<!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><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=077593215-29092005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Not sure which amendments you are adopting in these
bracketts but speaking personally not on behalf of my NGO, I like the emphasis
on the need to adopt multistakeholder and also not to predefine or limit the
role of the stakeholders involved. I am not in Geneva, but it sounds like the
Canadians are coming up with somethingmore workable and acceptable. I like the
support for this. Overall the spirit of this note is in the right direction of
inclusiveness and review also ensure some accountability and mapping
progress. The statement is also not too prejudicial or harsh. As an
NGO, we have no specific stand on any solution adopted save it be done in the
right spirit of cooperation, shared responsibility and the "trusteeship"i.e for
the good of all.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=077593215-29092005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=077593215-29092005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Thanks,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=077593215-29092005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Laina</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<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 4:59 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>hi,
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT><BR class=khtml-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT><BR class=khtml-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV>a quick pass with adds, deletes and replace]</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT><BR class=khtml-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT><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>