<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Agree with Avri.<div><br></div><div>Desiree</div><div>--<br><div><div>On 18 Dec 2010, at 19:54, Avri Doria wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Hi,<br><br>I pretty much can agree with this, though I think<br><br>- it should be CS + PS + Internet Technical Community<br>- it should endeavor to be multistakeholder and should treat any willing participating gov't as a peer (not just an honored guest treated equally). I.e lets lead by example. I<br><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#144FAE"><br></font></font></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div>a.<br><br><br>On 18 Dec 2010, at 14:46, Lee W McKnight wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Hi,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I agree we should not wait.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">When I was suggesting Jeremy get this started over the weekend, I was only half joking - a quickie outline of an all-virtual/remote instant global working group isn't that complicated. <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">My 2 cents for Jeremy to discount: CS + PS should lead, with interested governments welcomed as 2nd class members I mean honored guests. But of course we would treat them equally.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">If it's IGC facilitating launch, that's just a fact, and Izumi and Jeremy etc can discuss with possibly-like-minded folks. In the best of all possible worlds some like-minded foundation steps up once this is semi-organized as Markle tried to help in the past, and throws a pot of $ or euros or yuan (I can dream) at the virtual thing, so that maybe there could be a f2f meeting pre-final report.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">This could be viewed as meant to assist and organize input into the UN WG...or as an alternative path, depending on how the UN thing proceeds. But let's say for now that we just mean to be helpful, right?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">While the immediate task is organizing inputs on IGF futures, it seems to be tightly intertwined with the question of 'enhanced cooperation,' and my bonus 2 cents are, since we would be defining our own mandate, at this stage let's not to to try to unravel the 2 - that would be a task for the Plan B folks. Or maybe a part II to plan B.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Lee<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">________________________________________<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">From: <a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.cpsr.org">governance-request@lists.cpsr.org</a> [<a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.cpsr.org">governance-request@lists.cpsr.org</a>] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M [<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>]<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:43 AM<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; Avri Doria<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Subject: Re: [governance] VS: Next Steps<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">2010/12/18 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de<<a href="mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de">mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de</a>>><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced but unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not the WGIG and MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is better than the Dec. 6 decision.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics within this new WG and their working methodology. If the discussions are really open, the more formal differentiation between primary and secondary members of the group may play a minor role as long as the the right people put the right arguments at the right moment on the table and are questioning proposals to move backwards or to create something which is unworkable and counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This has to be tested out.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Can we afford to wait till a pattern emerges on the dynamics of this new WG and their working methodology ? It is clear that the working group is unbalanced; The proceedings of the meeting yesterday made us all uncomfortable - it did not look like it was progressing towards preserving and enhancing the MS model. And there is a new structure of primary and secondary members. (Primary and Secondary to participate in superficial discussions, whereas for really important decisions the Primary members meet closed doors shutting out the Secondary Members?)<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Izumi wrote<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">In essence, the non-governmental stakeholders were "invited" to the WG,but not as the fully fledged member, but as the guest, or as "second class citizen" which has been used many times during the negotiation. The US, EU and other MSH friendly governments did not really insist on the pure equal footing of non-governmental actors in the WG.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">If there has been a discussion on Plan B, it is time to contemplate that in depth. Perhaps even start off as a 'Shadow' Working Group with the inclusion of Shadow or Actual representatives from MSH friendly Governments, to start with.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I don't feel that we have time to wait and observe.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Sivasubramanian M<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Sivasubramanian M<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">mailto:avri@acm.org</a>>> wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Hi Wolfgang,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Obviously that Plan B, a completely separate may not be necessary. But since the observers are not part of the consensus making group, there still seems to me to be a need for some sort of Plan B, though maybe it is Plan C. It is al well and good that the governments keep going back to their rules for excluding stakeholders from decisions, but why do the rest of the stakeholder need to accept that? Isn't it time they change their processes? And what do we do when down the road we discover that they have decided to not listen to any of the observers comments?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Just as the GAC and ALAC in ICANN, that group's 'observers', have worked to make their own voices heard above the din of GNSO sovriegnty, so to the Stakeholders in the CSTD processes will need to make their own efforts to make sure they are heard and listened to. We do not want to see so called 'improvements' that improve things only for one group of stakeholders.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I think Jeremy's idea of a parallel 'cooperating' process among the observers may be worth thinking through.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">a.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On 18 Dec 2010, at 07:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Hi everybody<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">back in Aarhus from the Future Internet Assembly (FIA) in Gent where a lot of snow blocked also a lot of travelling, I want to thank Izumi and the whole group for a great work which enabled people unable to be in Geneva to follow exactly what happened. Great work.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">If I read the final conclusion correctly it looks like a balanced but unequal new WG with primary and secondary members. This is not the WGIG and MAG model. Insofar it is a step backwards. But it is better than the Dec. 6 decision.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">If we move forward with this, a lot will depend from the dynamics within this new WG and their working methodology. If the discussions are really open, the more formal differentiation between primary and secondary members of the group may play a minor role as long as the the right people put the right arguments at the right moment on the table and are questioning proposals to move backwards or to create something which is unworkable and counterproductive or would change the open and free Internet. This has to be tested out.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">>From a legal point of view, it is indeed correct that Non-UN members can not vote for the adoption of an official UN document. We had this discussion before the Geneva Summit (2003) and the result was that we had our own Civil Society Declaration which was officially handed over to the president of the summit. Before that we had tumultous debates about "input" and "impact" and "governmental ignorance" with Sammassekou and the intergovernmental group. However, there was some impact which was reflected, inter alia, in the composition of the WGIG.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Also in Tunis, the final negotiations were in the hand of the governments but the pressure from CS and others kept this negotiations open until the very last minute. There were no closed doors in Tunis and the room was fully packed with "silent onlookers" who also whispered into the ears of MS friendly governments. It was the substance and the strength of the arguments of the WGIG report - in particular with regard to the IG definition and the establishment of an IGF - which was beating politically motivated alternatives without a convincing rationale.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">With other words, a strong performance within the group can equalize the unequal status. However it remains to be seen what the working method of the new group will be.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">In Cartagena we discussed indeed a "Plan B" for the case that the Dec. 6 decision will be ratified without changes. This Plan B was to establish an alternative MS WG. The best would be if such an alternative WG would include also "MS friendly governments" which would give the whole process more legitimacy and credibility. However this is a delicate issue for a government.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">In any case such a group could work in parallel. Some will remember that we had in the year 2001 two parallel groups to ananlyze the ICANN 2000 elections: ICANNs "official" Bildt-Group and the alternative Markle Foundation group. Both reports were discussed at the end of the day equally in the ICANN meeting in Montevideo in September 2001 (but both finally were rejected in ther LA ICANN meeting November 2001 as a result of the new political environment after 0911). However, to have an alternative IGF improvement report could make sense. Such a report could be even tabled as a draft resolution to the ECOSOC meeting in May 2011 by one of the "MS friendly governments" if the "official report" includes stupid conclusions and recommendations. This would certainly bring some turbulences to the ECOSOC.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">But I think that for the moment working inside is the better option. Anyhow, this can be reconsidered in February 2011 when the next meeting takes place and we will know more about the final composition and the working method of the UNCSTD group.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Anyhow, I agree that a lot of new work - both conceptual and practical - is ahead of us.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Best wishes and once again thanks to Izumi<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Wolfgang<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">____________________________________________________________<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> governance@lists.cpsr.org<<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">For all list information and functions, see:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">____________________________________________________________<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> governance@lists.cpsr.org<<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">For all list information and functions, see:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><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">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br><br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>