<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type></HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>I wonder if there is another agenda we need to address here.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The dominant models that exist in similar industries, and which I believe
are the real battles going on in the world of internet governance, are between
governmental control and industry self regulation (aka unregulated industry
dominance.) I think we need to address this and make clear that industry
self-regulation with no governmental controls at all is not an appropriate
pattern for internet development. Only in this context do I think can we have a
decent conversation about multistakeholderism. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Multistakeholderism is, to at least some parties, a wonderful mask to aid
industry dominance with no governmental involvement whatsoever. And here
the dominant industry players often find willing supporters in the technical
community. I think civil society needs to be clear that, if it supports
multistakeholderism, it is not giving support to no governmental involvement at
all or to unregulated industry dominance. I think this is a real debate we have
to have.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And I think we need to be honest about the fact that not all stakeholders
have equal power in this – civil society arguments do not carry the weight of
the large internet corporations, and to pretend that ms-ism somehow changes this
imbalance is either naive or deliberately misleading.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I mention this here because, by the looks of Brazil and the way the agenda
is shaping up, we are going to talk about principles for governance, and this
word multistakeholderism is going to be front and centre. I think we need to
unwrap it a little and state clearly that the real issues going on are between
governmental and industry control, neither of which of itself is of itself a
satisfactory model.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That’s just some thoughts which I wonder if we could include here.
Elsewhere I think we need to have the larger debate about the mask of ms-ism,
but I think also in this paper we should at least mention the battle between
governmental control and industry control and how ms-ism is being used as a
diversion and cover-up for a more substantial issue.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ian Peter</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=Andrew@gp-digital.org
href="mailto:Andrew@gp-digital.org">Andrew Puddephatt</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Monday, February 03, 2014 1:52 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=mariliamaciel@gmail.com
href="mailto:mariliamaciel@gmail.com">Marilia Maciel</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=bestbits@lists.bestbits.net
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none; DISPLAY: inline">
<DIV>Thanks Marilia</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I’m back online now and picking up on my 430 e-mails so apologies to those
who are waiting for a response from me.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There are good reflections – my sense from them is that you have questions
about a distributed governance model in that to may not be clear/purposeful
enough to address the weaknesses in the current arrangements – is that a fair
summary of what you’re saying? Or am I over interpreting?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think we shared your view that existing multi-stakeholderism has not
provided corrections to imbalances of power – the real question is whether the
move to a more state based system of governance would provide such a corrective
or whether it would simply accelerate making the internet a geo-political
battlefield (personally I suspect we are already there). In looking for a
more dispersed governance model we were looking for a way of facilitating the
input of a range of public interest views to counter the growing voices calling
for state sovereignty over the internet. But I’d be the first to say that
there are no perfect solutions in our current climate.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I’ve given the 6th as the deadline for final comments and I’l try and
process them after that and get back to people after that</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Andrew</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><SPAN id=OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; FONT-FAMILY: calibri; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; COLOR: black; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; TEXT-ALIGN: left; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in"><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From: </SPAN>Marilia Maciel <<A
href="mailto:mariliamaciel@gmail.com">mariliamaciel@gmail.com</A>><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Date: </SPAN>Wednesday, 22 January 2014 22:18<BR><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To: </SPAN>andrew Puddephatt <<A
href="mailto:andrew@gp-digital.org">andrew@gp-digital.org</A>><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc: </SPAN>"<bestbits@lists. net>" <<A
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</A>><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject: </SPAN>Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals
for Brazil summit - IG governance<BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Hi Andrew and all,
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>After reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully written
comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts informally now than to
hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You managed to give
the summary a good flow and you provide both an overview of inputs from
respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed them (which are also
useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have are the following. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances of
power, insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things as "cases for
governance reform". I think that one conclusion from that is that although we
support the idea of multistakeholder participation, the way it has been "lived"
and implemented is not what we wished for. This is important to emphasize,
because some analysis that have been produced recently argue that non-gov actors
were all univocally united around MS all along. In fact, I think many
