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

Fri Dec 21 11:39:42 EST 2012

I do not think that the IGC should endorse this nor would I encourage other
CS organizations to "sign on"... And I would strongly object to this
statement anointing itself as the spokerspersons for either Civil Society or
the BestBits group.

As I've been trying to say in my last few blogposts
<http://gurstein.wordpress.com/> , I think that CS comes out of WCIT with an
enormous set of opportunities, but with those opportunities go very
significant responsibilities...

I think those responsibilities are not towards support for certain national,
corporate or sectional interests but rather towards the articulation and
advocacy towards a set of principles and practices that support the on-going
evolution, extension and inclusive use of the Internet in the public
interest (as noted in the BestBits declaration) and as a global and globally
managed public good.

I think that before we go forward to support one or another "side" in the
WCIT/post WCIT discussions we should be clear on the values/norms that we as
CS are supporting and the longer term vision of an Internet operating for
and through the "public interest" that we are working towards -- one which
includes the values articulated by many concerning freedom of expression on
the Internet and transparency of governance processes; but also includes the
extension of the Internet to be much more broadly inclusive in access and
use and more broadly equitable in the distribution of its benefits,
financial and otherwise.

Unfortunately I see only a very limited set of these norms which I
understand to underlie our common position in CS/IGC represented in the
AccessNow statement.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 7:04 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
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=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ
93YTbqLSM>
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ9
3YTbqLSM)

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 publics 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 WCITs 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121221/83af1a52/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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