[governance] WTPF May 2013
Sérgio Alves Jr.
sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com
Tue Jul 10 14:46:16 EDT 2012
Dear Parminder,
Thank you for considering my posts.
I can say it is not only Brazil who has been trying to make ITU’s processes
more transparent. In the case of WCIT, the United Arab Emirates themselves
proposed to ITU Council last week the open access to the conference’s
documents. I believe this move wouldn’t happen without civil society and
media’s lobby, but the goal might be achieved, anyway. (One can argue on
the interests of UAE in doing so, but it is hard to deny the efficacy of
the host being the sponsor of this proposal.)
The rationale behind Brazil defending free access to ITU material (much
broader than WCIT docs) is also expressed here:
http://economialegal.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/1952/. Japan, Sweden, US and
many other countries seem to share similar opinions, but with different
perspectives.
First of all, it is important to clarify that I work for Anatel (the
Brazilian telecom regulator), a frequent stakeholder at the ITU who is not
usually present at WSIS fora, IGF, ICANN, CSTD, UNGA, OECD and others.
If you’ve gone through the original Brazilian contribution
(WTPF-IEG/1/4<http://www.itu.int/md/S12-WTPF13PREP-C-0009/en>
), you might have noticed that we referred to some of Kurbalija’s material.
In particular, I have cited his views of a “narrow” vs “broad” approach to
IG. If one considers his several IG baskets, we could say that the ITU has
been working on IG issues for quite some time (if not, since the Union’s
creation).
Our idea is to organize this IG debate within the ITU, and the
establishment of its own principles would be a good way to start. Like
CGI.br, others have been this have been doing this (
http://igcaucus.org/links), so it shouldn’t be extremely hard to find
reliable sources for the job.
When we (Brazil) wrote this contribution, we did not think of the ITU as
the place to decide on global Internet related public policies global nor
on “enhanced cooperation”. In fact, there wasn’t a text for the Secretary
General WTPF Report yet. We didn’t discuss DNS management, scarce
resources, numbering allocation nor any specific IG issue. We just thought
of a way of making the process more transparent, considering all the
misinformation we could find about ITU’s goals on the IG. Why not to make
it clear? Considering that the WTPF will count on public attendance, it
could be a useful environment. It is not a perfect solution because the
public might not have the right to speak (since this is a decision from the
2010 Plenipotentiary Conference, it is hard to expect any change now).
FYI, Sweden has been very active on the first meeting of CWG-Internet and
raised strong proposals in favor of “open consultations” with external
stakeholders. They propose that the open consultations do take place with
the physical presence of the stakeholders. Brazil and many others have
supported this idea, but it is uncertain to happen at the group’s second
meeting.
As I mentioned, Brazil doesn’t see the CWG-Internet nor the ITU as the
space for “enhanced cooperation” at this moment. We haven’t discussed
internally whether CWG would compete with a UN CIRP or any other body.
Anyway, I cannot guarantee these concerns will not be brought by other
countries.
I guess you’re right in your statements. And that is why I keep on arguing
with my national folks that that ignoring the ITU within the broader IG
debate is wrong. Denying its existence or technical and political influence
will leads us to uninformed decisions and an incomplete view of the global
negotiation scenario. In Brazil, we have been closer (then) and farther
(now) from the ITU on IG, and that might be the reason why we haven’t
discussed the possibility of taking the CWG as the target of “enhanced
cooperation”. From my perspective, some Brazilian relevant stakeholders
strongly oppose to the ITU at any Internet process on principle, and I
believe this is a naïve standpoint.
Anyway, the CWG is still on its birth, with a long list of possible issues
to approach. The most important question is deciding upon the “open
consultation” process and the modality of external stakeholders inputs. I
have just been informed that Council decided that the CWG will hold online
consultations for all stakeholders only, instead of physical meetings.
Once again I thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Abraços,
Sérgio
2012/7/8 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Dear Sergio,
>
> Thanks for sharing these documents, and for your overall efforts to open
> ITU documents to the general public.
>
> I read Brazil's inputs to the ITU SG's report with great interest. I have
> a specific question regarding it. In recommending to the ITU that it
> develops its own principles for Internet governance, and referring to the
> Brazilian principles in this regard, does Brazil not look at the ITU as the
> place to discuss and decide on global Internet related public policies,
> which is the definitional mandate given by Tunis agenda to the process of
> 'enhanced cooperation'? (Such is the work done by OECD's CCICP, e.g.