actors in CS have been pointing out to these imbalances for a long time, so in
order to improve multistaholderism, these demands for inclusion should be the
main ones guiding the process of reform.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just identify the
more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume the first option is
correct...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- I think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that you
mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC produce
recommendations and send them to other organizations: </DIV>
<DIV>a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; </DIV>
<DIV>b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If there
is no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to, for instance, WIPO,
to negotiate text about the Internet, in a context that the MS opinion on the
subject would not count in WIPO? What is the use of that, and how does
this differentiate governance of the internet to traditional international
regimes? </DIV>
<DIV>c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to
MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? </DIV>
<DIV>d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition: improving the
IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if there will be a renewal
of the mandate or interest to continue the forum (let's not forget the drama
before Bali). </DIV>
<DIV>e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is little
chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a very, very
boosted and dedicated staff and people who understand of methodologies to deal
with large groups. Those who were also in the IGF improvements WG heard, like I
did, that the IGF will not receive additional resources from the UN. The UN did
not want to pay more and the business and the technical community were alligned
against UN public funding, taking the issue out of the table. Are basing our
model of improved governance on the existence of enough voluntary funding to the
IGF?</DIV>
<DIV>f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not
sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the IGF and the
fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD could move up to ECOSOC
and GA, I would look into that more carefully</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN Committee
model, but not so much on distributed models. Less clear processes are very
prone to power grabs, even to more opaque (and harder to identify and fight)
ones. With that in mind, I particularly emphasize the importance of your
argument that self-forming MS processes are likely to disadvantage those without
power and resources. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the possibility
to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so maybe the argument that it
would not have expertise to deal with the diversity of internet issues could be
more carefully explained.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we
can continue the discussions.</DIV>
<DIV>Thanks again for the good start</DIV>
<DIV>Marília</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Andrew Puddephatt <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:Andrew@gp-digital.org"
target=_blank>Andrew@gp-digital.org</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-FAMILY: calibri,sans-serif">
<DIV>Hi everyone </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><SPAN>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; FONT-FAMILY: calibri; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; TEXT-ALIGN: left; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in">
<DIV class=im><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From: </SPAN>Marianne Franklin
<<A href="mailto:m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk"
target=_blank>m.i.franklin@gold.ac.uk</A>><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Date: </SPAN>Thursday, 16 January 2014
15:57<BR></DIV><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To: </SPAN>andrew Puddephatt
<<A href="mailto:andrew@gp-digital.org"
target=_blank>andrew@gp-digital.org</A>>, "<A
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target=_blank>parminder@itforchange.net</A>" <<A
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target=_blank>parminder@itforchange.net</A>>, "<bestbits@lists. net>"
<<A href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net"
target=_blank>bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</A>>
<DIV class=im><BR><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject: </SPAN>Re:
[bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
governance<BR></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">Dear Andrew and all<BR><BR>I’m heading
offline for a week now and have had little substantive response to the
document below. If there are any comments could you send them through to me by
February 6th – after that we’ll consult about turning this into a submission
in time for the deadline of March 1st.<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<DIV class=im>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: #1f497d"><U></U><U></U></SPAN> </P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN-TOP: 7pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(37,55,65)">Andrew
Puddephatt</SPAN></B><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, sans-serif"></SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, sans-serif">| </SPAN><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(37,55,65)">GLOBAL
PARTNERS</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(37,55,65)">
DIGITAL<U></U><U></U></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(37,55,65); LINE-HEIGHT: 115%">Executive
Director</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(255,33,38)"><U></U><U></U></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(127,127,127); LINE-HEIGHT: 115%">Development
House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT<U></U><U></U></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(127,127,127)">T:
<A href="tel:%2B44%20%280%2920%207549%200336" target=_blank
value="+442075490336">+44 (0)20 7549 0336</A> | M: <A
href="tel:%2B44%20%280%29771%20339%209597" target=_blank
value="+447713399597">+44 (0)771 339 9597</A> | Skype:
andrewpuddephatt</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(127,127,127)"><BR><B><A
href="http://gp-digital.org"
target=_blank>gp-digital.org</A></B><U></U><U></U></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: #1f497d"><U></U><U></U></SPAN> </P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0cm; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0cm">
