Upcoming Events

Recent Statements

• December 12, 2017
  Open Letter on Civil Society Rights to UN Secretary-General António Guterres and to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein

  • Page
  • History

  Edit

  Visual Texte

  The qTranslate Editor has disabled itself because it hasn't been tested with your Wordpress version yet. This is done to prevent Wordpress from malfunctioning. You can reenable it by clicking here (may cause data loss! Use at own risk!). To remove this message permanently, please update qTranslate to the corresponding version.

  Your Excellency Secretary-General Guterres, Your Excellency the High Commissioner for Human Rights, We write to you because of concerns regarding the ability of civil society delegates to effectively engage with important international conferences, concerns which have been exacerbated by over sixty civil society delegates to the WTO Ministerial Conference of December 2017 (who had been accredited by the WTO) having their accreditations revoked by the host country shortly before the conference<span class="author-a-1lz72zgz86zz122zaz75z2sisoomz90z">. This</span><span class=""> is not only a violation of the relevant host country agreement,</span><span class="author-a-1lz72zgz86zz122zaz75z2sisoomz90z"> it</span><span class=""> is also a human rights violation.</span> On December 8, 2017, two civil society delegates were denied entry at the border and deported: <ul> <li id="magicdomid983" class="ace-line"><span class="i"><i>Sally Burch of Agencia Latinoamericana de Información (ALAI), who is also a member of the </i></span><span class="i"><i>Steering Committee of the Just Net Coalition.</i></span></li> <li id="magicdomid14"><span class="i"><i>Petter Slaatrem Titland, leader of the Norwegian chapter of Association for the Assessment of</i></span><span class=""> </span><span class="i"><i>Financial Transactions and for Citizen Action (Attac).</i></span></li> </ul> In both of these cases of deportations, as well as at least in some of the other cases of revoked accreditations, the host country has thereafter reversed its decision. That however is not a full solution to the problem. Many of the civil society delegates had already cancelled their travel plans after having been informed of the host country having revoked their accreditation, or because they were denied visas.¹ Further, the belated authorization of entry for Sally and Petter does not cure the harm that was done to them and the organizations they represent. In Sally's case, she was deported back to her home country, Ecuador, and was not able to fly back to Buenos Aires in order to participate meaningfully in the WTO meeting. In view of the important public policy issues that are being discussed at such international conferences, civil society engagement is of utmost importance. On one hand, the negotiators who shape the future of our world need to have access to the insights and perspectives of the civil society experts. On the other hand, the citizens of the world need ways to ensure that their problems and concerns are appropriately <span class="author-a-gh8z65z2z70zrmx4z73zz88zpupz68z">listened to and </span><span class="">taken into consideration. </span><span class="">In this context, the recent events are a great cause for concern, especially given that the events concerning the WTO Ministerial, while in some ways unprecedented, are not isolated, but part of a larger problem. For example, in November 2017, the participation of several civil society groups to the Global Conference on Cyberspace (GCCS) in India was delayed and, in several cases, denied.</span> Such denials can affect especially smaller civil society groups particularly seriously, in more ways than what is obvious. The effective and constructive participation at such conferences requires in-depth preparation which takes a long time. It is not only that the denial of participation results in the preparation being wasted. Already the <span class="i"><i>risk</i></span><span class=""> that participation can be arbitrarily denied prevents civil society organisations from planning their engagement strategically. Time is also of the essence, as inefficiences and harms are compounded when the denial occurs immediately before or during events, leaving no meaningful time to appeal the decision. </span> These problems concern not just civil society engagement with one international organization such as the WTO, but civil society delegates