<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2722" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; khtml-nbsp-mode: space; khtml-line-break: after-white-space">
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=323515715-29092005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Looks OK although I am not sure what you mean by <FONT
face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>"Finally we have grave concern about
the the level and application of International law, especially with relation to
human rights, of the cooperation models.". <FONT color=#0000ff>There are issues
on how Iwhat is public and private international law in ICT field. International
law in Human Rights is often countered by the argument of national
sovereignity. Perhaps the words they already use in WGIG e.g. "freedom of
expression" or even "right to communicate" which ITU and others discuss, may be
better received and they can mean the same thing- just a suggestion.
</FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=323515715-29092005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=323515715-29092005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3><FONT
color=#0000ff>As for cooperation models, sounds good but again it is new
territory so are you referring to any particular model that countries have
agreed to under international law. Do you mean they have to give everyone equal
voices in this new cooperation model. We tried to invoke some "trust" or
"cooperation" models used under the "common heritage of mankind" principle- if
you read our statement. Under that concept, again there are no real models that
apply as they currently are cooperative models between stakeholders but civil
society is a new player there too. We are in new ground, and other than that, no
real issue other than let's be clear to get the best
effect.</FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=323515715-29092005><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=323515715-29092005><FONT
color=#0000ff>Thanks for the hard work you and others have put into trying to
get statements out and to help the process along.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=323515715-29092005><FONT
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=323515715-29092005><FONT
color=#0000ff>Regards,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=323515715-29092005><FONT
color=#0000ff>Laina</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=323515715-29092005><FONT
color=#0000ff>signing off at midnight in Singapore</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=323515715-29092005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=323515715-29092005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Avri
Doria<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, September 29, 2005 5:50 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Izumi
AIZU<BR><B>Cc:</B> Governance Governance Caucus; Jeanette
Hofmann<BR><B>Subject:</B> [governance] draft statement<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>with edits done (even fixed one of my own typos]</DIV>
<DIV><BR class=khtml-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV>& do you still have the same concerns after this meeting? i added
a line on human rights.</DIV>
<DIV><BR class=khtml-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV><BR class=khtml-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV><BR class=khtml-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV align=center><B>Statement on new chapter 5 proposals<BR>Sep
29<BR> <BR>Civil Society Internet Governance
Caucus<BR></B></DIV> <BR> <BR>Good evening everyone.<BR> <BR>My
name is Izumi Aizu of Glocom speaking on behalf of the Civil Society Internet
Governance Caucus.<BR> <BR>First, we welcome the fact that Subcom A
has finally started to discuss the core issues .<BR> <BR>Civil society
welcomes the proposal made this morning by the delegation of Canada. We think it
embodies the Geneva Principle of multi-stakeholdership including the full and
equal participation principle, and greater emphasis on inclusion from developing
parts of the world. We also welcome the explicit recognition of the WGIG
process, the open consultation process. <BR> <BR>With this encouraging
proposal from Canada, Civil Society would like to reiterate our position on
participation: We seek for full and equal participation of all stakeholders as a
matter of principle and a matter of practice. <BR> <BR>On the proposal made
by the European Union, we have carefully read and analyzed it and have come to
the following conclusion. First, we like to thank EU for having informal
consultation with Civil Society this afternoon. We had very constructive meeting
and made a meaningful dialogue. As we said during the meeting, we have some
concerns and reservations in the following areas.<BR> <BR>While we also
believe that some adjustments or improvement is necessary in the area of
Internet Governance, including that of the current ICANN framework, we do
not agree that governments alone should be given any special role over other
stakeholders as is expressed in this new EU proposal. We do not agree with the
language in para 63. which says “with the special emphasis on the
complementarity between all the actors involved … including governments, the
private sector, civil society and international organizations <U>each of them in
its field of competence</U>;”, we have problem with “<U>each of them in its
field of competence</U> “ which would confine our ability for full engagement,
especially since the agreed language in para 42c attempts to limit civil society
to community activity.</DIV>
<DIV><BR class=khtml-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV>We do appreciate your inclusion of the 'end-to-end principle' in para. 63
since that gives the maximum level of freedom to users at the edge of the
network.<BR> <BR>We also do not support “Para 64. Essential tasks” as a
whole. We do not think that the areas described from a) to e) in specifics
should rest under the sole involvement of international government involvement,
which is clearly against the multi-stakeholder principle WSIS has agreed
with.<BR> <BR>We also do not agree with the limited duration of the
Forum. We see the need for the periodic review as is described in Canada
proposal, but are not in full support of the default sun-set provision the EU
proposes. With the same concern, we have doubts about the 2 phase approach of
creating the Forum first, finish that, and then starting the transition. </DIV>
<DIV><BR class=khtml-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV>Finally we have grave concern about the the level and application of
International law, especially with relation to human rights, of the cooperation
models.<BR> <BR>We hope that EU together with other colleagues here in
Geneva will find ways to improve these areas and come together for mutually
agreeable solution. Again we need true multi-stakeholder practice with full and
equal participation.<BR> <BR>Thank you very much.<BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>