<P class=MsoNormal> </P></DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=h5>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt; MARGIN-TOP: 5pt">
<P class=MsoNormal>Shortly before Xmas Global Partners Digital and Article
19 met to look at the responses to the survey monkey I sent out in
November. Taking advantage of the presence of other groups in Geneva
earlier the same week, we managed to bring in representatives from CDT,
CTS/FGV, Access, and Internet Democracy Project. The results of our
conversation are set out below and in a word attachment. Drawing
upon the responses to the survey and other reading (listed at the end of
the document) we looked at:<U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>The case for reform<U></U><U></U></P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>Possible criteria for reforming IG
governance<U></U><U></U></P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>An evaluation of the different proposals for
reform<U></U><U></U></P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>Preliminary conclusions.<U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Our main preliminary conclusion was, after considering
the criteria we set out for an IG system, that a <U>dispersed system of
governance</U> has more benefits and fewer risks than a centralised system
of governance. We go on to conclude in favour of maintaining a
distributed governance regime, but that it should be strengthened through
improving the IGF, introducing a new coordinating function and a process
for ad hoc issue-specific multistakeholder working groups to deal with new
issues. We also agreed that reforms were needed in order to globalise
oversight at ICANN, but more research is needed about the options and
risks here. <U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="COLOR: #1f497d"></SPAN><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>It is going to be a complex process to try and
co-ordinate a response from then list. To simplify things I
suggest that people submit three categories of comments.<U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>1. There will be those who fundamentally disagree with
the approach put forward. I suggest that they develop their own
approach find their own collaborators and work on their own ideas.
May a hundred flowers bloom.<U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>2. Those who broadly agree but who have substantive
comments to make which require further discussion. I will then
collect these put together an online conference call or some other
mechanism to discuss then in a structured fashion.<U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>3. Those who broadly agree but have preferences
for different phrasing etc. but who can live with the differences.
These I will collect and try and resolve through e-mail
conversation.<U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>We’ve spent a lot of energy on the question of
representation so it would be good to focus on what it is we would say if
we were represented. And although we should aim to submit something
to Brazil by March 1<SUP>st</SUP>, this position is one we can develop and
utilise in other forums. If you have other suggestins on how to pull
together different comments, do let me know. <U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Andrew Puddephatt<U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><B><U><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">Internet Governance: proposals for reform
</SPAN></U></B><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">***Contributors: Access, Article 19, CDT, CTS/FGV,
GPD, Internet Democracy Project*** </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">In an effort to work towards a joint civil society
proposal for internet governance reform - with the aim of feeding into the
upcoming Brazilian Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of
Internet Governance and other relevant forums – Global Partners Digital
and Article 19 coordinated a small group of civil society
organisations.</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">In order to brainstorm and report back as clearly
as possible, the group worked through four stages in considering both the
Best Bits survey responses and the most prominent civil society proposals
for reforming the IG institutional framework that the contributors were
aware of: </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN>1.<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">What is the case for reform of
IG and do we have a common understanding of what the problems with the
existing arrangements are?</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN>2.<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">If there is a case for reform
what are the criteria for a reformed system of IG that should be applied,
assuming we have a basic commitment to human rights and social justice?
</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN>3.<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">How do the various proposals
for reform stack up against these criteria – what are their strengths and
weaknesses and what potential risks and benefits.</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN>4.<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">What are the crucial elements
of a reformed IG system and what are those which we desire but would be
willing to compromise around. Considering the previous questions, is there
a rough consensus among the group present that we could share with the
wider BB community to enrich the approach? </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The below draft represents a summary of the group
analysis and discussion. </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">1) Case for reform</SPAN></B><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Reviewing and building on the survey responses,
the group identified the following criticisms of the current IG
arrangements: </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">There is an imbalance
of power with many people and groups, particularly from the global south,
feeling marginalised.</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">There is insufficient
diversity of voices, including gender and
language.</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Development issues, as
set out in the original Tunis Agenda, have not been adequately
tackled.</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The IGF has not
satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate.
