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]> 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]>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
--
http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org
|
