<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:73C9A686-AE93-4EF0-8125-1B8D67BDC766@ciroap.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 18/02/2010, at 7:04 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I support Deidre's reasoning (for dropping para 5) and her suggestions.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Then we have you and Deirdre who don't want paragraph 5 and Yrjö, Wolfgang et al who do.
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).
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?
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?
</pre>
</blockquote>
Jeremy<br>
<br>
I suggest an alternative strategy, but if others want to go by the
original one it is fine with me. I will sign on it as well.<br>
<br>
The problem is that the opening para itself I think have some factual
errors, and the UN SG's office will lose interest as another 'we want
more MS-ism' pitch by the CS when we have a much stronger case here
which is not presented.<br>
<br>
<pre wrap="">>The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique multi-stakeholder >process. We express a concern about what we see as a potential weakening of that process. Our concern is shared by several governments who >spoke to similar effect at the last IGF open consultation meeting on 10 February.
<big><big><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">In fact the governments who spoke were not thinking of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is up to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report give them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening MS process was not what the government who spoke at the consultations really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is all. </font></big></big>
>At that open consultation meeting. it was announced that >your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF may not be reviewed by the >Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) >as has been done in the past.
<big><big><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">We need to correct this a bit. It looks like there have been earlier recs on continuation of the IGF. we will have to say '... as has been done in the past with all matters pertaining to WSIS follow up.'</font></big></big>
</pre>
<br>
Also quoting WSIS extensively on multistakeholderism would not really
to be of much effect because in response one can just quote para 76
which deals with the matter under consideration which clearly says that
the UN SG's recs based on formal consultations with forum participants
will be submitted to the 'UN membership' which is read by all in the UN
system as UN GA, and certainly, as pertaining to governments as UN
members. <br>
<br>
So the real issue here, which gives us the best traction, is <br>
<br>
whether CSTD, as the proper process followed in the past, or not, <br>
<br>
and not <br>
<br>
whether a multistakeholder process (for consideration of SG's report)
or not. <br>
<br>
But as I said I will go with the other IGC statement under
consideration as well.<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>