</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Multistakeholderism
remains poorly defined which creates difficulty in its implementation and
evaluation. The term is seen to be increasingly used as a cover by those
resisting change. </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">There are
jurisdictional issues which remain unresolved. This also often leaves
powerful ICT companies to take important human rights/public interest
decisions. </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">There is an absence of
forums where jurisdictional issues or global public policies relating to
the internet can be thrashed out. This means governments are falling back
on different national laws and technical responses which encroach on the
global and distributed functioning of the
internet.</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Furthermore because of
the issues with the current regime, many governments are
pursuing/establishing separate international initiatives to tackle
important issues (such as cybersecurity) which are not sufficiently
transparent, open, multi-stakeholder or global. </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Some governments are
increasingly asserting a doctrine of “state sovereignty” on the global
internet. </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">There is a lack of
clarity about how or where decisions are made – there is a plurality of
forums with unclear relationships between them. </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The internet is unusual
as a communication tool, it has developed from the beginning as an
international medium, and its international character and the benefits of
free expression and access to information that it brings need to be
preserved. </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">There is a unique
property to the internet that requires global cooperation and coordination
to make it effective.</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">2) Criteria for Internet Governance
</SPAN></B><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">NB - The group recognised that there was an
overlap with the BB second Workstream looking at high level principles.
The current suggested baseline for Workstream 2 are the Brazilian CGI.br
principles. Depending on the outcome of Workstream 2, there could be
potential to unite around a core set of principles.
</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">After some discussion, the group set out criteria
that they felt were an essential element of any democratic international
governance system. The aim was to find criteria that could apply to any
system of international governance rather than looking for criteria that
only applied to the internet – in order to avoid the pitfalls of “internet
exceptionalism”. Rather, in a globalised world, where there are generally
very weak lines of accountability between a government's positions on the
international stage and its electorate back at home, open international
spaces with broad-based participation can be important opportunities for
bringing international decisions much closer to citizens across the world.
In this context, the group found that the international IG regime, if
developed appropriately, could have implications for wider international
governance systems (beyond the Internet). The group recognised that these
criteria are aspirational and that any proposed reform would probably not
meet all the criteria. Nonetheless it was found that they provide a useful
framework for assessing any proposed changes. </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The following mutually-supporting criteria were
found necessary for the governance of complex global phenomena:
</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">a)</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><B>Processes</B> </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Transparent and
comprehensible: it should be possible for anyone to understand how it
works and how things happen/decisions are made; </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Accountable: internal
and external accountability process should exist, including a way of
challenging decisions; </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Effective: in that it
can deliver whatever it is meant to deliver </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Adaptable: so that it
can take account of new innovations and developments in the field.
</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN></B><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">b) Participation</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Inclusive and open: not
be a small exclusive club, but open to many. </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">All necessary points of
view are included in order to arrive at good decisions/agreements
</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Possessing the
necessary expertise to make informed decisions </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Meaningful
participation: anybody affected by decision should be able to impact upon
decision-making processes. The group recognised that this would likely
involve mechanisms for consensus based decision making. But where
consensus was not possible there may need to be alternative supplementary
frameworks, such as decision-making by majority vote.
</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN></B><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">c) Underlying Values</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Human rights values
should be at the core of any governance process and outcomes.
</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Driven by global public
interest (motivated by an understanding of the internet as a global public
good). </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">3) Evaluating Proposals for Reform
</SPAN></B><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The next stage was to look at various suggested
reforms to the current system, drawn from the survey and other sources.
