Milton, anyone can send me and/or other NETmundial committee members any comment. But, we are on a call now trying to finalize the documents so if you wait a day or so you should see them online and the public comment process will start again.
And of course they will probably leak before we finish writing :-)
Adam
On Apr 12, 2014, at 1:12 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> I support about 80% of the BestBits statement. I think a more important question for our list is where can public comments be filed on the Netmundial document by anyone? In other words, we should be empowering our own membership to comment if they want to, not just enabling them to endorse a statement by another group.
>
> --MM
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>> Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 6:16 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [] URGENT - statement commenting on draft
>> NETmundial text to be posted 8.5 hours from now
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Some of you who are also subscribed to Bestbits may have seen this already.
>>
>> Certainly not enough time for any NCSG action on it. But individuals and
>> member NGOs might be intersted in taking a look.
>>
>> Or not.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft
>> NETmundial
>> text to be posted 8.5 hours from now
>> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 13:09:09 +0800
>> From: Jeremy Malcolm <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: Best Bits <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yesterday the Best Bits participants who are helping to organise the
>> NETmundial civil society pre-meeting on 22 April held a call about the meeting
>> (more on this later), and also, thought not on the agenda, there was
>> consensus that it would be strategically important to post a short statement
>> about the NETmundial text that was leaked by Wikileaks on Wednesday
>> (https://wikileaks.org/netmundial-outcome/NETmundial-EMC-Outcome-
>> Document.pdf
>> <https://wikileaks.org/netmundial-outcome/NETmundial-EMC-Outcome-
>> Document.pdf%29>)
>> in
>> order to influence the drafting process that is current underway.
>>
>> The statement is generally supportive of the draft but highlights the parts
>> that we consider most important to preserve, particularly considering the
>> points endorsed in previous BestBits submissions.
>>
>> Unfortunately, *the statement has to be released by 8.5 hours from
>> now* because that is the next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder
>> Committee (EMC) at which the draft will be considered again. So with our
>> apologies for the very short notice and limited opportunity to participate by
>> those who were not on the call, here is a sign-on statement that was
>> composed over the last few hours (into the late night for some):
>>
>> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-outcome-comments/
>>
>> I am also pasting it below. If you would like to endorse it, please make sure
>> that if you do so before 10:30am Brazil time, which is less than 8.5 hours from
>> now. As usual, you can endorse it from the website above, not by replying to
>> this email. The statement will also be emailed to the Executive
>> Multistakeholder Committee members to ensure that they receive it before
>> their meeting.
>>
>> --- begins ---
>>
>> The undersigned members of the Best Bits coalition welcome the “Draft
>> Outcome Document” that has been produced by the NETmundial Executive
>> Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) and was submitted to the High Level
>> Multistakeholder Committee on April 3, which we consider generally
>> captures a balanced account of the wide range of contributions submitted by
>> all stakeholders groups through the open process developed for the
>> NETmundial platform.
>>
>> We would like to reinforce the following points from the draft document as a
>> non-exhaustive list of priorities critical for the EMC and the Chair and Co-
>> chairs to take into account and maintain in the structure of the draft as they
>> develop the next version.
>>
>>
>> 1) Internet Governance Principles
>>
>>
>> Human Rights
>>
>> We welcome the fact that the draft acknowledges the quintessential
>> importance of human rights, in particular the essential point that the same
>> rights that people have offline must also be protected online.
>> Human rights should be a foundation of Internet Governance, and all
>> Internet Governance Principles and Processes should be underpinned by and
>> in line with human rights. We underscore that the final outcome of
>> NETmundial must recognize the inextricable link between human rights and
>> Internet governance principles, policies and processes. Open and inclusive
>> processes depend upon the freedoms of expression and association and are
>> empowered by them.
>>
>>
>> Privacy
>>
>> We reinforce our support for the affirmation of the right to privacy in the
>> draft text. Privacy is a fundamental human right, and is central to the
>> maintenance of democratic societies. It is essential to human dignity and it
>> reinforces other rights, such as freedom of expression and information, and
>> freedom of association, and is recognised under international human rights
>> law.