to all international conferences where important public policy decisions are made. It is therefore appropriate for representatives of the UN to address the matter, and this is the reason why we are writing to you. We respectfully request you to make a strong public statement on the rights that civil society delegates to international conferences have on the basis of international human rights law as well as on the basis of other instruments such as host country agreements. <div id="magicdomid992" class="ace-line"><span class="">This kind of response to the events related to the WTO Ministerial Conference of December 2017 will on one hand be valuable for the concerned civil society delegates and their organizations in regard to having their good name and reputation restored after having been unjustly accused (by the host country) of having posted “incitements to violence and chaos” in social media.²</span></div> <div id="magicdomid29" class=""></div> <div id="magicdomid993" class="ace-line"><span class="">The larger context of these attacks on the honor and reputation of civil society delegates are the provisions in the host country agreement which permit the host country to refuse entry on national security grounds. We do not object to these provisions provided that they are only applied in exceptional cases, and with due justification, and with due process. We do however object to the abuse of these provisions to arbitrarily revoke the accreditation of (in this case, a large number of) civil society delegates who had been accredited by the WTO. In this kind of situation, unless civil society delegates have an effective remedy against such attacks on their honor and reputation, the provisions of the host country agreement —that were intended to guarantee the rights of </span><span class="i"><i>inter alia</i></span><span class=""> the civil society delegates— only result in insult and libel being added to the injury of not being able to participate in the conference.</span></div> In addition to the established diplomatic practices with host country agreements, we would suggest that the requested statement on civil society rights could mention the following human rights aspects; <ul class="list-bullet4"> <li><span class="">the right to peaceful assembly/association (Article 20 of the UDHR and Article 21 of the ICCPR);</span></li> <li><span class="">the <a href="http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/69/365">recommendation of the former Special Rapporteur</a> on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, who called on States members of multilateral institutions to: "Refrain  from  unduly  preventing  NGOs  from  obtaining accreditation  with  multilateral institutions, arbitrarily withdrawing accreditations, or deferring the examination of periodic reports of accredited organizations;" (A/69/365)</span></li> <li><span class="">the <a href="http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/72/350">call from the current Special Rapporteur</a> on the freedoms of opinion and expression for “broader and simpler accreditation of organizations to participate in and monitor” at inter-governmental and international institutions. (A/72/350)</span></li> </ul> We are very concerned about the future of the international discourse. Certainly the events in the context of the WTO Ministerial of December 2017 must not be allowed to set a precedent for the <span class="i"><i>arbitrary refusal or revocation of accreditation </i></span><span class="">and </span><span class="i"><i>libel</i></span><span class=""> of civil society delegates.</span> ^1. For further details, we refer you to the Our World Is Not For Sale (OWINFS) Network, <a href="http://ourworldisnotforsale.net">ourworldisnotforsale.net</a>. ^2. <a href="http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/sobre-la-acreditacion-de-ongs-la-conferencia-ministerial-de-la-omc-en-buenos-aires">http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/sobre-la-acreditacion-de-ongs-la-conferencia-ministerial-de-la-omc-en-buenos-aires</a> Cc: Mr. Roberto Azevêdo, Director-General of the WTO Mr. David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression Ms. Annalisa Ciampi, UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association Mr. Edison Lanza, Inter-American Commission of Human Rights' Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression Aarhus Convention Secretariat [emailpetition id="40"] [signaturelist id="40"]

