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">On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Izumi AIZU <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:iza@anr.org">iza@anr.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Dear list,<br>
Here, I prepared Draft "Talking points" for us to make as statement at<br>
the Friday meeting.<br>
<br>
I plan to extract the points from our consensus statement, first, but like<br>
to go further more, given the discussion at NY meeting on EC etc.<br>
<br>
So I invite you to make your comments, so that we have more integrated<br>
views expressed, if not a full consensus in 48 hours.<br>
<br>
best,<br>
<br>
izumi<br>
<br>
--------<br>
<br></blockquote><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000099">Suggestion to preface the statement with preliminary remarks on this specific consultation process, building upon the letter/petition :</font></div><div>
<font class="Apple-style-span" 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 class="Apple-style-span" 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 class="Apple-style-span" 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 class="Apple-style-span" 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 class="Apple-style-span" 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 class="Apple-style-span" 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>
<div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
a) Need for "enhanced" (not degraded) multistakeholder approach<br>
<I plan to put answers to the following questions – you provide, hopefully><br>
- Why multistakeholder so important?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000099">Because it is what 180 countries solemnly declared should be the approach regarding Internet Governance. Period.</font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" 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>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
- What are the specific benefits of MSH approach for Internet<br>
governance itself and discussing about Internet governance such as<br>
CSTD IGF WG<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" 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>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000099"> </font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
- What are the specific risks or problems of excluding<br>
non-governmental actors in the process<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000099">Any outcome of a purely intergovernmental group will therefore lack legitimacy and should be considered nil. </font></div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
b) c) Need for enhancing participation<br>
1) Need for remote participation within IGF Consultation process<br>
- All IGF meetings and related consultation meetings have had some<br>
form of remote participation. It is important to continue this<br>
practice at CSTD consultation meetings on both IGF and EC. This allows<br>
many interested parties, including governments, but mostly civil<br>
society actors who have decent interests and reasons and willingness<br>
to participate but prohibited from doing so by cost of travel and<br>
amount of time to spend to have 5 minutes slots if lucky…<br>
- Remote participation costs little but works great – call for support<br>
from private sector – technology companies<br>
- IGC is willing to help coordinate – like we did at Vilnius IGF<br>
-<br>
2) Expanding accreditation<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" 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 class="Apple-style-span" color="#000099"><br></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" 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>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
- There should be new process to give new accreditation to IGF<br>
consultation process if we are to “improve” it, not just to continue<br>
it<br>
- WSIS accreditation is 6 years old and limited<br>
- ECOSOC accreditation is difficult and time-consuming to obtain<br>
<br>
- Otherwise we will limit our own work to the “usual suspects” only<br>
and leaving vast new people who now have strong interest and who are<br>
strongly influenced by the outcome of Internet Governance, albeit IGF<br>
alone<br>
- Same goes true for Enhanced Cooperation and also largely to WSIS<br>
follow up which leads to the WSIS 2015<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></blockquote></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>