> developing as it did recently Principles for Internet Policy Making)
>
> If indeed Brazil (and the same question applies to other actors) is now
> so intent to let ITU's CWG-Internet be that space of 'enhanced
> cooperation', any discussion on whether a UN CIRP (minus any oversight
> role) for fulfilling the non CIR side of enhanced cooperation mandate
> becomes, to that extent, redundant. As I read WTFP documents, and I
> recommend others interested in the enhanced cooperation also to read them,
> it is apparent that the ITU's Council Working Group on International
> Internet Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet) seems poised to take
> up the role that some envisaged for a UN CIRP like body (minus CIR
> oversight role).
>
> I know that CWG-Internet does not take binding decisions but has only
> recommendatory role to the ITU Council. However CIRP was supposed to have
> exactly an identical role vis a vis the UN GA, which would have to follow
> up to make actual implementable decisions etc. I see both ITU's
> CWG-Internet and UN CIRP having more or less identical advisory and
> facilitative roles to respective intergov decision making bodies. As one
> reads WTFP documents, one sees that the envisaged subject areas for the two
> entities (one existing and other proposed) is becoming increasingly
> similar.
>
> I pose this question especially because Brazil has reserved its judgement
> whether to support a UN CIRP like structure or not, and I am trying to
> explore the implications of this position. If in not supporting a CIRP like
> body one means just to let ITU's CWG-Internet take up more or less exactly
> that work, it raises some basic questions on the nature of reservations
> that Brazil, and others in civil society (including from Brazil), had or
> have vis a vis the CIRP proposal. Are the reservations really vis a vis
> multistakeholderism, participative-ness and transparency as has apparently
> looked to be the case? But how do these reservation hold in encouraging, or
> even allowing, ITU's CWG-Internet to take up more or less exactly the same
> role?
>
> The proposed design of UN CIRP is by far better on all these three counts
> (multistakeholderism, participative-ness and transparency) than ITU's
> CWG-Internet. Secondly, ITU is basically a body with a technical mandate,
> and corresponding mindset, which is evident in its processes and
> perspectives. It has no real background and expertise in social, cultural,
> economic and political issues. Internet, especially from civil society's
> point of view, should first be seen from social etc angles, and ITU, in my
> view, is not the best place to do so. Actors and institutions with generic
> social, cultural, economic and political backgrounds are better placed to
> deal with global IG and its wider public policy questions. These two sets
> of reasons is why I prefer a UN CIRP like body to ITU's CWG-Internet, and I
> am open to a discussion about the relative merits of the two.
>
> However, I can see now that the chances are that ITU's CWG-Internet would
> take over the proposed role of CIRP in the area of 'enhanced cooperation'
> as defined in the Tunis agenda. It may be a creeping acquisition but it is
> well planned and resourced. (Without going into the merits of it, Toure's
> team deserves appreciation for such a good plan and its impeccable
> execution.) ITU may even be able to bring more institutional resources and
> certainly greater institutional focus to the 'enhanced cooperation'
> function. Solid institutionalisation around this function is clearly well
> on its way. (With WSIS forum and all, also providing the otherwise missing
> social, economic, cultural political basis.)
>
> I bring up this point because I believe that in politics acts of
> omission are often as important as those of commission. Civil society may
> need to make a practical choice; Is ITU's CWG-Internet the right place for
> (non CIR oversight) 'enhanced cooperation' function or is a new more open
> and participative body with an initial socio-economic-cultural focus (like
> UN CIRP) a more appropriate body. In default of such a resolution, we may
> simply be agreeing to ITU CWG-Internet takinge up this role, which it
> clearly is taking up.
>
> Although, whether because it is being careful, at least in the beginning,
> or becuase ITU by its nature focuses more on technical issues, the list of
> issues proposed to be covered still are *relatively* technical even when
> the express intent is to jump headlong into the broad area of International
> Internet related public policies. Now, if CWG-Internet is indeed going to
> be the 'enhanced cooperation' space, which to me looks increasingly likely,
> I consider this narrow close-to-technical focus unfortunate. To illustrate
> what I mean, OECD's Committee on ICCP is right now discussing 'economics of
> personal data on the Internet', which is one of the most key and formative
> factors and features of what the Internet is and would be. I would like a
> globally democratic space to discuss this all important global public
> policy issue, but dont see a place to do so. Should this issue finally
> somehow fit CWG-Internet's agenda? While its mandate seems broad to include
> all global Internet public policy issues, I do not see ITU's CWG-Internet
> as the best place for this discussion. But if not here, then where? It is
> too important an issue not be addressed globally.