   Cancel
• October 2, 2017
  Civil society global joint statement on the International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners

  • Page
  • History

  Edit

  Visual Texte

  The qTranslate Editor has disabled itself because it hasn't been tested with your Wordpress version yet. This is done to prevent Wordpress from malfunctioning. You can reenable it by clicking here (may cause data loss! Use at own risk!). To remove this message permanently, please update qTranslate to the corresponding version.

  <div class="post-body"> <div class="entry-content"> <div id="magicdomid6" class=""><span class="author-a-ivz84zz82z89z83zz76z8z65zckxz90zpz77z">To the outgoing and incoming Executive Committees of the ICDPPC </span></div> <div id="magicdomid7" class=""><span class="author-a-ivz84zz82z89z83zz76z8z65zckxz90zpz77z"> </span></div> <div id="magicdomid8" class=""><span class="author-a-ivz84zz82z89z83zz76z8z65zckxz90zpz77z b"><b>Hong Kong </b></span><span class="author-a-ivz84zz82z89z83zz76z8z65zckxz90zpz77z">– Ahead of the 2017 International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners (ICDPPC) held in Hong Kong between September 25 to 29, a group of more than 30 civil society organisations sent a <a href="https://www.accessnow.org/cms/assets/uploads/2017/09/Joint-letter-to-the-ICDPPC.pdf">letter</a> to the organisers and data protection authorities calling for greater inclusion of NGOs in the event.</span></div> <div id="magicdomid9" class=""><span class="author-a-ivz84zz82z89z83zz76z8z65zckxz90zpz77z"> </span></div> <div id="magicdomid10" class=""><span class="author-a-ivz84zz82z89z83zz76z8z65zckxz90zpz77z">We acknowledge the positive steps forward, taken during the Hong Kong conference, in particular by lifting the participation fee for several civil society groups. As a result, this year’s conference has already acknowledged the value of civil society participation and active dialogue with data protection authorities.</span></div> <div id="magicdomid11" class=""><span class="author-a-ivz84zz82z89z83zz76z8z65zckxz90zpz77z"> </span></div> <div id="magicdomid12" class=""><span class="author-a-ivz84zz82z89z83zz76z8z65zckxz90zpz77z">Despite these improvements, civil society continues to be kept at the periphery of the event, absent from the programming committee and underrepresented at public sessions. To that effect we call on the Executive Committee to:</span></div> <div id="magicdomid13" class=""><span class="author-a-ivz84zz82z89z83zz76z8z65zckxz90zpz77z"> </span></div> <ol> <li id="magicdomid14"><span class="author-a-ivz84zz82z89z83zz76z8z65zckxz90zpz77z">Include civil society in the Programme Committee to guarantee civil society representation in developing the agenda</span></li> <li id="magicdomid15"><span class="author-a-ivz84zz82z89z83zz76z8z65zckxz90zpz77z">Promote diversity and inclusion through public consultations</span></li> <li><span class="author-a-ivz84zz82z89z83zz76z8z65zckxz90zpz77z">Restore space and visibility for civil society speakers at the sessions. This includes the restoration of the full day joint civil society-DPA event in the official programme and ensuring a civil society representative is included when non-members of the ICDPPC are part of the deliberations which lead to the official outcomes</span></li> <li><span class="author-a-ivz84zz82z89z83zz76z8z65zckxz90zpz77z">Enhance civil society participation and meaningful dialogue by removing the access fee and providing travel support for civil society representatives  </span></li> <li><span class="author-a-ivz84zz82z89z83zz76z8z65zckxz90zpz77z">Increase transparency of the event sessions and deliberations through remote participation and publication of draft resolutions </span></li> </ol> <div id="magicdomid19" class=""><span class="author-a-ivz84zz82z89z83zz76z8z65zckxz90zpz77z"> </span></div> <div id="magicdomid20" class=""><span class="author-a-ivz84zz82z89z83zz76z8z65zckxz90zpz77z">We look forward to cooperation with the incoming Secretariat, Executive Committee and hosts of the upcoming Conference in 2018. </span></div> </div> <div>[emailpetition id="39"] [signaturelist id="39"]</div> </div>

   Cancel
• July 21, 2017
  Amazonians speak about .amazon

  • Page
  • Discussion
  • History

  Edit

  Visual Texte

  The qTranslate Editor has disabled itself because it hasn't been tested with your Wordpress version yet. This is done to prevent Wordpress from malfunctioning. You can reenable it by clicking here (may cause data loss! Use at own risk!). To remove this message permanently, please update qTranslate to the corresponding version.

