<div dir="ltr">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.<div>
xx</div><div>dd</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Avri Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
Some of you who are also subscribed to Bestbits may have seen this already.<br>
<br>
Certainly not enough time for any NCSG action on it. But individuals and<br>
member NGOs might be intersted in taking a look.<br>
<br>
Or not.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial<br>
text to be posted 8.5 hours from now<br>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 13:09:09 +0800<br>
From: Jeremy Malcolm <<a href="mailto:Jeremy@Malcolm.id.au">Jeremy@Malcolm.id.au</a>><br>
Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm <<a href="mailto:Jeremy@Malcolm.id.au">Jeremy@Malcolm.id.au</a>><br>
To: Best Bits <<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Yesterday the Best Bits participants who are helping to organise the<br>
NETmundial civil society pre-meeting on 22 April held a call about the<br>
meeting (more on this later), and also, thought not on the agenda, there<br>
was consensus that it would be strategically important to post a short<br>
statement about the NETmundial text that was leaked by Wikileaks on<br>
Wednesday<br>
(<a href="https://wikileaks.org/netmundial-outcome/NETmundial-EMC-Outcome-Document.pdf" target="_blank">https://wikileaks.org/netmundial-outcome/NETmundial-EMC-Outcome-Document.pdf</a><br>
<<a href="https://wikileaks.org/netmundial-outcome/NETmundial-EMC-Outcome-Document.pdf%29" target="_blank">https://wikileaks.org/netmundial-outcome/NETmundial-EMC-Outcome-Document.pdf%29</a>>)<br>
in<br>
order to influence the drafting process that is current underway.<br>
<br>
The statement is generally supportive of the draft but highlights the<br>
parts that we consider most important to preserve, particularly<br>
considering the points endorsed in previous BestBits submissions.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately, *the statement has to be released by 8.5 hours from<br>
now* because that is the next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder<br>
Committee (EMC) at which the draft will be considered again. So with our<br>
apologies for the very short notice and limited opportunity to<br>
participate by those who were not on the call, here is a sign-on<br>
statement that was composed over the last few hours (into the late night<br>
for some):<br>
<br>
<a href="http://bestbits.net/netmundial-outcome-comments/" target="_blank">http://bestbits.net/netmundial-outcome-comments/</a><br>
<br>
I am also pasting it below. If you would like to endorse it, please<br>
make sure that if you do so before 10:30am Brazil time, which is less<br>
than 8.5 hours from now. As usual, you can endorse it from the website<br>
above, not by replying to this email. The statement will also be<br>
emailed to the Executive Multistakeholder Committee members to ensure<br>
that they receive it before their meeting.<br>
<br>
--- begins ---<br>
<br>
The undersigned members of the Best Bits coalition welcome the “Draft<br>
Outcome Document” that has been produced by the NETmundial Executive<br>
Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) and was submitted to the High Level<br>
Multistakeholder Committee on April 3, which we consider generally<br>
captures a balanced account of the wide range of contributions submitted<br>
by all stakeholders groups through the open process developed for the<br>
NETmundial platform.<br>
<br>
We would like to reinforce the following points from the draft document<br>
as a non-exhaustive list of priorities critical for the EMC and the<br>
Chair and Co-chairs to take into account and maintain in the structure<br>
of the draft as they develop the next version.<br>
<br>
<br>
1) Internet Governance Principles<br>
<br>
<br>
Human Rights<br>
<br>
We welcome the fact that the draft acknowledges the quintessential<br>
importance of human rights, in particular the essential point that the<br>
same rights that people have offline must also be protected online.<br>
Human rights should be a foundation of Internet Governance, and all<br>
Internet Governance Principles and Processes should be underpinned by<br>
and in line with human rights. We underscore that the final outcome of<br>
NETmundial must recognize the inextricable link between human rights and<br>
Internet governance principles, policies and processes. Open and<br>
inclusive processes depend upon the freedoms of expression and<br>
association and are empowered by them.<br>
<br>
<br>
Privacy<br>
<br>
We reinforce our support for the affirmation of the right to privacy in<br>
the draft text. Privacy is a fundamental human right, and is central to<br>
the maintenance of democratic societies. It is essential to human<br>
dignity and it reinforces other rights, such as freedom of expression<br>
and information, and freedom of association, and is recognised under<br>
international human rights law.<br>
<br>
<br>
Surveillance<br>
<br>
We also endorse the explicit note about the need to avoid “arbitrary or<br>
unlawful collection of personal data and surveillance” by States with<br>
the collaboration of the business sector. It is of crucial importance in<br>
rebuilding trust amongst stakeholders that mass and arbitrary<br>
surveillance programs are brought into alignment with human rights<br>
jurisprudence and principles, and that transparency and oversight are<br>
strengthened.[0 <<a href="http://bestbits.net/netmundial-outcome-comments/#0" target="_blank">http://bestbits.net/netmundial-outcome-comments/#0</a>>]<br>
<br>
<br>
