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