  We, the people in the Amazon, would like you to stop talking about us without hearing us first <b><i>This is a response about the latest decision in the delegation process of the .amazon new gTLD domain by the Independent Review Panel at ICANN to Amazon</i></b> <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-amazon-final-declaration-11jul17-en.pdf"><b><i>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-amazon-final-declaration-11jul17-en.pdf</i></b></a> <b><i>The context of this dispute is summarised in this article</i></b> <a href="http://domainnamewire.com/2017/07/18/amazon-com-gets-big-win-domain-battle-may-yet-get-amazon-domain/"><b><i>http://domainnamewire.com/2017/07/18/amazon-com-gets-big-win-domain-battle-may-yet-get-amazon-domain/</i></b></a> In light of the twists in the process of the new gTLD .amazon, <b>many parties have come forward speaking "for the benefit of the people of the Amazon"</b> and staking their claim that they were doing what is best for the region development. <b>Not once, during all this time, anyone cared to ask what our thoughts are or</b> what we think the best for our region is. <b>Well, we would like to ask all parties to stop talking about us as if we can't speak for ourselves.</b> <b>It must not be forgotten that the Amazon region involves the population of nine South American nation-states. For us, this is a time of challenges over the Amazon such as illegal mining, deforestation, water pollution among others. Any policy decision about the region or its name (in any language) is a matter of great interest for all of us, and we cannot be left aside.</b> Let's start with the view of .amazon being a brand as well as a region and a river. We were never asked, again, when the name was used in the first place. The consequences of this can be seen now, when we are mistaken as a faceless, plain, uncharacteristic area in a world map without content or people, an exoticly empty part of the world to be conquered and debated abstractly by trademark lobbyists, private companies and governments. We have faces, names, content, history. Using our name to tell another story, a company's history, would de-characterize us? Likely not. We will not disappear. Instead the Amazon is a vibrant region, home of a great cultural diversity, committed to sustainable development and becomes increasingly more involved with internet governance, alongside with Northeast Brazil, which hosted IGF2015. However, using our name without acknowledging our importance is certainly a mistake. Using our name refers directly to a vast land of rich diversity, with much to uncover and with many cultural gems already discovered. So if using our name, at least acknowledge us, respect us. Give back to the "lung of the Earth," to a river which hosts hundreds of communities by its riverbanks. Invest on us. We want the same you do, more education, a thriving internet market and respect to sustainable development for a better future. It is also important to note that ICANN's Independent Review Panel comes at a moment when the discussion about the use of geographical names is very controversial, as it was seen in meetings in Johannesburg. And it is surprising, given there is no consensus yet about this theme in the community. Governments of nine nations also speak our name. With such ownership and familiarity that you could sometimes forget that we do not belong only to one of them. The Wikipedia, which also does not belong to only one company or government, can enlighten that: "This region includes territory belonging to nine nations. The majority of the forest is contained within Brazil, with 60% of the rainforest, followed by Peru with 13%, Colombia with 10%, and with minor amounts in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana. States or departments in four nations contain "Amazonas" in their names. <b>The Amazon represents over half of the planet's remaining rainforests</b>, and comprises the largest and most biodiverse tract of tropical rainforest in the world, with an estimated 390 billion individual trees divided into 16,000 species." <b>This means that even if you agree with nine governments on whatever decision they take on the Amazon, you could still be in disagreement to half of the planet, and their thoughts on the importance of our region.</b> Governments representational crisis is real and does not belong to one country or another. Governments should listen to their citizens. Yet, none of our major political powers are located in the Amazon and have not spoken to us about any aspect of the recent process. This becomes much more complicated when the Amazon is referred to as an area of indigenous population. Our indigenous population was not asked when colonized, the majority did not elect the government of the nine nation-states which comprise the Amazon. Likely, the majority of our indigenous population suffers from abandonment, land conflicts, health crisis and lack of an education system. More importantly, our indigenous population wants, just as companies or governments, an internet market which provides jobs and enables development. Indigenous population may not speak only Portuguese or Spanish but they can speak too. <b>So why does everyone insists on talking about us without listening to us?