The list of models analysed below is not exhaustive. Please forgive
the brevity and crudeness of the model titles and their descriptions -
they are indicative only. More details about the proposals can be found in
the sources listed at the end of the document.</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN><U></U><U></U> </P>
<DIV
style="BORDER-TOP: windowtext 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 1pt solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 1pt solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; PADDING-TOP: 1pt; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext 1pt solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 4pt">
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><B><I><U><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">UN Committee
Model</SPAN></U></I></B><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><I><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Model proposed by the Indian government for a new
UN Committee made up of 50 member states, with four advisory committees
made up of different stakeholder groups. The Committee would have mandate
over global internet-related public policy issues, and oversight of the
technical bodies. IT for Change has also promoted this model with the
exception that oversight of the technical bodies would reside in a
separate Technical Oversight and Advisory Board formed of technical
experts nominated by governments.</SPAN></I><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><I><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN></I><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><B><I><U><SPAN lang=EN-US
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Multi-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as
proposed by Jeremy Malcolm)</SPAN></U></I></B><U></U><U></U></P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><I><SPAN lang=EN-US
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council
(MIPC) under the auspices of the IGF. MIPC would be made up of equal
numbers from civil society, private sector, government and
technical/academic communities, and observers from international
organisations). The MIPC would take up issues forwarded to it by rough
consensus in IGF plenaries. The MIPC would attempt to agree, by rough
consensus, an IGF recommendation on that issue. The recommendations would
be non-binding, but could call for the development of binding rules by
other institutions where appropriate, which would generally be at the
national level. </SPAN></I><U></U><U></U></P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><B><I><SPAN lang=EN-US
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN></I></B><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><B><I><U><SPAN lang=EN-US
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Multi-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as
proposed by Wolfgang Kleinwachter)</SPAN></U></I></B><U></U><U></U></P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><I><SPAN lang=EN-US
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council
(MIPOC) attached to the IGF. MIPOC could be composed similarly to the WG
on Enhanced Cooperation. The MIPOC would be a coordinating body –
identifying issues raised at the IGF and recommending an appropriate
mechanism to address those issues, either a pre-existing mechanism (e.g.
an intergovernmental organisation, a technical organisation, a
combination) or a new one. New mechanisms could be ad hoc multistakeholder
working groups with mandates to address specific issues by rough
consensus. </SPAN></I><U></U><U></U></P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><B><I><SPAN lang=EN-US
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN></I></B><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><B><I><U><SPAN lang=EN-US
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Distributed Multi-stakeholder Processes Model (as
proposed by Internet Democracy
Project)</SPAN></U></I></B><U></U><U></U></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><I><SPAN lang=EN-US
style="FONT-FAMILY: calibri, sans-serif">This model also envisions a
coordinating body on the lines of the MIPOC model above, however the
coordinating body would be housed in the CSTD instead of the IGF. The
function of the IGF would in this model be one of a clearing house only.
In addition, this model suggests that, where possible, the WSIS action
lines should be taken as a guideline for deciding which pre-existing
institution has a mandate covering a specific internet issue. Once an
appropriate institution is identified, this institution would then be
responsible for developing an appropriate multi-stakeholder process to
respond to that issue.</SPAN></I><U></U><U></U></P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><B><I><SPAN lang=EN-US
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN></I></B><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><B><I><U><SPAN lang=EN-US
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Self-forming multi-stakeholder issue processes (as
demonstrated by Internet & Jurisdiction Project)
</SPAN></U></I></B><U></U><U></U></P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><I><SPAN lang=EN-US
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Processes can self-create to develop voluntary
solutions to specific internet issues. Similarly to the model for adoption
of technical standards: the better a solution the more likely it is to be
adopted. For higher likelihood of voluntary adoption, these processes
should involve experts and powerful players, such as key governments.
