[governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access

[William Drake]

Hi

On Jul 17, 2012, at 2:49 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> A number of the more progressive US civil society groups have warned against buying into the model that CS can only legitimately participate in policy making through national delegations. Post-WSIS, this is a major step backwards. 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> You attach yourself to your national delegation. If you haven't got a
>> relationship with them yet, time is running out to start building one.

> 


Obviously it is unduly restrictive to require that people get on delegations controlled by their national governments; ITU should allow observers like other UN agencies.  Alas, when Switzerland and Argentina proposed reforms in 2007, CS concerns in this regard were briefly allowed on the table at an informal consultation—see the presentations by APC, Louis P and myself—and then dismissed.   http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2007/civilsocietyconsultation/index.html   There was little support from the governments that routinely celebrate multistakeholderism and firm opposition from those that don't.  Whether the next Plenipotentiary will seriously revisit the issues in like of the WCIT backlash is highly uncertain.

Relatedly, I've been a bit surprised by some of the celebratory tweets and discussion concerning the ITU's "landmark decision."  The ITU press office can be good at this sort of perception management.  Meetings at which no consensus was reached get touted as having made great progress or establishing mandates to undertake new activities.  The one people have been forwarding around (every repetition of the subject line's a little victory) is particularly rich.  Some examples:

<In his remarks to Council during the debate, ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré noted that “the world is changing, in large part thanks to the growth in telecommunications facilitated by the ITU, and we need to adapt to that changing world.>

So the ITU gets pressured to open up access to its documents by civil society people in the Internet environment, and it turns out that the ITU is responsible for the developments that made that possible.

<Dr Touré stressed that while all documents are available in ITU’s six official languages, it is nevertheless “crucial for Member States to prioritize translation into other national languages, so that national level consultations, such as those currently underway in the Netherlands and Kenya, can encompass all citizens and ensure the widespread engagement of civil society in the important issues that are being debated in the run up to WCIT-12”.>

So while all documents save one cannot be be made available to CS or the general public by the ITU, national governments are encouraged to consider their translation to promote engagement.  How many governments do you think will break with the consensus of silence and do this?

< it was agreed that the latest version of the main conference preparatory document will be made publically available on the ITU website within the coming days. This document is often referred to as TD64, and it gathers together more than 450 contributions that members have submitted during the preparatory process of WCIT-12.>

But only TD64, which has already been widely seen via WCITleaks.  And not TD62, The Draft Compilation of Proposals with Options for Revisions to the ITRs.

<Council unanimously agreed that a publicly accessible page will be established on the WCIT-12 section of the ITU website, where all stakeholders can express their opinions on the content of the latest version of TD64>

So no chance to actually discuss the issues with delegates and the secretariat, just remote commenting on one doc, with no guarantees that such inputs would be given serious consideration.

<It should be noted that all civil society organizations, of an international nature and who are working on issues related to information and communication technologies, are already entitled to no-cost membership and indeed several such entities were welcomed into ITU this year and their membership was supported and endorsed by the ITU Council.>

It should be noted that this is incorrect.  Nobody it "entitled" to no-cost membership by virtue of being of an international nature and working on issues related to information and communication technologies (note the creeping mandate language—not just telecom, but ICTs, a matter on which there is no consensus).  They can apply, and subject to government approval, join any or all 3 sectors of ITU. This normally involves paying a significant annual fee http://www.itu.int/en/membership/Documents/application-form.pdf, although it's possible to ask for a waiver—entirely discretionary.  Similarly, CSOs that have a specific focus can apply to join a single study group of  as an Associate.  No individuals allowed.
 
This is a bit short of being "entitled" as a matter of right, or even through a process similar to those of agencies tied to ECOSOC.

ITU is now selectively reaching out to entice key CSOs to apply in the hope of changing the optics a bit.  Hopefully nobody takes the bait.  Members should change the policy, for everyone.

In the meanwhile, yes, we can apply to join the delegations of the governments that have consistently said they don't want CS, transparency, etc.

Best,

Bill



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120717/a5ca0b8f/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