<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi<div><div><br><div><div>On Oct 21, 2010, at 1:53 PM, William Drake wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div><br></div><div>Relatedly, the ICC and ISOC with the support of France will hold an information session today in New York October to brief governments' UN mission representatives. No webcast alas, or mention of CS involvement. The background note for the meeting <a href="http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/ICC_ISOC_IGF_briefing_note_19Oct10.pdf">http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASIS/Documents/ICC_ISOC_IGF_briefing_note_19Oct10.pdf</a> directly addresses the point we've been cautiously dancing around and endorses an IGF "Led by <b>an independent secretariat based in Geneva</b> where the Internet policy networks and the history of the WSIS lie: it is important for stakeholders to feel they can trust the secretariat to be unbiased and not unduly influenced by any one interest."</div><div><br></div><div>Now that they've put the issue on the table, wouldn't it make sense for IGC to say something similar?</div></div></div></blockquote><br></div><div>With the GA discussion approaching etc, shouldn't the IGC express support for the one part of the UN that's actively promoted its engagement in IG discussions? This seems more immediately pressing to me than trying to visualize a whole new global institutional topography for EC, which one would expect to require a lot of time and dialogue...</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div><br></div></div></body></html>