However, the Internet & Jurisdiction Project’s model appears to be
more of a ‘proof of concept’ that could feasibly be institutionalized
within one of the models outlined above. </SPAN></I><U></U><U></U></P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><I><SPAN lang=EN-US
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN></I><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Looking at the UN Committee model and applying the
criteria above, the model has real strengths in the clarity of process and
therefore enabling anyone to understand how it works and how things
happen/decisions are made. It could also meet the effectiveness criteria
in terms of coming up with detailed policy recommendations. On the other
hand, its proposed mandate seemed very broad and more clarification is
needed about potential clashes with existing mandates, such as that of the
ITU or UNESCO. As a UN Committee with a central role for governments, and
based on experience of similar bodies, there is a real risk it would be
dominated by geo-political interests. As a single body with oversight –
potentially – of all public policy issues related to the internet, the
group felt there was a risk that the body would not have the requisite
expertise to make informed decisions across all issues. While it could
draw upon the work of advisory groups, it was unclear how they would be
composed and whether any fixed group of people would have the capability
to tackle a wide range of policy issues. The advisory nature of the
stakeholder groups would also create risks that those impacted by
decisions would not necessarily be able to help shape them. Furthermore
there was a question over the feasibility (time-wise) of a single group
responding to all issues, particularly as it is envisaged meeting just a
few times per year. </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Other proposals for reform, while varied in their
level of centralisation, suggest a greater role for non-governmental
stakeholder groups. All of these models seem to envision the IGF playing a
more or less central role as a clearing house for identifying issues which
need tackling and for each issue process to inform, engage and be
accountable to a wider Internet community. One advantage of these models
was seen to be the possibility for enabling pathways from the national
through regional to global level discussion and back down by tying all
processes to a wider discussion at the IGFs. Another advantage was seen to
be that building on the strengths of the IGF could foster openness,
inclusivity and accountability to the wider internet community.
There were, however, concerns given that the IGF hasn’t satisfactorily
delivered on all elements of its mandate. For example, should the
MIPC/MIPOC models derive their mandate and agenda from IGF discussions –
this would require a more output-oriented IGF. Thus, improving the IGF was
seen as critical to instituting these models. </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">A key feature of most of the above models, which
the group strongly supported, was the introduction of a new coordinating
function in the current internet governance regime. The multi-stakeholder
makeup of the coordinating body was also strongly supported by the
group. The advantage of these models was seen to be the fact that
they would provide greater clarity (compared to the current situation)
about how public policy issues are addressed.
</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">In looking at these models, they also all maintain
a distributed approach where many institutions are involved in different
aspects of internet-related public policy. The group specifically
supported the concept of maintaining/instituting separate processes for
separate issues for several reasons. Distributing power was seen as
protection against power-grabs, which many saw as the main concern with
the more centralised approach in the </SPAN>UN Committee model <SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">– and to a lesser extent Jeremy’s MIPC
model. </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">A distributed model was seen as having the
advantage of drawing in expertise as necessary based on the issue at hand,
and of being more dynamic and adaptable given the fast-changing internet
environment. However, a degree of institutionalisation of any distributed
model was seen to be essential to counteract power imbalances. For
example, self-forming multi-stakeholder processes are likely to
disadvantage those without power and resources.</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">There were, however, questions about the
effectiveness of the distributed models as they retain some of the
challenges of the current regime. The UN Committee model was more similar
to existing governance frameworks making it easier to understand. The
other models involve new and innovative ways of working. The group felt
that the Internet & Jurisdiction project may be a useful test bed for
the modalities of such an approach.<S></S></SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"></SPAN></B><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">4) Existing
Institutions</SPAN></B><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The group looked at a strand of suggestions around
sustaining the current structures, particularly the IGF and ICANN, but
reforming them to an extent that would allow issues with the current
system to be sufficiently addressed. NB these reforms could happen
alongside the ideas above considering the overall governance
regime.</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN></B><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">IGF </SPAN></B><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The group looked at proposals for improving the
IGF (see list of sources below). There were a number of areas where
necessary reforms were identified: </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Providing stronger
leadership;</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">A better funded and
supported secretariat;</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Stronger links between
the IGF (and discussions at the IGF) and all spaces involved in the
dispersed internet governance system;</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Clearing house