Development and Access to the Internet<br>
<br>
We welcome the inclusion of development among the human rights that<br>
underpin internet governance principles . The Internet is an enabler and<br>
catalyst of human rights, and, ultimately, to the right to development.<br>
As such, we believe it is important to include a reference to the right<br>
to digital inclusion and affordable, high-quality access to the internet<br>
in the non-exclusive list of principles.<br>
<br>
<br>
Internet Infrastructure<br>
<br>
We endorse the inclusion of principles related to preserve an<br>
unfragmented, interconnected, interoperable, secure, stable, resilient,<br>
sustainable, and trustworthy Internet. While we acknowledge that<br>
neutrality is included in this section, we would like to see an explicit<br>
reference to the concept and term “net neutrality” as a core principle.<br>
The application of all these principles is essential to ensure universal<br>
and affordable high-quality brodband access.<br>
<br>
<br>
2) Roadmap for the Future of the Internet Governance<br>
<br>
We welcome the approach of the “Draft Outcome Document” in making<br>
recommendations on ways to improve the Internet Governance framework so<br>
it can serve as a catalyst for sustainable development and promotion of<br>
human rights.<br>
<br>
We affirm our support for the draft document’s mentions of Internet<br>
governance processes and institutions in which decisions are inclusive,<br>
open, informed, transparent and accountable, with the full involvement<br>
of all stakeholders, and stress that it is particularly important to<br>
ensure meaninful participation, with gender and regional balance and the<br>
inclusion of marginalized voices.<br>
<br>
<br>
NTIA transition and ICANN<br>
<br>
We support the draft’s acknowledgement of the announced IANA transition<br>
away from U.S. National Telecommunications and Information<br>
Administration (NTIA) and its emphasis on the importance of including<br>
all stakeholders in the convening process, including those beyond ICANN<br>
bodies and I* organizations. It is important that the global<br>
multistakeholder community be able to participate in the discussion<br>
about the transition and in the transition proposal itself. Further it<br>
is important to reinforce the need for improved effectiveness,<br>
transparency and accountability of ICANN in the globalization process,<br>
as well as the separation of the policy development process and the IANA<br>
operations.<br>
<br>
<br>
Distributive and Coordinated Internet Governance<br>
<br>
We strongly welcome the option put forward in the draft of<br>
multi-stakeholder Internet governance coordination mechanisms, and we<br>
suggest it is reinforced as a recommendation, not only as an option<br>
“recommendable to analyze”.<br>
<br>
Further analysis, monitoring and information sharing about and within<br>
the internet governance architecture as a whole is duly needed. It might<br>
help us to identify weaknesses and gaps in the coverage of important<br>
issues and, in light of empirical evidence, would help us evaluate the<br>
merits of any alternative decision making processes. A multi-stakeholder<br>
coordination mechanism could also be useful to promote dialogue, build<br>
consensus or at least provide inputs into other processes tasked with<br>
actual decision making.<br>
<br>
<br>
IGF<br>
<br>
We support the mentions about the need to strengthen the Internet<br>
Governance Forum (IGF) and to extend its mandate making it a permanent<br>
multi-stakeholder forum.<br>
<br>
<br>
Issues dealing with specific Internet Governance topics<br>
<br>
We reinforce the need to continue working on a multistakeholder dialogue<br>
to pursue institutional solutions to mass and arbitrary surveillance in<br>
order to guarantee the realization of several internet governance<br>
principles highlighted as fundamental in the draft outcome.<br>
<br>
Finally, we welcome the idea that the NETmundial findings and outcomes<br>
feed into other processes and forums, such as WSIS+10, IGF and other<br>
Internet governance discussions.<br>
<br>
We acknowledge the work done by the EMC and, as this is a non-exhaustive<br>
list of priority issues that we would like to reinforce, and we look<br>
forward to contributing further with specific text on subsequent drafts.<br>
<br>
[0] <a href="http://www.necessaryandproportionate.org" target="_blank">www.necessaryandproportionate.org</a><br>
<<a href="http://www.necessaryandproportionate.org" target="_blank">http://www.necessaryandproportionate.org</a>>; Judgment in Joined Cases C –<br>
293/12 and C – 594/12 Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others<br>
<<a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-04/cp140054en.pdf" target="_blank">http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-04/cp140054en.pdf</a>>.<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com<br>
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek<br>
host -t NAPTR <a href="http://5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org" target="_blank">5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org</a> <<a href="http://e164.org" target="_blank">http://e164.org</a>>|awk -F!<br>
'{print $3}'<br>
<br>
WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended<br>
to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see<br>
<a href="http://jere.my/l/pgp" target="_blank">http://jere.my/l/pgp</a>.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div><a href="http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org" target="_blank">http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org</a></div>
</div>