>
> I also find it unfortunate that there is not much will on this civil
> society like, I mean the IGC, to discuss enhanced cooperation issue beyond
> the CIR oversight issue (on which we had a very good discussion). As I have
> said, I find these larger global Internet related public policy issues as
> of rather greater significance that CIR oversight. However, there seems not
> much interest here to discuss this more important part of enhanced
> cooperation and its institutional gaps and requirements. We seem to be too
> CIRs fixated.
>
> parminder
>
>
> On Thursday 28 June 2012 10:36 PM, Sérgio Alves Jr. wrote:
>
> http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/ieg.aspx
>
> For the time being, most WTPF-13 docs are open.
>
>
> Abraços,
> Sérgio
>
>
> Informal Experts Group
>
> In accordance with the Council Decision 562<http://www.itu.int/md/S11-CL-C-0102/en>,
> the Secretary-General will convene a balanced,* informal group of
> experts(IEG)* - who are active in preparing for the Forum in their own
> country - to assist in the successive stages of the preparatory process.
> The proposed deadline for nominations for this group of experts is 15 May
> 2012. The* schedule *for publishing the Secretary-General’s report to
> WTPF-13 is included in Circular letter DM 12/1003. <http://www.itu.int/md/S12-DM-CIR-01003/en>
>
> A *progress report *on the fifth World Telecommunication/Information and
> Communication Technology Policy Forum on Internet-related public policy
> issues is included in Circular letter DM 12/1016<http://www.itu.int/md/S12-DM-CIR-01016/en>
> .
>
>
>
> FIRST MEETING
> *5 June 2012, ITU Headquarters, Geneva*
>
> - WTPF-IEG/1/1 <http://www.itu.int/md/S12-WTPF13IEG1-C-0001/en>: Draft
> Agenda
>
> - WTPF-IEG/1/2 <http://www.itu.int/md/S12-WTPF13PREP-R-0001/en>:
> First draft of Secretary-General's report
>
> - WTPF-IEG/1/3 <http://www.itu.int/md/S12-WTPF13PREP-C-0010/en>:
> Comments from the Russian federation on the First draft of
> Secretary-General's report.
>
> - WTPF-IEG/1/4 <http://www.itu.int/md/S12-WTPF13PREP-C-0009/en>:Comments
> from Brazil on the First draft of Secretary-General's report
>
> - WTPF-IEG/1/5 <http://www.itu.int/md/S12-WTPF13PREP-C-0008/en>:Comments
> from ARIN on the First draft of Secretary-General's report
>
> - WTPF-IEG/1/6 <http://www.itu.int/md/S12-WTPF13PREP-C-0007/en>:
> Comments from the United States on the First draft of Secretary-General's
> report
>
> - WTPF-IEG/1/7 <http://www.itu.int/md/S12-WTPF13PREP-C-0011/en>:
> Comments from Internet Society (ISOC)
>
> - WTPF-IEG/1/8 <http://www.itu.int/md/S12-WTPF13IEG1-C-0002/en>:
> Invitation letter
>
> - *WTPF-IEG/1/9* <http://www.itu.int/md/S12-WTPF13PREP-R-0002/en>*: **Preliminary
> Second Draft of the Secretary-General’s Report
>
> *
> - WTPF-IEG/1/10 <http://www.itu.int/md/S12-WTPF13IEG1-C-0003/en>:* *List
> of announced experts
>
> - WTPF-IEG/1/11 <http://www.itu.int/md/S12-WTPF13IEG1-C-0004/en>:* *Report
> of the Chairman on the first meeting of the informal expert group (IEG)
>
> - WTPF-09/2 <http://www.itu.int/md/S09-WTPF-C-0002/en>: Rules of
> procedure of the fourth World Telecommunication Policy Forum (WTPF-09)
>
>
>
>
> 2012/6/27 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>
>>
>> FYI
>>
>> wolfgang
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120710/6fa06386/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list