<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18882"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN class=856215201-25022010>Since
we are discussing basic civics at this point... and up front I agree with Milton
on a lot of what he says below...</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=856215201-25022010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=856215201-25022010>However, for most of the world the fundamental
challenge of democratic governance is how to balance the rights of individuals
and minorities (and yes majorities) with the over-arching
need/responsibility to accomplish significant collectively arrived at social
goals/undertakings (let's use the MDG's as our surrogate for this but I'm sure
we could develop a rather lengthy list here including dare I say finding a means
for managing the global digital platform/communications commons that is the
Internet).</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=856215201-25022010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN class=856215201-25022010>I
completely agree that MS is a (not particularly adequate or effective)
transition point in moving from governance strategies and structures which
empirically can be seen as not delivering the goods as above at tje nation state
level and most certainly don't scale for the kind of globally necessary
undertakings that seem to be emerging--of which governance of the Internet
is among the least threatening and least complex.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=856215201-25022010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN class=856215201-25022010>Where
or how we go from here in responding to those challenges is certainly not clear
(to me at least) although the Internet and new communications modalities and
opportunities present some interesting glimmers of possible directions for
development in this area. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=856215201-25022010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN class=856215201-25022010>I
personally see the current experimentation with MS approaches as part of a quite
broad based and multi-pronged evolutionary process towards the necessary
structures for global governance (my own feeling is that MS represents an
interesting dead end in that evolution, but time will
tell...</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=856215201-25022010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=856215201-25022010>MBG</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=856215201-25022010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT size=2
face=Tahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Milton L Mueller
[mailto:mueller@syr.edu] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, February 25, 2010 1:25
AM<BR><B>To:</B> 'Bertrand de La Chapelle';
governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [governance] Parminder's
exchange with Bertrand<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=872163619-24022010>B:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=872163619-24022010>Yes, this is helpful. We agree on a lot. MS does not
mean a particular categorization of stakeholder groups, this is an important
clarification. And I am glad to see that you understand that individual
participation allows the representation of viewpoints and not necessarily of
groups of people. We also agree that global public interest is not
aggregation of national interests. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=872163619-24022010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=872163619-24022010>So fundamentally, we are in agreement on the
important issue, which is that the multistakeholder-ization of existing
intergovernmental institutions is a step in the direction of new institutions
and not an end in itself. I am sorry if I shocked those who have developed a
strong rhetorical commitment to the MS-word, but given that MS itself is not a
viable model of global governance and does not answer the profound question of
what kind of new institutions will supplant the state-based ones, I think we
will pay the price, sooner or later, if we don't make that distinction.
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=872163619-24022010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=872163619-24022010>My emphasis on the individual does not mean that I
favor holding nation-state style elections for every internet decision or (God
forbid) every policy decision in every sector. Nor do I blieve in a globalized
legislature or executive - that is just the transposition of the nation-state
model to a level that does not scale. I do believe that democratic forms could
be profitably applied in specific contexts, such as e.g. the ICANN Board, but
I suspect that a viable system of global governance will minimize its reliance
on elections and other forms of collective action and seek to pave the way for
coordinated forms of decentralizsation and freedom, while seeking to maintain
some kinds of collective accountability and rights protection against
abuses. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=872163619-24022010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=872163619-24022010>One of the fallacies of the MS approach as currently
articulated is that it seems to have no grasp of the limitations of collective
governance. It drastically overstates the capabilities and scope of global
governance and pushes forward participation as the answer to everything. It
seems to imply that if we all just talk about stuff we can all agree and solve
all problems. But that it isn't consistent with what we know about human
nature, and free expression is a good example. In order to be able to publish
a controversial message on my blog, I should not have to gain the collective
assent of 7 billion people. The whole point of "governance" in that area,
imho, is precisely to shield groups and individuals from
unwanted "governance" by others. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=872163619-24022010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=872163619-24022010>--MM</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=872163619-24022010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> Bertrand de La Chapelle
[mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, February 24,
2010 7:38 AM<BR><B>To:</B> governance@lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette
Hofmann<BR><B>Cc:</B> Milton L Mueller; Parminder; Kleinwächter,
Wolfgang<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with
Bertrand<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Dear all,
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are
ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders" that
must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with Karl
Auerbach on this topic.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>"Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or four, or
five ...) <B>"stakeholder groups"</B> or constituencies : governments, civil
society, business (plus technical community, and IGOs). According to this
approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance looks a little bit like the ILO
(International Labor organization) with the three constituencies of
governments, employers and trade unions, each in their respective
structures. in a certain way, ICANN is still structured very much in this
way, with what I have often described as the "silo structure" that too often
prevent real interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and
"stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished : "stakeholders" is a
broader and more diverse notion. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>"Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in
particular) as meaning i<B>nstitutional organizations only</B> (ie
incorporated structures, be they public authorities, corporations or NGOs),
limiting or even forbidding therefore the participation of individuals. I
have repeatedly mentioned that this does not need to be the case and that
individuals should have the possibility to participate with appropriate
modalities in multi-stakeholder governance frameworks. The IGF in that
respect is a very useful example with its open registration policy that
allows individuals. Important established structures (governments,
businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and decision-making processes
are relevant stakeholders, but individuals too. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the
decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such individuals can
represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of people. Provided they are
contributing, they should not be required to demonstrate specific
representation credentials (hence the classical question : but who do they
really represent ? is moot, and akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope
?"). Any person with something to contribute should be allowed to do so
because it informs the processes and the general understanding of an issue.
The purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most comprehensive
manner, taking into account the perspective of all actors who have a stake
in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white man from a developed
country can perfectly have a good knowledge of the challenges of gender for
youth in poor countries and try to ensure that this perspective is taken
into account in the discussions even if no "representative" from such
communities is present. However, actual representatives of the different
interests are needed in the decision-making phase that follows, and
established institutions and structures may have a specific role to play
here. .</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism". In this
context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to the last bit of
the paragraph :</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0px"
class=webkit-indent-blockquote>MS is at best a transitional phase
implying a motion from purely intergovernmental toward a more open,
democratic forms of global governance. In this progression, we need
to have a clearer idea of what the end point is - and MS is not it.
In a world of perfect global governance the artificial division of
society into "estates" such as "government, business and civil
society" no longer exists; it is the individual that
matters. </BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic form
of global governance. And yes, actors must not be artificially divided into
separate estates that are too rigid and prevent their interaction. (This is
why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for the IGF is better than three
"Bureaus" for each group). And yes, governance should be based on the right
for any actor, including individuals, to participate in an appropriate
manner in the governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has a
stake in (is impacted by or concerned with). </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>However, multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as necessarily
meaning interaction between separate stakeholder groups, each drafting their
own statements to reconcile them later on. Furthermore, I do not believe
that the future of global governance is the generalization at the
international level of the kind of representative democracy that already
reaches some limits at lower scales. The election by 7 billion individuals
of a World President or even Parliament is not the solution.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>This is why we must consider the different structures or groups that
individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of their diverse
interests. A single individual has different stakes in an issue - sometimes
conflicting - and would benefit from having its different perspectives
carried forward in international discussions by a diversity of actors. To
take the example of environmental issues, citizens do not want their country
to be penalized versus others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions,
and therefore want their government to actively defend their rights. But
conscious of the future challenges for their family or the planet as a
whole, they may want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions to exert
some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the
employees of companies in an industry that has to support an important
effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the global regime will impact
their jobs and therefore want the said company or its trade group to
participate as well. Finally, they may want to ensure that any decision is
taken on a sound technical and scientific analysis, which requests expert
participation. Etc... On such global topics, individuals have in fact
several stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of them. A
major one, but only one of them, as the global public interest is not the
mere aggregation of national public interests. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including
governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding of
"multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo approach, and to
explore/invent the mechanisms through which all stakeholders can,
collectively and collaboratively (I would even say "collegially"), "develop
and implement shared regimes" on specific issues. As I have often said
in the IGF context, the "respective roles" of the different stakeholders
should vary according to the issue, the venue and the state of the
discussion. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>This means designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting,
issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making (verification of
consensus, validation), and implementation (agency, monitoring and
enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two major laboratories where this
discussion takes place. And this list, as exemplified by these exchanges is
one of the places, if not the main one, where the political theory
discussion can actually take place. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I hope this helps move the discussion forward. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Best</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Bertrand</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis.</DIV>
<DIV> <BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann
<SPAN dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:jeanette@wzb.eu">jeanette@wzb.eu</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV class=im><BR><BR><BR> Second, We<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism"
as our label for<BR>good governance and appropriate institutions;
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV>I don't understand why.