</b> The rainforest is disappearing fast. This process is not going to slow down unless there is responsibility from all stakeholders in a dialogue about our region and how to respect it. When referring to the new gTLDs or any issue of public policy, public and private sector need to address us, we are all part of a cross border region and an strategic navigation channel and this dialogue has to take this unique situation in account. It must not be forgotten that, after all, the multistakeholder model that we all support to have a free and open Internet, involves multiple parties. This is not only an issue of the private sector and governments, the population is a key participant, that in this particular matter was never consulted. <b>So please, consult us. </b> <b>Don't take our name without talking to us. </b> <b>Stop talking about us as if we can't speak.</b> <hr /> &nbsp; Lilian Ivete Deluque Bruges - Colombia Lives in Barranquilla, Colombia. Works in local government with indigenous population and vulnerable groups. Mixed ethnicity. Alumni from the South School of Internet Governance 2016. LACNIC27 fellow. &nbsp; Bertnell Auclene Malisa Richards - Guyana Lives in Georgetown, Guyana. Works with education and technology. Plans on creating IGF Guyana. ICANN58 fellow. NCUC ICANN member. LACRALO ICANN Member, ISOC Guyana. &nbsp; Renata Aquino Ribeiro - Brasil Worked with Amazon region researchers and maintains an independent research group with collaborators in the region. Mixed ethnicity with relatives and friends in the region. Lives in NE Brazil. NCUC ICANN LAC representative. IGF MAG Civil Society 2016-2017. &nbsp; Patricia Vargas - Peru Researcher, PhD Candidate, School of Information Studies, Syracuse University. . &nbsp; Lia Solis - Bolivia LACNOG Program Committee member, LACNIC member, ICANN Fellow, LACRALO ICANN participant, ISOC Bolivia Board. &nbsp; Maureen Hernandez - Venezuela. ISOC Venezuela board of directors. Systems Engineer working with community networks in Central and Latin America. Born and raised in Venezuela and has been meeting indigenous communities for connectivity development for the last 2 years. &nbsp; Jessica Botelho - Brazil Journalist. Researcher at the Federal University of Amazonas / CNPq. Member of the ISOC Youth Observatory and the Center for Studies and Practices in Cyberculture (Manaus, Amazonas, Northern Brazil). Student of the Brazil Internet Governance School 2016 and the InternetLab School 2017. &nbsp; Maritza Y. Aguero Miñano - Peru Lives in Lima. Lawyer. LLM in Politics and Management of Science, Technology and Innovation. Scholarship holder from World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA), Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Ministry of Culture of Spain and University of California, Davis. Intellectual Property Professor at San Martin de Porres University and ESAN University. ICANN Alumni. &nbsp; Maurília Gomes - Brazil Public Relations. Master in Communication Sciences. Researcher of cyberculture and social activism. Member of ISOC Brazil. Lives in Manaus, Amazon. Member of the Popular Audiovisual Center (CPA), an organization that works on human rights, indigenous population, land conflicts and climate change. Is also a member of the Center for Studies and Practices in Ciberculture (NepCiber). Mixed ethnicity with indigenous descent. Alumni from the Brazilian School of Internet Governance 2015. &nbsp; Hemanuel Veras - Brazil Journalist. Master in Communication Sciences. Researcher of cyberculture and democracy. Lives in Manaus, Amazon. Member of the Popular Audiovisual Center and the Center for Studies and Practices in Ciberculture (CPA/NepCiber). Alumni from the Brazilian School of Internet Governance 2016. &nbsp; Allan Gomes - Brazil Journalist. Researcher of cyberculture. Lives in Manaus, Amazon. Coordinator of the Popular Audiovisual Center (CPA) and member of the Center for Studies and Practices in Ciberculture (NepCiber). Approved to the Brazilian School of Internet Governance 2017. &nbsp; Sebastian Roa - Brazil Currently lives in the state of Amazonas. Journalism student and researcher of the study group of urban anthropology. Also research adolescents indigenous in the urban context and TICS. Currently work with UN with the Venezuelan emergency. Member of the Center for Studies and Practices in Ciberculture (NepCiber). Approved to the Brazilian School of Internet Governance 2017. &nbsp; Sinuhe Nascimento e Cruz - Brasil Born and raised in the State of Acre, the most werstern state in the brazilian amazon. Currently lives in São Paulo, where is developing a bachelor’s degree in Law at the University of São Paulo. Founder member of the Nucleum of Studies on Technology and Society of the University of São Paulo and also a member of the Environmental Law Clinic Paulo Nogueira Neto at the Law School of the University of São Paulo. &nbsp; Paola Perez - Venezuela Vice - president ISOC Venezuela and co- Chair LACNIC Public Policy Forum, OEA Cybersecurity Bootcamp fellow 2017, South School internet Governance 2016 alumni, ICANN LACRALO and NCUC member. &nbsp; Luã Fergus Researcher, born and raised in the Amazon region,  Law student at Fluminense Federal University. Member of the Youth SIG - ISOC. Alumni from the Brazilian School of Internet Governance 2016. &nbsp; Flávia Lefèvre Guimarães Representative of Civil Society in Internet Steering Comittee in Brazil Member of PROTESTE - Consumers Association [emailpetition id="38"] [signaturelist id="38"]

