<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/09/12 15:03, William Drake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:644BEEF6-3AAA-44CF-B4B4-5CF9653AEB60@uzh.ch"
type="cite">It seems the geography of preferences for the meeting
is becoming more fluid and variable as we proceed. Since we have
a couple months that's not a big problem, but maybe at this point
we need tools other than a list to aggregate preferences and see
what appeals most to whom?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Another good suggestion made to me off-list, which could address
some of your valid points about overloading, and is really just an
extension of what you've already suggested:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">It seems that to the extent we're charting a
path forward on IG with basic principles for how governance should
work (i.e., procedural principles as opposed to, say, substantive
internet rights-based principles a la IRP or the Declaration or
whatever), that would seem to go hand in hand with a statement on
what ITU's proper role (if any) should be in the broader IG
spectrum. Maybe we're talking about one statement on IG that
includes discussion of ITU, as our output?</blockquote>
<br>
I agree with this person (who should identify themselves, if they
like) that there is much sense in having a clear demarcation between
the civil society Internet governance principles to be delivered to
the IGF, and the IPR/Declaration of Internet Freedom on substantive
rights. <br>
<br>
I have only one reservation. The reservation is that the civil
society principles would be meant to have a longer life at the IGF
than just one meeting, so if we drafted a single output document
that was too specific to the WCIT, it would soon become out of date.<br>
<br>
A possible work-around would be to have a single set of principles
(which would be enduring), plus a covering letter or preamble (which
would contextualise the statement around WCIT). What do people
think about that, as an alternative to the two separate output
documents?<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<p style="font-size:9.0pt;color:black"><b>Dr Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Senior Policy Officer<br>
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for
consumers</b><br>
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East<br>
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia<br>
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599</p>
<p style="font-size:9.0pt;color:black"><b>Your rights, our mission
– download CI's Strategy 2015:</b> <a
href="http://consint.info/RightsMission">http://consint.info/RightsMission</a></p>
<p style="font-size:9.0pt;color:black">@Consumers_Int | <a
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org">www.consumersinternational.org</a>
| <a href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a></p>
<p style="font-size:8.0pt;color:#999999">Read our <a
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality"
target="_blank">email confidentiality notice</a>. Don't print
this email unless necessary.</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>