<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
I could certainly live with all alternatives we are now discussing. They all convey the same message, with different emphasis on our main points.<div><br></div><div>I'm quite attracted by Parminder's new text, because it is short and starts from the fact that many governments already opposed cutting out the CSTD. This way, joining our voices with other stakeholders, our statement might carry more weight than otherwise. </div><div><br></div><div>However, maybe I'm biased, having worn the government hat for so long...</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Yrjö</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><br></div><div> </div><div><br>> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:34:52 +0000<br>> From: jeanette@wzb.eu<br>> To: jeremy@ciroap.org<br>> CC: governance@lists.cpsr.org; williams.deirdre@gmail.com<br>> Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing<br>> <br>> Hi again,<br>> <br>> I agree with Deidre that we shouldn't use a statement to explain <br>> matters. Particularly, we shouldn't explain UN procedures including <br>> timing in a statement to the UNSG. Therefore, I would take only the <br>> following para from Parminder's text and integrate it, perhaps after <br>> rewriting it a bit to make it sound polite:<br>> <br>> We therefore request that in the interest of an open and transparent <br>> process, UN Secretary General's report on continuation of the IGF be <br>> made available to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010, which will help <br>> the 'UN membership' make an informed and considered decision on this <br>> matter as per the requirements of the Tunis Agenda.<br>> <br>> jeanette<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>> > On 18/02/2010, at 7:04 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:<br>> > <br>> >> I support Deidre's reasoning (for dropping para 5) and her suggestions.<br>> > <br>> > Then we have you and Deirdre who don't want paragraph 5 and Yrjö, Wolfgang et al who do.<br>> > <br>> > We also have Parminder who has contributed a completely different text (and I don't think there's any point in integrating it with the existing text, because it's written as a complete alternative).<br>> > <br>> > I now need to know what each of you can live with. Jeanette and Deirdre, could you live with paragraph 5? Others, could you live with losing it?<br>> > <br>> > All, could you live with Parminder's draft instead of the one we've been discussing, or Parminder could you live with the original one?<br>> > <br>> ____________________________________________________________<br>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>> governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>> governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<br>> <br>> For all list information and functions, see:<br>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance<br>> <br>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t<br></div></div> <br /><hr />Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. <a href='https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969' target='_new'>Sign up now.</a></body>
</html>