<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Izumi<div><br></div><div>Since I'm not in a position to do word smithing on this in the next few days the following comments may not seem very helpful. Nevertheless, I'll share them in case someone does have the bandwidth to try taking on board inputs and working out consensus formulations...<br><div><br></div><div><div><div>On Nov 17, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Dear list,<br><br>Here follows and attached are the 2nd version of our draft answer to CSTD IGF questionnaire.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>No attachment</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite">Since the discussion only touched on Q1 and Q3, I put changes on these two points below. Added sentences and words are highlighted by yellow.<br>
A full version with hitory-on version in Word format is attached.<br>
<br>As the deadline is approaching, I will ask Jeremy to put it into the poll shortly, but hope we can catch any immediate and strong comments and requests before doing so.<br><br><br>1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first five IGF meetings? <br>
<br>IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open, inclusive manner. <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">This emergence </span><br style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">and development of the principle and practice of the multistakeholder model is perhaps the biggest </span><br style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">contribution IGF has achieved so far</span>. It helped many participants to understand the issues of their <br>interest, as well as to understand how other actors understand, act and accept their issues. <br>
Emergence of Regional and National IGF <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">with multistakeholder approach</span> is another achievements. <br></blockquote><div><br></div>Needs rewriting for English<br><blockquote type="cite"><br><b><s><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family: "Century","serif";" lang="EN-US">Yet</span></s><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family: "Century","serif";" lang="EN-US"> </span></b>We also note that there are frustrations expressed that IGF process <b><s><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family: "Century","serif";" lang="EN-US">we
still have </span></s></b>has we still have not directly <br>
produced seen real tangible outcomes directly out of IGF process. <br></blockquote><div><br></div>Disagree<br><blockquote type="cite"><br><br>3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the impact of the IGF discussions, <br>in particular as regards the interaction between the IGF and other stakeholders? Please specify the <br>
kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations, concrete advice, etc.) and the <br>stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental bodies, other fora dealing with Internet Governance, etc.). <br><br>a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of recommendations where <br>
all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They<s><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;" lang="EN-US"> It </span></s>will not be binding, but could still function as model, reference or common framework. Working process towards achieving these rough consensus will create better and deeper understandings amongst different stakeholders.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>This seems to go backwards to 2005. There has since been much discussion on the list and elsewhere about the difficulties of trying to do that in the IGF setting and better, more viable alternatives proposed, e.g. messages from not of IGF etc.<br><blockquote type="cite">
<br style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly foster discussion and </span><br style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">debate of difficult issues in main sessions, instead of avoiding them.</span><br><br><snip><br><br><p class="Default"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;" lang="EN-US">9. Do you have any
other comments? (You may find it useful to refer to the Note by the
Secretary-General on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum
(document A/65/78 – E/2010/68) or to the contributions made in the formal
consultations held online and during the IGF meeting in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt
in 2009
(<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009-igf-sharm-el-sheikh/review-process)">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009-igf-sharm-el-sheikh/review-process)</a>). </span></p>
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">IGF must focus exclusively on public policy and governance issues. It should avoid providing </span><br style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">standard educational workshops where some experts explain how to implement certain technologies </span><br style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">or how these technologies work.</span><br></blockquote><div><br></div>While I understand Milton's thinking, I disagree </div><div><br></div></div></div><div>So far I couldn't vote for this statement but would like to see the rest…</div><div><br></div><div>BTW under 9 why not mention the previously discussed issue of preserving an independent secretariat in Geneva?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div></body></html>