<p>Agree generally with Betrand's amendments and comments.</p>
<p>Rgds ,</p>
<p>Tracy<br>
</p>
<p><blockquote type="cite">On Dec 16, 2010 8:29 AM, "Bertrand de La Chapelle" <<a href="mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com">bdelachapelle@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>Thanks Izumi,<div><br></div><div>A few comments inline below. Hope this helps.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Best</div><div><br></div><div>Bertrand<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><p><font color="#500050">On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Izumi AIZU <<a href="mailto:iza@anr.org">iza@anr.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>> Dear list,<br>> Here, I prepared D...</font></p><div><font color="#000099">Suggestion to preface the statement with preliminary remarks on this specific consultation process, building upon the letter/petition :</font></div>
<div>
<font color="#000099">- the process currently followed is not in conformity with the letter and spirit of the ECOSOC resolution calling for the creation of the Working Group; </font></div><div><font color="#000099">- this group is not a group OF the CSTD, but a group convened by the Chair of the CSTD; this was a voluntary choice, made in reference to the creation of the WGIG to provide as much flexibility as possible in terms of format;</font></div>
<div><font color="#000099">- the meeting of the representatives of CSTD members on December 6 not only was an inappropriate format for deciding the composition of the group, but the decision was taken in spite of the strong objection of at least two countries, therefore not consensus-based (unlike the ECOSOC resolution)</font></div>
<div><font color="#000099">- consultations in Vilnius and Geneva clearly called for a group composed like the WGIG, and in any case multi-stakeholder</font></div><div><font color="#000099">- the consultations on the 17 should be about reconsidering the composition of the group to make it multi-stakeholder,</font></div>
<div><font color="#000099">- the IGC considers that any decision on the group format that is not even based on consensus among the CSTD member states reduces the legitimacy of whatever group is composed</font></div><p><font color="#500050"><br>
<br> <br>><br>> a) Need for "enhanced" (not degraded) multistakeholder approach<br>> <I plan to put answers to...</font></p><div><font color="#000099">Because it is what 180 countries solemnly declared should be the approach regarding Internet Governance. Period.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000099">Reverting to a purely intergovernmental group is a betrayal of the WSIS principles and the difficult but good faith negotiations that took place in Geneva in May.</font></div><p><font color="#500050"><br>
<br>><br>> - What are the specific benefits of MSH approach for Internet<br>> governance itself and discuss...</font></p><div><font color="#000099">Suggestion to suppress this part. This is not about why MS is good; but rather why it MUST be the approach because that's what the WSIS principles and the ECOSOC resolution say. </font></div>
<p><font color="#500050"><br> <br>><br>> - What are the specific risks or problems of excluding<br>> non-governmental actors in the proce...</font></p><div><font color="#000099">Any outcome of a purely intergovernmental group will therefore lack legitimacy and should be considered nil. </font></div>
<p><font color="#500050"><br><br>><br>> b) c) Need for enhancing participation<br>> 1) Need for remote participation within IGF Consultat...</font></p><div><font color="#000099">Big note of warning here : the IGF and even the WSIS Forum of Action Lines, have established an open participation principle, without formal accreditation and it has worked without problems. Reestablishing any accreditation procedure can hardly be considered as an "improvement" in terms of inclusion, transparency and openness. </font></div>
<div><font color="#000099"><br></font></div><div><font color="#000099">This part should therefore be focused on refusing the reintroduction of accreditation rules, in view of a general principle of open participation and for the reasons described below : WSIS accreditation is outdated (Facebook and Twitter could not participate if they wanted to ??) and ECOSOC accreditation is irrelevant (participants interested in Internet Governance should not require general accreditation to all ECOSOC issues).</font></div>
<p><font color="#500050"><br> <br>><br>> - There should be new process to give new accreditation to IGF<br>> consultation process if we a...</font></p></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>____________________<br>
Bertrand de La Chapelle<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>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">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">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></blockquote></p>