function;</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">More output-orientated;
</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Connecting the global
annual IGF to a more structured series of national and regional IGFs to
ensure that this is a clear path for issues of concern raised at a
national and regional level finding their way to global consideration and
back down to the regional and national levels;</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Widening participation
(esp. unrepresented e.g. global south governments and civil society, high
level policy-makers, staff of all institutions involved in
internet-related policy making, small to medium
businesses);</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><SPAN><SPAN>·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Reforming the
Multistakeholder Advisory Group.</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">ICANN </SPAN></B><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">In the case of ICANN, the group felt that
globalising ICANN (including removing the privilege of the US which was
seen as important though largely symbolic) remains an issue to be
resolved as it might involve both location and structure. However,
the group felt that it was necessary to examine closely the different
options - and timeframes - for doing so in order to determine their
potential risks and suggest appropriate solutions. Article 19 agreed to
co-ordinate further work on this issue.</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"></SPAN></B><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">5) Preliminary conclusions
</SPAN></B><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">From the response to the survey and by analysing
various alternative models using the criteria set out above, there seems
to be potential to come to a rough consensus combining a number of ideas
commanding broad support among civil society. </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><U><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Dispersed vs.
centralised</SPAN></U><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">A key point was whether a single decision making
space would be more appropriate versus a dispersed system whereby the
right kind of expertise could be assembled issue by issue. A centralised
system could be easier to navigate but a dispersed system had fewer risks
for political or corporate capture and enabled issue-based expertise
(including from civil society) to engage on specific issues. <B>On balance
we felt the risk/benefit of both approaches weighed more on the side of a
dispersed model of governance</B>. </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><U><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Broad participation & role of reformed
IGF</SPAN></U><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Another key point of agreement was in looking for
ways to involve as broad as possible communities in internet governance.
The IGF was seen as an important space for achieving this. For instance, a
reformed IGF could act as a central space for learning about and feeding
into all internet-related public policies within a dispersed system.
<B>The reform could entail: a stronger leadership, a better supported
secretariat, stronger links between the IGF and all other internet-related
policy-making spaces, a strong link to national and regional IGFs, more
output-orientated, widening participation and reforming the MAG.</B>
</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><U><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">A new co-ordinating
function</SPAN></U><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">There was general interest in the idea of creating
a new coordinating function to facilitate the coherence and effectiveness
of internet-related policy making within a distributed model. All agreed
that the coordinating group should be multi-stakeholder but there was no
decision on where that group should be constituted (e.g. at the CSTD or
attached to the IGF). <B>A new coordinating function is needed. More
discussion is needed about the form, location and processes by which that
function is exercised. </B></SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><U><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Issue-specific multistakeholder working groups
</SPAN></U><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">When a new issue arises that needs a policy
response, there was broad agreement that these should be resolved through
ad hoc multi-stakeholder working groups were developed to deal with
specific issues. There wasn’t a decision yet on where/how those working
groups should be formed (i.e. by different institutions with mandate over
different issues, by a working group tied to CSTD, by a working group tied
to IGF). Also, on decision making there was broad agreement that the
groups would ideally work by consensus with the option to shift to another
process where necessary and appropriate (including multilateral processes,
e.g. to draft a treaty). <B>New internet policy issues should be dealt
with through ad hoc multi-stakeholder working groups which are issue
specific.</B><B>More discussion is needed about the form, location and
processes of those multi-stakeholder working
groups.</B></SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 36pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: ; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm"><U><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">ICANN reform</SPAN></U><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">A reformed ICANN – details to be worked on
further.</SPAN></B><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN></B><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">6) List of Sources</SPAN></B><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><A
href="http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/"
target=_blank><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/</SPAN></A><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><A
href="http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/" target=_blank><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/</SPAN></A><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><A
