Hi,
On 11-Apr-14 11:44, DeeDee Halleck wrote:
> Avri, can you tell us who the conveners were/are?
Bestbits is a aggregate of Civil society groups that has been 'working
together' for a few years. Its policy is to develop statements and then
see who signs on. Bestbits itself rarely signs anything itself unless
it is created at a face to face session, which is usuallly held before a
meeting. In fact I think they are one of the groups sponsiring the CS
mtg the day before NetMundial.
The steering group repsonsible is Jeremy Malcolm, Andrew Puddephatt,
Deborah Brown, Anja Kovacs, Joana Varon Ferraz, Marianne Franklin,
Nnenna Nwakanma and Valeria Betancourt.
avri
On 11-Apr-14 11:44, DeeDee Halleck wrote:
> Avri, can you tell us who the conveners were/are? There is no
> participants list. I know some of the WSIS + 10 folks but who else is
> involved at this point? It feels a little weird, though i support the
> points. I don't usually endorse anonymous statements.
> xx
> dd
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>
> 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]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> To: Best Bits <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[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>
> <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://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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org
|
