> sign on and update the list of signatories regularly. I will send out
> a publicly accessible link with the statement and list of signatories
> on Monday for people to post and circulate, but it would also be great
> to discuss ways to draw attention to this statement in the New Year.
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for your
> attention to this. Warm wishes over the holidays.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Deborah
>
>
> Civil Society statement on the new ITRs and the future of
> multi-stakeholder engagement
>
> December 21, 2012
>
> Civil society is disappointed that the World Conference on
> International Telecommunications (WCIT) could not come to consensus in
> revising the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs).  We
> understand, however, the serious concerns that a number of governments
> have expressed with regard to the potential impact of the new
> regulations.
>
> As civil society stated in its Best Bits statement, a key criterion
> for ITRs should be that “any proposed revisions are confined to the
> traditional scope of the ITRs” and “where international regulation is
> required around technical issues [it] is limited to telecommunications
> networks and interoperability standards.”  We regret that an Internet
> governance-related resolution has been included in the Final Acts of
> WCIT, despite assertions by many that WCIT was not about Internet
> governance. We are also concerned by the lack of clarity around the
> applicability of the treaty, which as defined could have unforeseen
> consequences for an open internet, and the lack of specificity in key
> terms, such as security, which may negatively impact the public’s
> rights to privacy and freedom of expression.
>
> This said, civil society would like to acknowledge and thank those
> governments that opened their delegations to members of civil society
> and other stakeholder groups.  This was a very important initial step
> in establishing a civil society voice in the proceedings and we trust
> that it signals a wider commitment to multi-stakeholder approaches in
> public policy development and decision-making on telecommunications
> and Internet-related matters.  We trust that this openness and
> inclusive approach will continue and extend to upcoming ITU-related
> work and beyond, and we urge other governments to welcome and engage
> with civil society going forward.
>
> As we communicated to ITU Secretary General Touré, we also commend the
> ITU on first steps towards greater transparency and openness with
> regard to access to and webcasting of plenary sessions and Committee 5
> sessions, as well as soliciting public submissions.  These initial
> steps enabled civil society to play a constructive, albeit limited,
> role at the WCIT.
>
> However there remain serious limitations to engaging with the ITU.
> The substantive policy deliberations in working groups were neither
> webcast nor open to unaffiliated civil society.  Further, while it is
> positive that the ITU opened the process to public comment, these
> comments were never part of the official record.  We raised both of
> these challenges with the Secretary General, in writing and in person,
> and he committed to addressing these concerns and appealing to member
> states, as appropriate. Although the WCIT has concluded, we renew our
> request to have the public comments submitted as official ITU
> documents to capture these positions for the historical record.
>
> We also raised the issue of the lack of any institutional mechanism
> for civil society participation at the ITU. While the participation of
> civil society representatives in government delegations benefits both
> the delegations and the WCIT’s deliberations as a whole, it cannot
> substitute for engagement with independent members of civil society.
> We will be following up on these important matters with the Secretary
> General and welcome his commitment to considering institutional
> remedies to this challenge.
>
> Looking forward, civil society seeks to work with governments and
> other stakeholders around the globe towards an ever more inclusive and
> substantive multi-stakeholder engagement on telecommunications,
> Internet, and related matters.  Much more needs to be done with regard
> to opening the ITU to greater genuine multi-stakeholder participation
> and in particular independent civil society participation -
> institutional change will need to occur and we will work with the ITU
> and other stakeholders to bring this about.  These changes are vitally
> important and need to be addressed as soon as possible given the
> upcoming 2013 World Telecommunication Policy Forum, World Summit on
> the Information Society (WSIS+10) and 2014 ITU Plenipotentiary
> Conference.
>
> -----------------------
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t