<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 03/10/12 19:02, Norbert Bollow
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:20121003130210.201d903e@quill.bollow.ch"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Well my thoughts regarding the drafting work on "IG Principles" were
that we might take steps forward in the wordsmithing towards creating a
good text that could eventually evolve into a "Universal Declaration of
Internet Governance Principles" with broad multistakeholder support and
perhaps a UNGA resolution endorsing it. That wouldn't be something to
finalize in Baku. Rather we'd make as much progress as we can to create
a draft text which is as good as we can make it, and then appoint a team
to lead the work of taking things forward from there.
But I also see the value of what Bill suggests, to create a "freshly
produced statement from stakeholders". In my view, that kind of thing
should definitely be finalized by Monday evening at the latest. That
doesn't give a lot of extra time, but at least it gives one day which
civil society organizations can use to consider whether they want to
endorse the statement, and if it should turn out during that phase that
some part of the wording is really unfortunate and should be changed,
we'd have a chance to have an extra meeting on Monday evening to decide
such a change.
The realities of the scarcity of time and bandwidth of human
thinking and communication capacity being what they are, I'm pretty
sure that we can't realize both of these ideas in the context of this
year's Best Bits gathering. We need to choose either of them. Either
approach is ok in my opinion.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
A broader multi-stakeholder declaration of principles or affirmation
of commitments (or whatever you want to call it) is definitely an
end game that many of us share, but we don't have a mandate to begin
that process yet. This is something that we need to advocate for at
the IGF first, and as you say, it will take some time.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, we need to have a civil society position on the table
that can later be an input into such a broader multi-stakeholder
document. After all, everyone else has their own statements of
principles that they have presented at the IGF (USG, CoE, G8, IBSA,
etc) and until now civil society has been left behind. I don't
think we need to wait for the multi-stakeholder process to begin
first.<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>