>>
>>
>> Surveillance
>>
>> We also endorse the explicit note about the need to avoid “arbitrary or
>> unlawful collection of personal data and surveillance” by States with the
>> collaboration of the business sector. It is of crucial importance in rebuilding
>> trust amongst stakeholders that mass and arbitrary surveillance programs are
>> brought into alignment with human rights jurisprudence and principles, and
>> that transparency and oversight are
>> strengthened.[0 <http://bestbits.net/netmundial-outcome-comments/#0>]
>>
>>
>> Development and Access to the Internet
>>
>> We welcome the inclusion of development among the human rights that
>> underpin internet governance principles . The Internet is an enabler and
>> catalyst of human rights, and, ultimately, to the right to development.
>> As such, we believe it is important to include a reference to the right to digital
>> inclusion and affordable, high-quality access to the internet in the non-
>> exclusive list of principles.
>>
>>
>> Internet Infrastructure
>>
>> We endorse the inclusion of principles related to preserve an unfragmented,
>> interconnected, interoperable, secure, stable, resilient, sustainable, and
>> trustworthy Internet. While we acknowledge that neutrality is included in
>> this section, we would like to see an explicit reference to the concept and
>> term “net neutrality” as a core principle.
>> The application of all these principles is essential to ensure universal and
>> affordable high-quality brodband access.
>>
>>
>> 2) Roadmap for the Future of the Internet Governance
>>
>> We welcome the approach of the “Draft Outcome Document” in making
>> recommendations on ways to improve the Internet Governance framework
>> so it can serve as a catalyst for sustainable development and promotion of
>> human rights.
>>
>> We affirm our support for the draft document’s mentions of Internet
>> governance processes and institutions in which decisions are inclusive, open,
>> informed, transparent and accountable, with the full involvement of all
>> stakeholders, and stress that it is particularly important to ensure meaninful
>> participation, with gender and regional balance and the inclusion of
>> marginalized voices.
>>
>>
>> NTIA transition and ICANN
>>
>> We support the draft’s acknowledgement of the announced IANA transition
>> away from U.S. National Telecommunications and Information
>> Administration (NTIA) and its emphasis on the importance of including all
>> stakeholders in the convening process, including those beyond ICANN bodies
>> and I* organizations. It is important that the global multistakeholder
>> community be able to participate in the discussion about the transition and in
>> the transition proposal itself. Further it is important to reinforce the need for
>> improved effectiveness, transparency and accountability of ICANN in the
>> globalization process, as well as the separation of the policy development
>> process and the IANA operations.
>>
>>
>> Distributive and Coordinated Internet Governance
>>
>> We strongly welcome the option put forward in the draft of multi-
>> stakeholder Internet governance coordination mechanisms, and we suggest
>> it is reinforced as a recommendation, not only as an option “recommendable
>> to analyze”.
>>
>> Further analysis, monitoring and information sharing about and within the
>> internet governance architecture as a whole is duly needed. It might help us
>> to identify weaknesses and gaps in the coverage of important issues and, in
>> light of empirical evidence, would help us evaluate the merits of any
>> alternative decision making processes. A multi-stakeholder coordination
>> mechanism could also be useful to promote dialogue, build consensus or at
>> least provide inputs into other processes tasked with actual decision making.
>>
>>
>> IGF
>>
>> We support the mentions about the need to strengthen the Internet
>> Governance Forum (IGF) and to extend its mandate making it a permanent
>> multi-stakeholder forum.
>>
>>
>> Issues dealing with specific Internet Governance topics
>>
>> We reinforce the need to continue working on a multistakeholder dialogue
>> to pursue institutional solutions to mass and arbitrary surveillance in order to
>> guarantee the realization of several internet governance principles
>> highlighted as fundamental in the draft outcome.
>>
>> Finally, we welcome the idea that the NETmundial findings and outcomes
>> feed into other processes and forums, such as WSIS+10, IGF and other
>> Internet governance discussions.
>>
>> We acknowledge the work done by the EMC and, as this is a non-exhaustive
>> list of priority issues that we would like to reinforce, and we look forward to
>> contributing further with specific text on subsequent drafts.
>>
>> [0] www.necessaryandproportionate.org
>> <http://www.necessaryandproportionate.org>; Judgment in Joined Cases C
>> –
>> 293/12 and C – 594/12 Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others
>> <http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-
>> 04/cp140054en.pdf>.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR
>> 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F!
>> '{print $3}'
>>
>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see
>> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>
>>
>
|