href="http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/%20%20Dev%20agenda%20in%20IG%20200412.pdf"
target=_blank><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/%20%20Dev%20agenda%20in%20IG%20200412.pdf</SPAN></A><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><A
href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-statement-un-cirp"
target=_blank><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-statement-un-cirp</SPAN></A><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><A
href="http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/india-to-push-for-freeing-internet-from-us-control/article5434095.ece?homepage=true"
target=_blank><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/india-to-push-for-freeing-internet-from-us-control/article5434095.ece?homepage=true</SPAN></A><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><A
href="http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf"
target=_blank><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf</SPAN></A><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><A
href="http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf"
target=_blank><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf</SPAN></A><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><A
href="http://unctad.org/Sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2011d22_Major_EN.pdf"
target=_blank><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">http://unctad.org/Sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2011d22_Major_EN.pdf</SPAN></A><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><A
href="http://bestbits.net/notes-on-an-igf-plus/" target=_blank><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">http://bestbits.net/notes-on-an-igf-plus/</SPAN></A><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><A
href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-oversight-of-icann/"
target=_blank><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-oversight-of-icann/</SPAN></A><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><A
href="http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-proposal-to-the-cstd-working-group-on-enhanced-cooperation#-8xHg3pRMAMtJ2UVoZcsOg"
target=_blank><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-proposal-to-the-cstd-working-group-on-enhanced-cooperation#-8xHg3pRMAMtJ2UVoZcsOg</SPAN></A><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><A
href="http://www.diplomacy.edu/sites/default/files/May%202013%20IG%20webinar%20PDF%20-%20Dr%20Jeremy%20Malcolm.pdf"
target=_blank><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">http://www.diplomacy.edu/sites/default/files/May%202013%20IG%20webinar%20PDF%20-%20Dr%20Jeremy%20Malcolm.pdf</SPAN></A><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><A
href="http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-Responses.aspx"
target=_blank><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-Responses.aspx</SPAN></A><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN-TOP: 7pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(37,55,65)">Andrew
Puddephatt</SPAN></B><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, sans-serif"></SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, sans-serif">| </SPAN><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(37,55,65)">GLOBAL
PARTNERS</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(37,55,65)">
DIGITAL</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(37,55,65); LINE-HEIGHT: 115%">Executive
Director</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; TEXT-AUTOSPACE: "><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(127,127,127); LINE-HEIGHT: 115%">Development
House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT</SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(127,127,127)">T:
<A href="tel:%2B44%20%280%2920%207549%200336" target=_blank
value="+442075490336">+44 (0)20 7549 0336</A> | M: <A
href="tel:%2B44%20%280%29771%20339%209597" target=_blank
value="+447713399597">+44 (0)771 339 9597</A> | Skype:
andrewpuddephatt</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(127,127,127)"><BR><B><A
href="http://gp-digital.org"
target=_blank>gp-digital.org</A></B></SPAN><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P
class=MsoNormal><SPAN><U></U><U></U></SPAN> </P></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV></DIV></SPAN></DIV><BR>____________________________________________________________<BR>You
received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
<A
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</A>.<BR>To
unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<BR> <A
href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits"
target=_blank>http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR
clear=all>
<DIV> </DIV>-- <BR>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV><B>Marília Maciel</B></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#444444>Pesquisadora Gestora</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#444444>Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - </FONT><SPAN
style="COLOR: rgb(68,68,68)">FGV Direito Rio</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#444444><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#666666>Researcher and Coordinator</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#666666>Center for Technology & Society - </FONT><SPAN
style="COLOR: rgb(102,102,102)">FGV Law School</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#666666><A href="http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts"
target=_blank>http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts</A><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#666666><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#666666>DiploFoundation associate</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#666666><A href="http://www.diplomacy.edu"
target=_blank>www.diplomacy.edu</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#666666><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></SPAN>
<P>
<HR>
____________________________________________________________<BR>You received
this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
bestbits@lists.bestbits.net.<BR>To unsubscribe or change your settings,
visit:<BR>
http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>