<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; ">hi,<DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>a quick pass with adds, deletes and replace]</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV> <DIV align="center"><B>Statement on new 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[Delete:, succeeding the co-coordinator’s role of the] [add: of Glocom speaking on behalf of the] Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus [delete: from my colleague Adam Peake at GLOCOM].<BR> <BR> [delete: First we would like to thank all the efforts the delegations are now putting to conclude this two week long session of PrepCom 3. We hope we can go back home with the tangible product of mutual cooperation and collaboration tomorrow.<BR> <BR> [delete: Now, we again would like to express our great concern, however, about the working modality of the Drafting Group sessions which essentially deny us from meaningful participation. We like to remind you that all of the non-governmental stakeholders, the private sector, international organizations and us, the citizens, or the civil society are your essential partners, that was agreed under the Geneva WSIS principles. Therefore we strongly urge you to reconsider this negative situation and start implement far more constructive and productive working method for any of the remaining work as well as all the work of the Tunis summit, follow up and future works ahead.<BR> <BR> [delete: On the progress being made at the Subcomitee A on Internet Governance, we would like to share the following observations.<BR> <BR> First, we welcome [add: the fact] that Subcom A [add: has] finally started to discuss the core issues [delete:in its full slot at this very end of the session.]<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 [replace; with/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 [replace: retaliate/reiterate] our position on participation [delete: once again] : 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 [replace: came/ 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 [replace: share/believe] that some adjustments or improvement is necessary in the area of Internet Governance, including that of the current ICANN framework, [add: but] we do not agree that governments alone [replace: will/should] be given any special role over other stakeholders [replace: which/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, [add: especially since the agreed language in para 42c attempts to limit civil society to community activity]<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 [add: with] the limited [repalce: nature/duration] of [add: the] Forum [add: .][delte: , with predefined period.] We see the need for the periodic review as is described in Canada proposal, but [add: are] not in full support of the default sun-set provision EU proposes. With the same concern, we have doubt[s] about the 2 phase approach [replace: to create / or creating]Forum first, finish that, and then start[ing] the transition. <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 [repalce: in/with] full and equal [replace: footing/particpation].<BR> <BR> Thank you very much.<BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>