   Cancel
• October 10, 2016
  NGO statement to the UNGA First Committee on cyberspace and human security

  • Page
  • History

  Edit

  Visual Texte

  The qTranslate Editor has disabled itself because it hasn't been tested with your Wordpress version yet. This is done to prevent Wordpress from malfunctioning. You can reenable it by clicking here (may cause data loss! Use at own risk!). To remove this message permanently, please update qTranslate to the corresponding version.

  <p>Over the last year, the public imagination has continued to be seized with the concept of cyber conflict. This is increasingly reflected in policy discussions at multiple levels and in multiple fora as well of course in popular media. Cyber attacks present a broad spectrum of risks to individuals and societies. Such attacks can include contraventions of individual or corporate privacy and mass espionage and surveillance up to the disabling or destruction of infrastructures vital to the general population and the manipulation of elements of civilian infrastructure in order to use them as weapons. </p> <p>In the context of the United Nations, cyber security has been addressed primarily in the context of the Group of Governmental Experts on Information and Communication Technologies, which has continued its work in 2016. At national levels, there continues to be a growth in the articulation of cyber doctrines and the establishment of relevant bodies, units, or departments. In some instances these relate to potential cyber conflict and in others they are established to manage issues of cybercrime, espionage or security more broadly. </p> <p>These many initiatives are welcome and demonstrate the increasing salience of the issue area. However they also demonstrate that “cyber” encompasses a broad spectrum of activities that will require different approaches. Some activities are relevant to the purpose and objectives of the First Committee, while others are being taken up in other spaces including beyond the UN. Forging connections between these initiatives and agreeing on common definitions and understanding are critical for progress in this area, as the rate of technological change rapidly outpaces that of diplomatic negotiation. The GGE has served as a helpful place to explore the issue but does not have the mandate or ability to actualize the behavioural norms it is discussing. </p> <p>There are two further points that we want especially to underscore in this statement. </p> The first relates to the assumption of cyber space as being a militarized one. Treating cyber primarily as a military and security issue risks institutionalising the broad idea of cyber conflict. This may lead to preparations that escalate the threat, and responses that unnecessarily escalate incidents, including misunderstandings, into armed conflict. It also risks adopting a framework that is more permissive of harm to the population than international human rights law allows. In working to prevent cyber attacks, states should consider the full range of impacts on human rights, international humanitarian law, protection of civilians and state responsibility. In approaching these issues, it is therefore important to be wary of overinflating the threat, and in doing so promoting militarisation and escalation. We should remember that the Internet is essentially civilian infrastructure and should not be made the target of or the medium for attacks.</p> <p>Second, we have seen an increase in negative use of cyber technology by state actors in the repression of human rights, notably the right to freedom of expression, and cracking down on the ability of civilians to communicate electronically or access email, news, or social media platforms. It is a human rights imperative to protect privacy and respect for Internet freedoms. This part of the agenda is rightly being pursued in other forums, including in the Third Committee and at the Human Rights Council, but should not be completely divorced from how delegates in First Committee approach this subject. </p> If normative progress is to be made in this area, states will need to go beyond a reiteration of existing, general rules and recognise that cyberspace needs to be addressed on its own terms, with consideration of its specific characteristics. </p> <h3>Recommendations</h3> <p>During First Committee, delegations should express concern about the risk of cyber attacks and the militarisation of cyberspace, and they should promote a vision of the Internet as a shared public space that should not be the target of or medium for attacks.</p> Delegations should also indicate support for the current GGE to develop concrete recommendations on preventing the development, deployment, and use of cyber weapons, cyber attacks or other intrusions or interference. </p> <p>Beyond First Committee, states should seek to establish new avenues for wider discussions on these issues open to all states and inclusive of civil society and other relevant actors, noting that including the voices of states from all regions, including low and middle income countries, will be crucial in this process. This should include discussions on an effective international legal framework that will prevent cyber attacks and protect the networked infrastructure upon which societies rely for their wellbeing.</p> <p>States must refrain from any repression of human rights or freedoms through digital means; and work towards adopting an effective international legal framework that will prevent cyber attacks, intrusions, or interference and protect the networked infrastructure upon which societies rely for their wellbeing.</p> [emailpetition id="37"] [signaturelist id="37"]

