We, the undersigned members of civil society, are deeply disappointed that at its June 2013 session, the ITU Council rejected proposals to open participation in the Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet) to other stakeholders, including civil society.
Members of civil society submitted a proposal, endorsed by 41 organizations and individuals from all geographic regions that would have made possible civil society participation possible in CWG-Internet based on an improved Informal Experts Group (IEG) model, which enabled non-ITU members to contribute to the World Telecommunication Policy Forum (WTPF-13).
At a minimum, it was expected that the ITU Council would embrace the IEG model, which, though imperfect, introduced a degree of multistakeholder participation in the ITU’s work, and as such was recognized by participants in WTPF-13 as improving the quality of the meeting’s outcome. Indeed Secretary-General Touré called for adopting an IEG model of participation in CWG-Internet’s work as did the contributions from Poland and the United States. The ITU Council’s rejection of these calls for greater openness marks a significant and disappointing step backward.
The aforementioned proposal outlined reasonable and achievable steps to improve multistakeholder participation at CWG-Internet, based on the IEG model. Specifically, it recommended:
- Outlining clear procedures for inviting stakeholders to Council Working Groups, at least 90 days prior to the relevant meeting dates;
- Issuing clear procedures for all stakeholders to submit official documents for consideration; and
- Establishing mechanisms for remote participation, allowing not only remote participants to follow the debate, but also to request the floor.
We optimistically viewed the relative success of the IEG model as a signal that the ITU was committed to the multistakeholder framework of internet governance as established by the Tunis Agenda. We view its rejection of this model for CWG-Internet as a sign that it is not. While the Secretary-General has indicated that he will “carry out or facilitate informal consultations with stakeholders…and [to bring] the essence of these discussions to the Council Working Group on this issue for information,” any such informal consultations should not be equated with multistakeholder participation. While we wait for the decisions of the ITU Council to be reconsidered at upcoming meetings, we ask the Secretary-General to make the ongoing meetings leading up to Plenipotentiary 2014 as open as possible using whatever discretion his office might have for inviting stakeholder experts to meetings, as a way to provide for greater inclusion.
[emailpetition id=”7″]
[signaturelist id=”7″]
