AW: [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and Responsibilities

Thu Jan 17 09:58:43 EST 2013

+1

In addition to the commitments that the SG made during the meeting with
civil society at WCIT that Joana mentioned, the ITU issued the following
statement in response to a 10 December civil society
letter<https://docs.google.com/a/accessnow.org/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM>to
WCIT.

•            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 a more flexible approach to participation by civil
society. *[From
10 December letter]*

Only the Plenipotentiary Conference of the ITU – the highest governing body
of the organization – can change institutional rules and procedures or
effect changes to the ITU Constitution.* I believe post-WCIT-12 we will
have time to take stock and provide our membership with some important
recommendations in line with what you raise. I* would also take the
opportunity to remind you that all civil society organizations, who are
international in nature and who are working in the area of ICTs are welcome
to join the ITU and apply for exemption of fees. I believe we will all
benefit from a greater civil society engagement at ITU and in line with
this I recently invited the International Trade Union Movement to join.

The document is available on WCITLeaks, but (ironically) is locked behind a
TIES log in:
http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-INF-0005!!MSW-E.pdf

I don't think seeking the right to participate at the WTPF would require
changes at the plenipotentiary level (please do correct me if this
assumption is wrong) so if we decide to go ahead with a letter, we might
want to cite the sentence I highlighted above.

Best,
Deborah

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:

>  Agree, and I think that Jeremy and Joana and Wolfgang's suggestions are
> not mutually exclusive.
>
> We can send a letter, and ask member-states and sector members to also
> raise this issue and make sure that our letter is discussed.
>
> Best
>
> Anriette
>
>  On 17/01/2013 12:43, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>
> Hi Joana and all
>
> there is another PrepMeeting for the WTPF in February in Geneva.http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/ieg.aspx
>
> It is important to raise this question in this meeting. I have no idea whether this meeting (February 6 - 8, 2013 in the ITU HQ) is open. If not we should send a letter to like minded governments and to the ITU SG before February 6 and to push for a clear response to our request for equal participation in the WTPF, independent from national governmental delegations.
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Joana Varon
> Gesendet: Do 17.01.2013 04:55
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm
> Cc: <bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org> <bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Betreff: Re: [governance] Multistakeholder Roles and Responsibilities
>
>
> Dear Jeremy and all,
>
> Regarding your observation and the fact that a couple of civil society representatives were able to have a meeting with Mr Toure during the WCIT and managed to deliver to him our statement that reinforced some points of the best bits statement, including demands for an open participation of CS in ITU processes, isn't it the time to recall him of our "Civil Society statement on the new ITRs and the future of multi-stakeholder engagement" and try to ask for the changes he has promised to try to make during our meeting?
>
> Please, correct me if it seams too naive, but if we go again through these alternative channels to submit our comments and so on( such as CS being part of government delegation - it's own or other "friendly" governements, or just engaging with sector members), we will just repeat the quite frustrating (lack of) participation scenery of WCIT at WTPF.
>
> Maybe Wolfgang, Avri or other fellows that have attended WCIT could have some thoughts to add on this.
>
> best,
>
> joana
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
Deborah Brown
Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. deborah at accessnow.org
S. deborah.l.brown
T. deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130117/1187db46/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