   Cancel
• June 27, 2016
  Letter to UN DESA on transparency and accountability of IGF Retreat

  • Page
  • History

  Edit

  Visual Texte

  The qTranslate Editor has disabled itself because it hasn't been tested with your Wordpress version yet. This is done to prevent Wordpress from malfunctioning. You can reenable it by clicking here (may cause data loss! Use at own risk!). To remove this message permanently, please update qTranslate to the corresponding version.

  <p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-a986c679-939b-39d7-90af-67a15403c64d">Dear organizers,</p> <p dir="ltr">In light of the scheduled "Retreat on Advancing the 10-Year Mandate of the Internet Governance Forum" to be held in New York from 14-16 July 2016, we would like to note that the theme is of interest to all parties in the IGF community. As such, we kindly request that remote participation facilities be made available to widen participation in this event, and that more information be provided on the expected modalities for implementation of the meeting’s outcomes and the lines of accountability for such implementation.</p> <p dir="ltr">The Tunis Agenda states in paragraph 73, “The Internet Governance Forum, in its working and function, will be multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent.” To the extent that UN DESA has custodianship of this unique multi-stakeholder institution, it is incumbent upon it to uphold these values, and this extends to the transparency and accountability of meetings such as the IGF retreat and of the implementation of the recommendations of such meetings.</p> <p dir="ltr">The IGF has been working since its inception to be open, transparent, and fully accessible to all stakeholders through the live streaming of all its sessions and its planning meetings. It also offered remote participants the possibility to intervene, collecting inputs from the widest possible range of stakeholders. It is also valuable to mention that platforms for remote participation have been made available in meetings with limited membership, such as the 2013/2014 CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC).</p> <p dir="ltr">As the purpose of the retreat is to show “progress on working modalities and the participation of relevant stakeholders from developing countries”, remote participation constitutes the very essence of a participatory working modality and broadens the chance for under-represented communities to engage in the IGF's mandate.</p> <p dir="ltr">Apart from the need for transparency of the working sessions of the retreat itself, it is also important to ensure clarity around the bigger picture of how this event will impact the evolution of the IGF, and by what means. We therefore ask for clarification of to whom the retreat's recommendations will be addressed or directed, who will have the authority and responsibility to implement these recommendations, and to whom they will they be accountable in doing so.</p> We trust that the organizers will find these to be reasonable requests that will contribute to the public legitimacy of the outcomes of this meeting by all stakeholders, and we look forward to receiving your reply on these points in advance of the retreat next month. The undersigned participants of civil society groups [emailpetition id="36"] [signaturelist id="36"]

   Cancel

Best Bits mailing list