<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoPlainText>No one suggested that the CSTD was a multi-stakeholder body… the reference and example was quite evidently, to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, where ISOC at least, considers discussion to be necessarily part of a multi-stakeholder process. Raising of course, all of the questions I was pointing to concerning who are the stakeholders, how are they defined and so on and so on.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="http://www.internetsociety.org/cstd-meeting-enhanced-cooperation-public-policy-issues-pertaining-internet">http://www.internetsociety.org/cstd-meeting-enhanced-cooperation-public-policy-issues-pertaining-internet</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>CSTD meeting on enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Date: 18 May 2012<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Document Type: Reports<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Tags: Internet Governance , World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>18 May 2012<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Statement by Markus Kummer, Vice-President for Public Policy, The Internet Society<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I am very honored to be part of this panel and I look forward to engaging in a constructive dialogue. It is nearly ten years ago that we started the WSIS process and we have come a long way. In July 2002 non-governmental stakeholders banged at the door of the Geneva Conference Centre and asked to be let in. Today, multistakeholder cooperation is the norm. <b><u>The Internet Society, in its past contributions on ‘enhanced cooperation’, always made sure to stress the importance of multi-stakeholder cooperation. Multistakeholder cooperation is essential to the growth of the Internet and the Information Society. In our view it is not an option – it is a must!</u></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="http://unctad.org/en/Pages/cstd.aspx">http://unctad.org/en/Pages/cstd.aspx</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>14 February 2013Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation – Next Steps<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>The Chairman of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), <u>Mr. Miguel Palomino de la Gala, invites regional and <b>stakeholder groups</b> to hold consultations on which respective representatives they would like to be considered for the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation</u>, keeping in mind paragraph 21 of the General Assembly resolution 67/195.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>M<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>-----Original Message-----<br>From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com] <br>Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 10:35 AM<br>To: michael gurstein<br>Cc: governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br>Subject: Re: [governance] Blogpost: Multistakeholderism vs. Democracy: My Adventures in "Stakeholderland"<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:03 PM, michael gurstein <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>gurstein@gmail.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> Just to add one point, my references to the current CSTD process in <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> the blogpost were meant to be illustrative only i.e. one practical <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> example of MSism "in action" when put under some stress/challenge.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>What gives you the impression that the CSTD is a MS body?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> My larger point was what precisely was Ambassador Kramer pointing to <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> when he mentioned MSism 17 times in his closing comments at the WCIT?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>not the CSTD I think!!<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Look, here's the latest in EC activities by the T&A:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/ripe-ncc-hosts-brussels-roundtable-meeting-for-governments-and-regulators"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/ripe-ncc-hosts-brussels-roundtable-meeting-for-governments-and-regulators</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>This is not MSism either, this is EC.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>When the RIPE community decides on IP address policies in an open, bottom up consensus driven manner, where ALL are welcome to voice their opinions and have equal say, then THAT is MSism in action.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>When the RIPE NCC (the Secretariat for the RIPE Community) holds a roundtable to help educate government folk and exchange views, that is EC not MSism. See the difference?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>--<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Cheers,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>McTim<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>