<DIV class=im><BR><BR>MS is at best a<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>transitional phase implying a motion from purely
intergovernmental<BR>toward a more open, democratic forms of global
governance. In this<BR>progression, we need to have a clearer idea of
what the end point is<BR>- and MS is not it. In a world of perfect
global governance the<BR>artificial division of society into "estates"
such as "government,<BR>business and civil society" no longer exists; it
is the individual<BR>that matters. <BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV>I completely
disagree with a solely individual notion of global governance. Autonomy
and self-determination do not rest and refer to, at least not necessarily,
on individual freedom only. What we are all arguing about here concerns
democratic "rules for a life in common", as a colleague once put it. A
life in common that respects both, individual and collective dimensions of
it.<BR>The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of
capturing this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many times, but to
give it up and replace it by individuals (who interact in the form of
contracts with each other?) looks like an impoverished notion of
regulation and political rule-making to me.<BR>jeanette<BR><BR>jea
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=h5><BR>In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P.
skewers<BR></DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=h5>the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting
how MS is<BR>used to fend off certain political actors in this context
but somehow<BR>does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about
process but<BR>not substance, and policy substance is what matters
ultimately.<BR><BR>________________________________________ From:
Parminder<BR>[<A href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target=_blank>parminder@itforchange.net</A>] Sent: Sunday, February 21,
2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: <A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"
target=_blank>governance@lists.cpsr.org</A>; Jeremy<BR>Malcolm; Jeanette
Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance]<BR>REVISION 3 Draft
statement to UNSG on bypassing<BR><BR>Jeanette and
Bertrand,<BR><BR>First of all I must apologize that I did not read the
open<BR>consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of
developed<BR>countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must
have<BR>forgotten that part from their interventions because there
principal<BR>point was procedural which I found particularly forceful.
And I am<BR>sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that
would be<BR>because of this procedural part.<BR><BR>However, since
Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my<BR>'analysis of
motivation of governments' that made the
mentioned<BR>interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much
motivation but<BR>the tactical aspects of their intervention that I
spoke about, I can<BR>hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of
'analysis of motivation'.<BR>Political motivations are generally a
subject requiring deeper<BR>analysis, and while I do agree that
developing countries are<BR>interested in, as Bertrand says
'preserve(ing) the multi-stakeholder<BR>nature of the IGF', it can
hardly be said that this makes them<BR>'naturally' more open and
democratic at the global political stage,<BR>and developing countries
correspondingly more closed. One may ask in<BR>this context why ACTA is
being negotiated in such secrecy. Why not<BR>have multistakeholder
involvement in its drafting and negotiations?<BR>Especially for its
Internet chapter being discussed currently? And<BR>why at WIPO and
WTO developing countries are more-NGO involvement<BR>friendly and
not developed countries?<BR><BR>Where support for
multistakeholderism starts and where it ends is,<BR>therefore, a
question of deep political motivations. I understand<BR>that developed
countries want, at this stage, to limit possibilities<BR>for more
democratic global policy forums on IG issues because control<BR>over the
techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along with<BR>stronger IP
regimes, underpin their new strategy for global<BR>domination. This
works well with promoting of a weak IGF which is<BR>little more than an
annual conference on IG, and which has this great<BR>advantage of acting
as the perfect co-option device - letting off<BR>excess steam vis a vis
desires for political participation in shaping<BR>the emergent
techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately developing<BR>countries
mostly have not woken up to the global eco-socio-political<BR>domination
aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist controls<BR>within their
own territories.<BR><BR>Developed countries want the IGF to carry
on as it is. Many<BR>developing countries want the IGF
to have more substantive<BR>role in global
IG regimes, along with a specific Internet policy<BR>regime, for which
'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the place<BR>holder. Developed
countries seem not interested in
furthering<BR>the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the
technical community<BR>supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many
among civil society<BR>(dominated by North based/ oriented actors).
The latter two also<BR>have often supported the case for weak,
annual conference, nature of<BR>IGF, with no consideration to the fact
that<BR><BR>1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global
Internet policy<BR>making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by
the extent to<BR>which it does so.<BR><BR>2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda
gives a clear mandate to IGF to make<BR>recommendations where
necessary.<BR><BR>I make the above analysis because I do not agree with
the following<BR>assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key
substantive<BR>issue in the email.<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the
desirability of the<BR>continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the
UN SG should mainly<BR>revolve around the >question : continuation
Yes or No ? and not get<BR>into any renegotiation of the mandate or
the administrative and<BR>operational organization of the
Forum.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>In this context, it would be inappropriate for the
UN General<BR>assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies)
to discuss<BR>more than the Yes or >No
question.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Section 74 of TA reads<BR><BR>"We
encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options<BR>for
the convening of the Forum ..........'<BR><BR>and 73 b reads IGF will
"Have a lightweight and decentralized<BR>structure that would be subject
to periodic review".<BR><BR>Therefore, while a review of the IGF can
certainly not renegotiate<BR>the mandate of the IGF, the
'administrative and operational<BR>organization of the Forum' is
certainly open to review and change.<BR><BR>In this matter we are
opposed to certain kind of changes (taking it<BR>closer to the ITU.
reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds<BR>(things that can make
IGF more effective - WGs, more focused agenda,<BR>some kind of
recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more<BR>effective
connections to forums where substantive Internet policy is<BR>made,
stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc).<BR><BR>I also think
that to ensure that progressive forces are not able to<BR>get together
to demand the kind of changes that are needed to enable<BR>the IGF to
fulfill its TA mandate and become really effective, there<BR>is much
more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF review<BR>debate'
on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' than is<BR>needed on
pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and<BR>sloganeering helps
push other possibilities of more progressive<BR>changes in the IGF,
which are much needed, into the background, in<BR>fact, into the
oblivion.<BR><BR>Parminder<BR><BR><BR>Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
Dear all,<BR><BR>Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke
were not thinking<BR>of multistakeholderism but underlying their
objections was a<BR>different politics. They suspect China (along with
some others) is up<BR>to some games here, and more open consideration of
UN SG's report<BR>give them a better chance to put their views in more
solidly, not<BR>that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also,
some<BR>governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are
more<BR>vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since
weakening<BR>MS process was not what the government who spoke at the
consultations<BR>really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know
this, our first<BR>assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really
spoke about the<BR>proper process of WSIS follow up matters going
through CSTD, that is<BR>all.<BR><BR>I must correct this : preserving
the multi-stakeholder spirit of<BR>discussions was clearly in the minds
of most governments who spoke in<BR>Geneva to support having the report
presented to the CSTD.<BR><BR>The reasoning is as follows : - the very
idea of an Internet<BR>Governance forum came principally from the
discussions of the WGIG,<BR>which was a truly multi-stakeholder group -
even if the mandate of<BR>the IGF was included in a document ultimately
signed by governments<BR>only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have
played an important<BR>role in its definition - the functioning of the
Forum itself has been<BR>organized since its inception by a
multi-stakeholder process<BR>(including through the MAG) - para 76 of
the Tunis Agenda mentions<BR>"the desirability of the continuation"; ie
: the recommendations of<BR>the UN SG should mainly revolve around the
question : continuation<BR>Yes or No ? and not get into any
renegotiation of the mandate or the<BR>administrative and operational
organization of the Forum.<BR><BR>In this context, it would be
inappropriate for the UN General<BR>assembly or ECOSOS (which are
governments-only bodies) to discuss<BR>more than the Yes or No question.
The capacity to self-organize,<BR>which has made the IGF what it is
today, must be preserved. The CSTD,<BR>because of its mandate to handle
the follow-up of WSIS, is not only<BR>the legitimate entry point to
prepare the draft resolutions for<BR>ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the
sole UN structure that has the<BR>possibility to allow a discussion
among a diversity of actors on how<BR>to make the IGF even better
without changing its fundamental<BR>multi-stakehoder nature.<BR><BR>The
governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to<BR>preserve
the multi-stakeholder nature of the
IGF.<BR><BR>Best<BR><BR>Bertrand<BR><BR>-- ____________________ Bertrand
de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour<BR>la Société de l'Information /
Special Envoy for the Information<BR>Society Ministère des Affaires
Etrangères et Européennes/ French<BR>Ministry of Foreign and European
Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32<BR><BR>"Le plus beau métier des
hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de<BR>Saint Exupéry ("there is
no greater mission for humans than uniting<BR></DIV></DIV>humans")
____________________________________________________________
<DIV class=im><BR> You received this message as a subscriber on the
list: <A href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"
target=_blank>governance@lists.cpsr.org</A> To be removed from the list,
send any<BR>message to: <A
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org"
target=_blank>governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR><BR>For all
list information and functions, see: <A
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"
target=_blank>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR><BR>Translate
this email: <A href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target=_blank>http://translate.google.com/translate_t</A><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV
class=h5>____________________________________________________________<BR>You
received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR> <A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"
target=_blank>governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>To be removed from the
list, send any message to:<BR> <A
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org"
target=_blank>governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR><BR>For all
list information and functions, see:<BR> <A
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"
target=_blank>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR><BR>Translate
this email: <A href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target=_blank>http://translate.google.com/translate_t</A><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR
clear=all><BR>-- <BR>____________________<BR>Bertrand de La
Chapelle<BR>Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy
for the Information Society<BR>Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et
Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs<BR>Tel : +33
(0)6 11 88 33 32<BR><BR>"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les
hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry<BR>("there is no greater mission for humans
than uniting humans")<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>